The Bruce Report

To the astonishment of exactly no one, two eminent economic thinkers now stipulate that Nova Scotia is more prosperous than New Brunswick. I’d ask someone to alert the media about this, except that the news was splashed above the front-page fold in Tuesday’s Saint John Telegraph-Journal.

“Nova Scotia has a number of things that New Brunswick doesn’t have,” observed the University of Moncton’s Donald Savoie in an interview. “[It] has challenges and they’re called Cape Breton and rural Nova Scotia. But one thing [it] does have is Halifax and you don’t pull against gravity when you’re in Halifax. It’s got everything.”

Everything except affordable housing, a diverse and entrepreneurial business environment, a nimble and innovative labour market, a port that yields capacity (instead of pulling up the rear among its Northeastern counterparts in the volume of containerized traffic it handles each year), and an open, generous immigration posture (instead of an attitude towards foreigners that would rival Ghengis Khan’s on his best day).

I’m from Halifax, so I tend quibble with fulminations about its perfection. One who obviously doesn’t is Charles Cirtwell, the redoubtable acting president of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. Here’s what he told the T-J: “When you look at the relative economic activity that’s going on and the various potential growth opportunities, certainly Nova Scotia has the potential. . .to beat New Brunswick to the finish line in terms of being self-sufficient.”

Them’s fighting words in these here parts, Mr. Cirtwell. Are you sure you wouldn’t like to clarify? Added the Halifax-based policy wonk: “I don’t think New Brunswick has anything to worry about in terms of not being able to achieve that goal. Nothing can beat attitude and right now New Brunswick is talking self-sufficiency and Nova Scotia is talking federal cash.”

So, let me get this straight. Nova Scotia is more prosperous than New Brunswick, and will likely remain so, because the former is home to Halifax, which has yet to live up to its own economic potential let alone any other city’s on the East Coast; and it boasts “potential growth opportunities”, despite the fact that a central plank of its self-sufficiency strategy appears to be dunning Ottawa for more tax dollars.

I call this a conundrum, folks. And nowhere in this tortured logic do I see self-sufficiency for anybody, either sooner or later. The problem is the premise. The question shouldn’t be whether Nova Scotia or New Brunswick will achieve economic independence before the other. The question should be: How can either province hope to compete in the world for jobs, income, business opportunities, and industrial capacity without the collaborative influences of the other?

Cirtwell alludes to this in one of his recent editorials about the so-called “Atlantica” region, whose proponents believe in the historical legitimacy of forging closer trade ties between the Maritimes and New England. For his part, Savoie routinely decries the absurd competition between Moncton and Saint John. “Unless we learn to recognize what’s good for Saint John is good Moncton and vice versa, we’re going to have a problem,” he said recently.

Oddly, though, neither man goes far enough in his public statements, if not his private thoughts. In fact, what’s good for Nova Scotia is also good for New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, if for no other reason than the Atlantic region is an ink spot on the map of global commerce. To become a blotch worthy of international appreciation, our provincial leaders must dismantle the systemic economic, cultural and social barriers that separate us.

Halifax is important because it is the premier port of the Maritimes. If it suffers, so do the rest of us. Moncton is important because it is an inland depot for trans-modal shipping and high-precision manufacturing. If it suffers, so do the rest of us. Saint John and St. John’s are important because they are energy hubs. If they suffer, so do the rest of us. Charlottetown and Summerside are important because they are centres for aerospace and bio-technology. Again, if they suffer, so do the rest of us.

We don’t suffer when we pull together; we become self-sufficient together. That’s not exactly news, but maybe somebody should alert the media anyway.

According to researchers, Canada has less gravity than the United States, which may explain why two protestors clinging to the hood of Brian Lee Crowley’s car as it crawled down a Halifax street last week did not fall off.

The incident began predictably enough when a group of anti-free-traders, fresh from the picket line that blocked the entrance to the 2007 Atlantica Conference, noticed Crowley emerging from a downtown restaurant. Recognizing him as the founder of the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies, and one of Atlantica’s most ardent proponents, they formed a ring around his car hoping, as one protester later explained, “to get our message through to him.” 

