Earlier this week, there were whisperings of debate on the matter of Employment Insurance (EI) for Canadians forced out of work by the recession. There is danger the debate could be snuffed out by Finance Minister Flaherty's projected $50 billion budget deficit, the largest in Canadian history. Less than six months ago, the Minister was projecting a surplus.

The Conservatives came to power in a minority situation. They proceeded to do away with years of surpluses that had been generated by the Chretien/Martin Liberals. They cut the GST by two percentage points – questionable politics, bad public policy and flawed economics. The result was a huge loss in government revenues, perhaps as much as $30 billion a year and with little real benefit for Canadian consumers.

The Employment Insurance debate was initiated against the background of recession, not $50 billion deficits. More than 300,000 full-time workers have lost their jobs in Canada since last fall. More than 40% of them aren't eligible for EI, even though they have paid into the system. I find this statistic difficult to fathom because most of the laid-off workers come from the manufacturing sector (automobile, etc). They were fully employed before the recession and would most likely have accrued enough hours of work to be eligible for EI benefits. On the other hand, workers who have been laid off from part time, temporary or seasonal jobs in the forestry industry, the fishery or construction trades would more likely be short of hours and not eligible for EI benefits.

Two conflicting proposals were put forward by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals would temporarily (for the balance of recession) lower the eligibility-time for EI to 360 hours for everyone, regardless of where they live. By their numbers, the reduced eligibility time would admit about 150,000 unemployed into the EI system.

Here's where the rubber hits the road. 150,000 people drawing an average of $400 a week for the next year would cost the Treasury an estimated $3 billion. In a just and caring society, a $3 billion investment (that would support and help the unemployed) beside a $50 billion deficit is not unreasonable and would not be irresponsible.

The Conservatives want to maintain the existing eligibility rules for EI but provide laid-off "long-tenured" workers with "transition assistance" for up to two years. Transition assistance would include two initiatives: one would extend EI benefits for up to two years, for workers who participate in long-term training programs to upgrade their skills. A "long-tenured" worker is described as someone who has been in one type of job for a long time and requires new skills to switch to a new field of work. Approximately 40,000 individuals could benefit from this measure.

The second initiative would allow workers to gain early access to EI benefits when they use all or some of their severance packages to finance their own re-training. This could benefit between 5,000 and 10,000 people. It's unlikely that either of these programs would benefit temporary or seasonal workers who have been laid off as the result of recession.

Aside from humanitarian considerations, the principle argument for the Liberal position is that increasing the number of EI beneficiaries would immediately stimulate the economy. Funds paid to the unemployed would be used to buy groceries, pay the rent and heat the house, re-cycling dollars through the economy and returning them to government by way of taxes.

Before Flaherty's $50 billion deficit announcement, the Conservative "transition" alternative might have been viewed as positive because it recognizes the need for transition in significant parts of the labour-force and recognizes that severance pay is not a bonus payment. It's a form of funded security against prolonged work-loss and should not be considered as a benefit. That said, the Conservative plan ignores the more vulnerable in our society, seasonal, part-time and temporary workers.

The Canadian Labour Congress supports the notion of uniform entrance requirements of 360 hours in all regions of the country. The current entry point is 420 to 910 hours. The winners would be part-time workers, mainly women and younger workers; temporary and contract workers, many of whom combine insured and non-insured work and unemployed workers in low unemployment areas.

Frankly, I have reservations about both approaches. I think they need to be debated as public policy, not in partisan political terms. Canada, like the rest of the world is facing some serious changes in the next few years, whether climate-driven or cost driven. The political and media noise in the next few days and perhaps weeks will be all about $50 billion deficits. We cannot afford to allow that noise to drown out the needs of the unemployed.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

This week, Fundy-Royal MP, Rob Moore issued a press release opposing the expansion of Fundy National Park. The park is in his riding. Moore's position is countered by the park's Acting Superintendent Paul Perkison who says "the small size prevents us from protecting a lot of the habitat that we're tasked with protecting."

Fundy National Park, one of two national parks in New Brunswick covers 206 square kilometres, or about 80 square miles. That's not enough, scientists say, to maintain the park's ecological integrity. Perkison says expanding the boundaries would improve both the ecological integrity of the park and visitor experience.

David Coon, the Executive Director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, was quoted as saying "Mr. Moore's comments are just boneheaded. The impossibility of maintaining the biological integrity of the park" in its current shape makes Fundy one of the most threatened in the national park system, he said.

Moore told the Times & Transcript that he wants to emphasize "the national park is a great gem to have," but that much of the Crown land surrounding the park is a gem for New Brunswickers who want to do everything from hunting and fishing to riding all-terrain-vehicles and horses in a wilderness setting. While he is "strongly in favour of making sure wild areas are protected", he is "not in favour of seeing New Brunswickers being excluded from New Brunswick's Crown lands."