Apparently, though, Crowley didn’t notice the two who had affixed themselves to the front of his ride. Police eventually stopped the vehicle and removed the offenders like so much bird poop, but not before one turned to the other and chirped, “Who is Brian Lee Crowley?” The vocal conservative commentator and architect of establishmentarian ambitions refused to press charges. Still, the fracas left him fuming. “What the hell do they mean, ‘Who is Brian Lee Crowley?’,” he was overheard to grumble.

Is this, then, the future of protest in the new age of Atlantica? Lo-jacking, confusion and comic relief? It’s a question that has members within the protest community, itself, increasingly divided. Does civil disobedience, even violence, work in the absence of knowledge, an overarching strategy, and organized tactics?

Following the June 15 arrests of 21 people for pelting police cruisers and a bank with rocks and paint bombs (most of the 70 charges have since been dropped), protestor Mike Doyle told the Globe and Mail, “Violence against corporate property isn’t really violence. It’s just another form of speaking. I’m not going to throw a rock at a bank, but I’m not going to criticize someone who does.”

Many seemed to agree. According to one blogger, “I think people fuking shit up for the sake of it is a good thing, an important thing, and something that needs to happen more and more often.”

Added another: “It’s less important what you’re protesting in this day and age, than the fact that you actually get out there and protest. There are so many reasons to fight all types of authority. It’s Atlantica today. Tomorrow, it’ll be something else.”

And another: “There are no such things as facts. Everything is subject to falsification. For this reason, I think that every single person in the protest had a different reason for being there. They understood the facts differently. I can understand why some protesters just wanted to fuck shit up. I think it’s actually a positive thing rather than a negative thing. They wanted to just break windows and smash cars and hit police. That’s an entirely positive thing because the Atlantica protest, for some, was about authority in general and not just ‘Atlantica’ as it exists through geographical trade sensibilities.”

Others were not so sure. Commented one blogger: “While it is important to resist authority and ‘hit them where it hurts’, I think it is just as important to be informed on why you are doing so. If you are aware of how Atlantica will and is hurting us then there is so much more meaning to your action. Using the people who just want to fuck shit up to help further your agenda and oftentimes do the things that you (global you, not you specifically) don’t want to take part in is exploitation.”

Said another: “While I agree with the point that the external media made about members not understanding who Brian Lee Crowley is, I also agree with the protesters for not giving a shit. [It] illustrates one particular example of why some of our movements are falling apart: We don’t want to listen to other people, talk politics, challenge each other. We just follow the herd and do as others do. Block this car? Sure!”

For their part, organizers of the Alliance Against Atlantica were quick to point out that most of the mayhem was perpetrated by members of a splinter group unconnected to the main rally. Dave Bush indicated that his preferred mode of operation is to produce fliers, petitions and teach-ins, but he also acknowledged that these tactics typically have limited effect without the headline-grabbing antics of a determined few.

A recent article in the Utne Reader makes some interesting points on the future of protest in general. Quoting a student organizer in the United States, the piece reported: “Many of us are disillusioned with the tactics, strategy and partisanship within the antiwar movement. There doesn’t seem to be much interest in talking strategy. Action has become ritualized. And, frankly, without a major shake-up of the status quo in the movement, I can’t imagine how the movement could ever become a relevant force in shaping U.S. foreign policy.”

Now there’s an idea: Protesting the regional protest movement until it gets its collective act together, or at least knows the answer to the question, “Who is Brian Lee Crowley?”

If adversity forges individual character as surely as fire tempers steel, can we also say this about a province, a region, a nation? It’s an odd question – reflective, imprecise, almost philosophical. Nevertheless, it’s being asked in every corner of the Atlantic Provinces these days, and by some of our most determined and successful pragmatists.

Take Francis Maguire, for example. He’s the preternaturally accomplished CEO of Moncton-based Major Drilling International Inc. But, when not overseeing the global ambitions of a multi-million-dollar-a-year mining services company, he’s honing one or more of his 91 recommendations to the New Brunswick government on long-term economic self-sufficiency.

Then, there’s Stephen Dempsey, last year’s chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of  Commerce. When not managing his quotidian duties as CEO of the Greater Halifax Partnership, he’s immersed in a virtual labour of love (dubbed Atlantica) that seeks to establish stronger economic, industrial and social ties with New England and other U.S. states along the northeastern seaboard.        

There are hundreds, even thousands, of men and women just like them who believe, now more than ever before, that tending to business-as-usual is no longer good enough in the rapidly evolving age of global trade, if only because the fortunes of individual companies no longer solely depend on entrepreneurial drive and innovative spirit. They depend, increasingly, on answers to reflective, imprecise and philosophical questions: In a region of three million people, who do we want to be in the world; where do we go from here; and how do we get there?

Adversity attends Atlantic Canada like a handmaiden. Our population is falling more rapidly than in any other part of the country. Outmigration from Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick robs us of some of our most talented workers, professionals and thinkers. Our ability to retain the pathetically low number of educated immigrants we already host is compromised by an antiquated system of federal regulations that hobbles the credentialing process.

Meanwhile, our traditional resource-based industries – forestry, mining, fishing, agriculture – crumble beneath the twin boots of over-capacity and over-regulation. Our manufacturing industries languish before the almighty exchange rate with our nearest and dearest trading partner, the United States, with whom we do more 90 per cent of our annual business. Our beacons of technology and innovation – aerospace in P.E.I., information and communications in Moncton and Fredericton, oil and gas in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador – struggle for lack of venture capital, university commercialization, and institutional respect.

Then, of course, there is the federal government. Not long ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced increased funding designed to strengthen Canada’s shipbuilding industry and, in the same breath, a new trade deal with four European nations calculated to utterly destroy it. Within a week of this announcement, the PM broke his promise to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador over their offshore energy accords, and threatened to take them to court if they continued to complain.

Yes, down here, adversity is our constant companion. But is there anything we can learn from the relationship?

Jonathan Daniels, the CEO of the Eastern Maine Development Corporation, and the recently elected chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce (the first American to hold the post), thinks so. At last week’s 2007 Atlantica Conference in Halifax, he had this to say: “By working together, on the ground where it counts, we can rebuild. We can grow together. We can make the future together.”

Stephen Dempsey agreed. “I think we’re just beginning,” he told the crowd on the final day of the convention. “We started in this process more than a year ago. Now, we have many more opinions, and much more information from many different sources. . .I want to see Saint John and Halifax become the hubs of Atlantica. I’d say Moncton, too, but I haven’t really thought, or talked, about that.”

These are workmanlike attempts to answer the fundamental questions, and they are welcome. Still, the stakes are now too high for conference room conviviality and parlour room politics. Adversity on the East Coast has become gritty, determined and unforgiving. The young protest against the excesses of the old because they know (as we once did) that nothing changes without short, sharp jolts to the status quo.

After all, it’s the fire that tempers the steel of our character, and our determination  not merely to do well, but to do good in our region, and the world.

On one of those days in June when Halifax feels every inch the port city, when the weather shifts from warm to chill and the sea’s salt air hangs over the downtown like an omen, hundreds of angry, screaming young people gathered outside the World Trade and Convention Centre.

They were there, last week, to protest what they might have witnessed for themselves but for the cordon of heavily armoured cops barring their entry to the inner sanctums of the 2007 Atlantica Conference: A bunch of middle-aged white men and women sipping coffee, munching on cakes and melons, and discussing the joint economic future of the Canadian East Coast and the New England states. 

This was the second general assembly of so-called “business elites” and other “class enemies” in as many years. At the inaugural Atlantica conference in Saint John last June, more than 600 delegates from across the northeastern seaboard explored a clutch of topics, including transportation, energy, and tourism.

Last Thursday and Friday, about as many participants from precisely the same locales hunkered down to examine exactly the same issues (transportation, energy, and tourism). And like last year, they came to only the broadest conclusions: That Atlantic Canada’s and New England’s business interests are more similar than not; that the two easterly regions share common mercantile and social traditions; and that they suffer conjoined problems of crumbling infrastructure and anaemic trade growth with the rest of the developed world. Where do they go from there? Nobody really seemed to know.

All of which is to say that if, through some unlikely security failure, one or more of the passionate protestors had gained admittance to the main meeting, they would have been sorely disappointed. Where were the fanglorious demons feeding on the quivering hulk of the body proletariat? What happened to the promised orgies of excess, the secret side deals trading the rights of man for the rites of corporate dominion, the gold-crazed conquistadors, the carnage, the Apocalypse?