It seems to be a law of nature that when people come, animals go. About 11,000 years ago, more than 130 animal species, including most large mammals, vanished from North America. Scientists are still debating the reasons but two leading suspects are excessive hunting by humans, newly arrived from the Old World and human-borne diseases. "People come and animals begin to disappear,'' says Ross MacPhee, curator of the mammal collection at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

A third cause cited for the massive extinction is climate change at the end of the Ice Age and its effect on plant and animal habitats. The combination of climate change and human impact would be especially destructive. Human contributions to global warming are already causing potentially harmful changes, threatening the survival of many animal and plant species.

Intercontinental travel rapidly spreads diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis, cholera and pandemic flu. Think of swine flu.

In the Amazon, expanding populations are cutting down rainforests where more than 600 species, including jaguars and giant otters, are now listed as endangered. In Africa, rogue hunters are slaughtering apes and monkeys to eat as "bush meat.'' In an article last month in the journal Science, Dennis Hansen, a biologist at Stanford University references the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, where the vast majority of animals have gone extinct, leaving the forests "largely populated by ghosts."

I'm not suggesting that Moore's idea of making crown land around the park more accessible to hunters, fishermen, hikers, all-terrain-vehicles and horses will produce the catastrophic outcomes of a Mauritius but I strongly suggest that he give his head a shake. Simple logic would support the notion that a bigger park, properly managed would do a lot more for habitat protection than free-ranging, all-terrain-vehicles.

Most of the park is made up of low, rounded mountains with deep river valleys and ocean cliffs. Its forest is a mixture of hardwood trees and evergreens, a mixed forest. It is a habitat for mammals such as moose, deer, beaver, raccoon, black bear, coyote, snowshoe hare, bats, red squirrel and flying squirrel and it provides habitat for the peregrine falcon and American marten. Both are endangered species. The giant tides of the Bay of Fundy also create habitats for plants and animals such as seaweed, clams, sea worms, mud shrimps, crabs, mussels, barnacles and star fish.

Fundy National Park was created in 1948 to protect the shores, hills and forests of the Bay of Fundy and to protect its natural habitats but most national parks, including Fundy are too small to protect these habitats on their own. Some areas outside the parks must also remain wild and natural. Natural forest cannot grow inside a park where there are campgrounds, cottages, a golf course, picnic areas and roads.

The biggest loss of habitat is actually happening outside the park because of forestry, farming and roads. Forest and swamp habitat is being destroyed. Animals and plants cannot move from place to place because there are highways, farms and towns in the way. We could help protect our Fundy habitat by expanding the park to protect enough forest for plants and animals to survive.

The Fundy coast area is spectacular. It should be managed in the best interests of its natural inhabitants. Mr. Moore, please take note.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

There was a lot of media chatter this week about a possible provincial election before the so-called "fixed election date" of September 27, 2010. I use the term "so-called" because I can't find any record of an amendment to the Elections Act that would fix the date of an election and I can't find any amendment to the "Executive Council Act" that would fix the election date. For the record, I checked the years 2006 to 2009. That doesn't mean the legislation or the amendment is not there, it simply means I couldn't find it.

Conservative House Leader, Paul Robichaud accuses the Government of breaking its election promise to legislate fixed date elections and goes further when he says that the Government would not be respecting its own legislation if it calls an election before September 27, 2010. Premier Graham indicates that there could be an issue of importance that a premier would have to take to the electorate before 2010 but added that he doesn't see such an issue today.

Assuming there is fixed-date legislation somewhere; one might assume it contains some loopholes that would allow the Government to step out of the legislation (that's why I was looking for amendments to the Elections Act). Last fall, Stephen Harper ignored his government's fixed-date legislation and called an election. Former New Brunswick Premier Lord had committed to fixed-date elections when he was in office but he triggered an early election in August 2006 and lost to Graham.

In political terms, there may be good reason to call an early election. Recession could take hold in New Brunswick before 2010. It's also possible that recovery could become the order of the day. Capitalizing on the downside of the economic challenge, BC Premier Gordon Campbell won an unprecedented third straight election in British Columbia this week, running on a theme of economic management and experience.

Voters have a habit of punishing those who fabricate reasons for an election – think Ontario's David Peterson. The election of 1990 began with the Liberals holding at 50% in popular support. Peterson decided to call a snap
election, less than three years into his mandate. This proved to be a great mistake. Many voters saw the early election as a mark of arrogance and a sign that Peterson's Liberals had become detached from the electorate. There was no defining issue behind that campaign and many believed that Peterson was simply trying to win re-election before the economic downturn of the day reached its worst phase.

Contrast Peterson with Louis Robichaud in 1963. The surprise 1963 election was called by Liberal Premier Louis Robichaud. The Progressive Conservatives, under leader Cy Sherwood, had accused the Liberals of corruption for allowing an Italian company, Cartiere del Timavo to construct a paper mill in Newcastle and by granting it rights to Crown land over other companies. Robichaud made a quick decision to call an election amidst these accusations.

Analysts wondered why Robichaud decided to call the election only two and a half years into his mandate over what they perceived to be a small issue. Several of his more progressive projects, such as tax reform and an overhaul of post-secondary education (which eventually led to the creation of the Université de Moncton and the University of New Brunswick at Saint John), died in the legislature.