It is one of the exquisite paradoxes of Atlantica that those who despise everything it represents appear to know far more about its aims, intentions and tactics than those who actually operate it – if “operate” is even the right word.

In reality, Atlantica does not exist, if only because it’s not a political entity, has no more economic momentum than the money it manages to raise to create working groups and hold annual conventions, and cannot count even one major industrialist or politico – on either side of the international border – among its champions. If it could, then we might have something to talk about.

What, for example, would a newly empowered Atlantica have to say about guaranteed, minimum wages for Canadians and Americans? What would it do about the widening gulf between the working poor and the luxuriating rich? How would it protect unions, social services, arts and culture organizations, and small businesses from the juggernaut of cheap labour, goods, and debt financing from China? What would its stand be on energy self-sufficiency, environmental stewardship, and community economic development?

These are, of course, questions for duly elected governments to answer, not loose associations of fellow business travellers. But by painting the big picture, as the Atlanticans seem happy to do, they invite legitimate scrutiny from those who both support and mistrust their motives and objectives.

Any conversation about the social and economic progress of Atlantic Canada must include the voices of assent and dissent in equal measure. It’s the least that citizens of any successful democracy demand. Throw down the barricades, dismantle the ramparts, open the doors, give the cops their donuts, and start talking. Really talking.

Do it now, before omens become promises no one wants to make, or keep.

For an organization that purports to unravel the popular misconceptions that routinely choke the nation, the Ottawa-based Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) seems marvelously adept at spinning its own particular brand of the stuff.

The most recent case in point is a 44-page dossier, released last week, entitled �Atlantica: Myths and Reality�, in which the authors claim that while the concept can�t possibly succeed, it somehow poses a clear and present danger to the fabric of the regional society.

Atlantica, you will recall, is the proposal for greater cross-border business and trade links between New England and the Canadian East Coast, favoured by, among others, the ideologically conservative Atlantic Institute of Market Studies (AIMS) in Halifax. And to this, the politically �progressive� CCPA directs its archest condemnation: �The process is being driven by AIMS. Key elements are highly implausible. Therefore, it must be contested and dispatched to the sea like its namesake, Atlantis.�

It�s a nasty bit of reasoning, reminiscent of Soviet-era group think: Your idea won�t float, but if you bring it up again, we have an anchor with your name on it.

Although it warms the cockles of my cold, ironic heart to see a left-of-center think tank make dissidents out of its right-wing counterparts, there are larger issues at stake � not the least of which is the curious absence of moderate voices in a debate that�s rapidly becoming hysterical, in every sense of the word.

Consider, for example, the CCPA�s take on the Atlantican vision of transportation in the dark years ahead: �Supporters envisage Halifax as the gateway for a high-volume roadway along which super-sized �truck-trains� would haul Asian goods to the U.S. mid-west. Halifax is the eastern seaboard�s closest deep-water port to Asia for container ships that are too large to pass through the Panama Canal. Attracting these leviathans, and trucking their cargo to U.S. markets, is the centerpiece of the Atlantica strategy.�

If that image of a dystopian future fails to alarm, here�s what the Centre says about the Atlantica energy corridor: �This is driven by U.S. energy concerns, but gives little thought to Atlantic Canadians� future energy needs. Despite being a major energy exporter, Atlantic Canada imports 90 per cent of the oil consumed within the region. In the event of a crisis, such as a hurricane, or of a longer-term shortage, the infrastructure needed to supply natural gas throughout the region is not even in place.�

There are so many red herrings and straw men in these arguments, I hardly know whether to cut bait or make hay. So, I�ll take a shot at doing both.

The dreaded �Atlantican transportation agenda� is less agenda than wishful thinking. And, to be frank, it�s not even very interesting thinking. It involves bi-lateral lobbying for funds to build a new highway connecting southwestern New Brunswick with upstate New York. The proposal is dramatic only in the sense that this area remains the sole link between the two nations that is not already extensively laced with international corridors. If anything, Atlantica lags, not leads, transportation policy on both sides of the border.

As for energy, Atlantic Canada does import almost all of the oil it consumes. So does New England, Ontario, British Columbia and two-dozen other North American jurisdictions for the obvious reason that they are not blessed (or cursed) with natural reserves of their own. What, though, does this have to do with Atlantica? In fact, the development of renewable sources of energy, and the green technologies to support long-term sustainability, only serves the cause of regional self-determination.

Still, the rebuttal is moot since the CCPA concedes that few, if any, of its direst predictions will ever come to pass. Regulatory frameworks are too well entrenched. Border controls are stricter now than at practically any other time in history. And cultural warriors � from the right-wing American talking head Lou Dobbs, to the left-wing Canadian activist Maude Barlow � continue to keep their knives sharp and fangs long in the event that the rest of us suddenly forget what�s good for us.

But just to be safe, the CCPA report solemnly concludes that �awareness of Atlantica � and the threat it poses � must spread beyond the exclusive, elite circles that have deftly managed the issue to date. . .This would expose the not-so-hidden, right-wing social policy agenda that underpins it.�

Or, perhaps, the paranoiac blithering of other traffickers in popular misconceptions.

The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council is, among other things, an organization of genial, pragmatic fogies. Amid the rhetoric that so often passes for informed opinion in this neck of the woods, APEC reliably treads the sturdy middle ground. While others, for example, agitate for the wholesale elimination of federal equalization payments to the East Coast, it simply asks why? As some paint rosy pictures of Atlantica�s eventual transformation (including, on occasion, yours truly), it sensibly wonders how? It�s not sexy or dramatic or otherwise provocative, but, more often than not, it�s right.

So it was again at its annual Business Outlook Conference in November where, during its roadshow through Halifax, Moncton and Saint John, in rooms packed with the region�s leading lights of commerce and industry, it posed a question of such obvious significance that even the most ardent brave-new-worlders were caught nodding their heads. �A key competitiveness priority for Atlantic Canada is building a better business environment,� said APEC president Elizabeth Beale. �And that means reducing interprovincial barriers. The question is whether we should adopt an Atlantic protocol similar to the B.C.-Alberta Agreement on Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility.�

Naturally, given the composition of her audience, she didn�t actually declare that cross-border economic coherence between Atlantic Canada and New England is an idea whose time will never come, but the implication was clear: It won�t arrive any time soon without a concerted effort to first eliminate the obstacles that continue to block the free flow of commerce within the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, though, the question hung in the air like a pregnant pause: how do we proceed?

Back in 1991, Frank McKenna, who was New Brunswick�s premier at the time, told me, �We have a range of initiatives to consider. They include the expansion of common procurement practices by government; regional tourism campaigns; coordinated delivery of medical care; unrestricted loans; a Maritime investment corporation; a Maritime energy grid; the portability of qualifications for skilled trades and professions; Maritime commercial offices abroad; and common motor vehicle legislation.�

He went on to expound on the integrated marketing of natural resources; the rationalization of farm production and food processing; and the establishment of common regional strategies for developing transportation infrastructure, commercializing and marketing cutting-edge technologies; and liberalizing the rules governing business incorporations and relocations.

With few exceptions, however, none of this ever came to pass. As a result, the region is materially poorer for its lack of progress. All of which suggests, as APEC certainly implies, it may be necessary to look elsewhere for our solutions if only because we seem embarrassingly incapable of devising ones of our own.

The B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) is, if nothing else, an exercise in economic courage. It concedes that fear, in the form of protectionism, had governed relations between the two provinces until last April when their governments finally agreed to create a single, seamless, inter-jurisdictional market of 7.5 million people, the second biggest in the country behind Ontario. Said the Honourable Gary Mar, Alberta�s Minister of International and Governmental Relations, in September: �For years, business has called for more open trade between provinces and our governments have explored the idea. But, real free trade eluded us because [we didn�t want to] put our own economies at risk if we opened the door too far. . .Well, we�ve blown the door off its hinges.�

TILMA�s reforms are, indeed, extensive. For one thing, it thoroughly opens up the burgeoning energy sector in western Canada, permitting the unfettered movement of goods and services between the Pacific coast and the oil patch. For another, it ensures that both professionals and tradesworkers are treated in British Columbia as they are in Alberta � and vice versa � as long as they�re occupationally accredited in either of the two provinces and able to show up for work on time.

TILMA also harmonizes investment regimes and regulations, government procurement policies, agricultural output and pricing, transportation infrastructure and related development, and financial services. Soon, its signatories say, the agreement may encompass various segments of the public sector, including municipalities, school boards, publicly funded academic instituitions, health and social services, and provincial Crown corporations.