Robichaud campaigned on a platform of economic development and encouragement of outside investment in the province. Cartiere del Timavo threatened to cancel the Newcastle project if the Liberals lost the election. The campaign coincided with a federal election, held two weeks earlier. The federal Liberals, led by Lester Pearson defeated the Conservatives and John Diefenbaker. Robichaud used the national Liberal victory to leverage the provincial election by promising New Brunswick would receive better treatment from the federal government with the Liberals in power. New Brunswick's provincial Liberals were re-elected in 1963 with an increased majority over the 1960 election.

My advice to Premier Graham, should he really want to call an early election would be this – if there is legislation in place that fixes election dates, be sure you have the legal ability to step outside of the legislation, otherwise you will need to amend it to be credible. Secondly and perhaps most importantly, be sure you have legitimate reason to go early. An opportunistic decision, as made by David Peterson or even Bernard Lord could be deadly. And finally, be sure that you can offer voters a sound economic management plan that will see them through the global economic crisis. There is no issue today that is more significant than how we deal with today's economy and how we look after those who are most vulnerable to downturns in the economy.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com

When people talk healthcare, they usually talk about waiting times, funding cuts, scarcities of doctor/nurse resources, staff overloads, and flirtations with public/private healthcare delivery systems, accessibility, bed closures, quality of service, etc.

This week, I had the privilege of spending time at the Albert County Health and Wellness Centre in Riverside-Albert, New Brunswick, not as a patient but as a visitor. The Centre is part of Regional Health Authority-B. It provides rural communities in Albert County with primary healthcare services (illness/injury-prevention services and wellness programs), chronic disease management and community development services. The Centre serves about 4,000 people and is closely linked to the Moncton Hospital and the Provincial Ambulance service.

People who complain about waiting times in Moncton should move to Riverside-Albert. Waiting times in that community, on a bad day might be fifteen or twenty minutes. In Shediac, it takes an hour or more just to get a blood test. The Riverside-Albert Centre has two doctors, a nurse practitioner, nurses, X-ray technicians, an extra-mural team, a nutritionist, a physiotherapist, a physiotherapy gym, a food bank, an education centre and a bunch of other professional services. It used to be a sixteen bed hospital.

When the community lost its hospital about ten years ago, people in the community were concerned and agitated. There was a lot of opposition to the change but people have gradually come to realize that the combination of easy access to primary (daily care) in their community combined with quick access to state-of-the-art, acute care services in Moncton and Saint John gives them the best of two worlds. As one person told me "I'd rather go to Moncton or Saint John if I had a life-threatening situation than rely on an old time country doctor in a village hospital".

The primary focus of the Albert County Health and Wellness Centre is health promotion. Sure, they receive patients every day for diagnosis and minor treatments but perhaps, more importantly, they operate a very aggressive wellness program that involves members of the community in walking programs, diet management, stop-smoking programs, healthier eating programs and educational programs that teach people how to prepare healthier foods.

In a small province like New Brunswick, it seems to me that Riverside-Albert has figured out the real world. The high cost of technology and specialists is not affordable for small communities. It's hard to attract skilled doctors and nurses to communities where the technology is limited or not supported by professional staff. Community health centres overcome many of these issues. They reduce wait times and make healthcare more accessible. Based on my observations in Riverside-Albert, I think we need to be investing more in community health centres, improved ambulance services and trained paramedics. With better communication and province-wide access to primary care, we can improve the overall healthcare system.

The emotion of healthcare is usually found in "acute care" i.e. the necessary or essential treatment of a disease or the care rendered in an emergency department for car accident victims, disaster victims, heart attacks or other situations.

When people complain about the healthcare system, they are usually complaining about wait times, not the quality of care. A significant part of the wait-time crunch is caused by patients who routinely show up at hospital emergency departments for less-than-acute care treatment, rather than going to family doctors, clinics or community health centres. In some cases, this is because they don't have a family doctor. Often, it is because the doctor's office is closed for the night but the fact remains that over-crowding and wait-times makes it difficult for hospital emergency departments to focus on patients who present with true emergencies.

Primary health care focuses on health promotion, illness/injury prevention and the diagnosis and treatment of minor illness and injuries. Primary healthcare includes everything that plays a part in good health from housing to nutrition, from exercise to good food, from education to the environment, from early diagnosis to proper treatment. Primary health care is offered by family physicians, nurse practitioners, dieticians, physical trainers, health information lines, local pharmacists and others.

New Brunswick is a small population province. We cannot afford to have state-of-the-art hospitals in every town and village in the Province. It makes sense to house acute care facilities and expertise in the larger centres where they can be staffed by the best in the medical profession and equipped with the latest technology and equipment.

High tech medical centres connected to a province-wide network of regional hospitals and community health centres by quick-response paramedic/ambulance services and a state-of-the-art communications system is clearly the way to go. If the Riverside-Albert Health and Wellness Centre is a model for the future, I say bring it on.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com