If all of this looks good, but just on paper, consider the following: The B.C.-Alberta agreement will recoup more than $4 billion a year in lost income caused by interprovincial trade barriers. That $500 for every man, women and child living and working in Canada�s Big Sky Country. �We hope this sets a model for the rest of the country to follow,� Gary Mar said.

Well, if not for the rest of country, let�s hope for its most easterly region at least. Atlantic Canada�s noble pursuit of the competitive edge beyond its borders must begin within them. By dismantling the internal trade barriers that tie us to a compromised past, we lay the foundation for a promising future. It�s not sexy or dramatic. But it is right

The view from the catwalk encircling the tallest spire in Irving Oil�s Saint John refinery is not for the faint of heart. But if you can stay on your feet, you might just glimpse what Atlantica�s dominant energy conglomerate calls the future. Reaching to the farthest shores of the port city is a giant�s meccano set spitting fire and steam. To the southeast, beyond the U.S. border, is a marketplace of 100 million consumers. Between the two is a 75-year-old, family-owned enterprise that sees the world through the spyglass of its own, vast ambition.

�

Three�months ago, Irving Oil announced that it intends to double its refining capacity, triple its workforce and inject more money into the local economy than Panama will spend to rebuild its entire network of international canals. As Kevin Scott, the company�s Director of Refining Growth, recently told me, �We�re talking on the order of five or seven billion dollars over the next few years. We see a very great number of positives stemming from this. There will be a huge number of good, new jobs. There will be new possibilities for income and business growth. . .Yes, it is a very big deal.�

�

In fact, once the environmental and economic impact assessments have been filed and approved in the next couple of years, it will almost certainly be the largest, privately funded capital project in Canadian East Coast history. The numbers, like the opportunities for long-term development, are simply staggering. By early next decade, the initial investment is expected to generate an additional $13-17 billion in direct commercial benefits for New Brunswick, including thousands of new jobs, hundreds of new business start-ups, locations and expansions, and a construction boom the likes of which Saint John and environs have never seen.

�

In other words, what�s not to like about a mega-project that will put a chicken in every pot, unseat Fort McMurray as the nation�s defacto capital of petrochemical production, and help transform Atlantica into a coherent, successful, international business corridor?

On a cold, wet morning in early June, more than 600 businesspeople, economic developers, academics, and politicians gathered in Saint John, New Brunswick, to ponder the shape of a North American jurisdiction not actually found on any map. To some, this ribbon of territory stretching as far southwest as Jamestown, New York, and as far northeast as St. John�s Newfoundland, was more a state of mind than one of fact. But to those who dreamed of cross-border economic coherence � of a single, international zone linking the continental interior to the burgeoning markets of the Far East � Atlantica was as real as any one of its true believers. And on that morning in Saint John, the faithful were out in force.

As Tim Woodcock, lawyer, amateur historian, one-time mayor of Bangor, Maine, and a former congressional candidate observed: �You can�t really understand Atlantica without first understanding the past. Prior to Canadian Confederation, the eastern seaboard of our continent was a powerful, cohesive economic region, selling its wares throughout the U.S., the Caribbean, Britain, Europe, Africa and Asia. Goods and services moved in a straight line, up and down the eastern seaboard for departure to points west and east. It was simply the logic of geography. We have to get back to that.�

But, as it became clear during the inaugural Reaching Atlantica Business Without Borders conference, getting back to a vigourous, united commercial relationship between these two parts of North America will be easier said than done, not for lack of will but for something more closely akin to bricks and mortar. Though several issues preoccupied the delegates, only one galvanized unanimous concern: The condition of the cross-border region�s transportation links and infrastructure. For Woodcock, and many others, it was the fulcrum on which their vision of a brave, new world hinged. �Atlantica is meaningless without state-of-the-art transportation systems,� he said. �They are the hard lines around the whole concept.�

Now, five months later, they still are. �The question remains, given the state of our multi-modal capabilities, can we come through for ourselves living in this region and, more importantly, for potential trading partners operating half-way around the world?�

It�s a good question. In Atlantic Canada, alone, ports remain underutilized, yet archly competitive with one another (with a few recent exceptions) for international container traffic. Road and rail routes, particularly into the U.S. northeast, are sparse and under-built. Worse, perhaps, cash-strapped governments seem largely paralysed by the funding and policy restrictions that they, themselves, have installed almost everywhere along the region�s highways, byways, and seaways. In fact, it has taken the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador more than 30 years to twin its main road arteries, and the work is still not done. The federally operated short-line railroads are all but gone. And the national ferry system, once the jewel of the Atlantic-New England trade, has perished.

The effects have been palpable. According to a recent analysis by Statistics Canada, the decline in international trade in three of four Atlantic Provinces has accelerated since the beginning of the decade in sharp contrast to the trend in every other part of the country. �Nowhere has this been [more evident] than in Newfoundland and Labrador,� the agency reports. �Between 2000 and 2002, inter-provincial exports from the province rose almost three times above the average annual growth rate posted during the 1990s. In contrast, its growth rate in [foreign] exports decelerated considerably between the two periods.�

In both Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia trade with other provinces has been at least as important to their respective economies as trade with foreign markets. �Since 2000, inter-provincial exports in P.E.I. have grown at an annual average rate of 7.3 per cent, almost triple the average gain in the 1990s. In Nova Scotia, sales to other provinces have risen at double the rate of international exports since the beginning of the decade.�

Only New Brunswick showed a dramatic increase in foreign trade over the same period, and even this has slowed in recent years as a direct result of heightened U.S.-Canada cross-border security measures, crumbling north-south transportation infrastructure, the absence of comprehensive short-sea shipping agreements among ports, and the perennial lack of public investment in new corridors that would expand inter-modal carrying capacity in and out of the American northeast.

The hard truth is that both Atlantic Canada and New England � where business conditions, transportation infrastructure and public-sector disposition toward long-term economic development mirror each other � have been forced to utilize separate, east-west road, rail, air, and sea links to reach the lucrative NAFTA corridors of the continental interior. In the process, their producers and carriers have enriched their western neighbours far more than they have themselves or their most logical commercial allies � each other.

To devotees of Atlantica, this situation is bad enough. But when they factor in the enormous pressures of new business with behemoths like India and China, they see a world in which their isolation will only increase as these powerful trading partners realize that Atlantic Canada-New England transportation links are woefully under-equipped to handle vastly increased import-export traffic to and from the Far East. And the increase, as well as the lost opportunity, could be vast indeed.�

China has just overtaken Britain and France to become the world�s fourth-largest economy. With a GDP of $1.5 trillion (USD), it now trails only Germany, Japan and the United States in economic might. Between January and May, 2006, the value of Chinese exports to Canada totalled $2.67 billion, and this is expected to grow by a factor of ten over the next five years. Western Canadian and U.S. ports are already overtaxed with cargo from China, while ports within the Atlantica region are begging for more business. But without comprehensive short-sea shipping agreements (conventions that essentially coordinate business development and marketing and divvy up the proceeds) and better, more numerous roads, railways and intermodal transportation systems in and out of the U.S.-Canadian northeast, the chances of grabbing a significant chunk of this new traffic are slim to none.

�The Far East trade should be the bright future for this region,� says Brian Lee Crowley, President and CEO of the Halifax-based think tank, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. �But, to make it work, we need to invest in our ports and all the other connections we have. If we don�t do this, then we will not only fail to grow, we will actually fall behind. We will lose business. The biggest concern I have is that there may be some people out there in the region who cling to the belief that we can hold on to the status quo. In the global trading environment, the status quo actually represents a loss.�

Some, however, aren�t so sure. The Council of Canadians, led by vocal free trade critic Maude Barlow, is on record as having stated that closer economic ties between any region of Canada and the U.S. is a recipe for social and political disaster north of the 49^th Parallel. The argument is predicated on the notion that George W. Bush�s America is avaricious, untrustworthy and, perhaps most crucially, economically muscle bound. Look no further than the recent softwood lumber dispute, they say, for incontrovertible proof of the current administration�s utter disregard for international law. What�s next? Shipments of pure Canadian water to the parched Great Plains at gunpoint? No, it�s better and safer to conduct our affairs as God and the Fathers of Confederation designed � east-west, across provincial borders, in the interest of national sovereignty.

Naturally, this is the sort of thinking that makes a true-blue Atlantican�s blood boil. �Thinking of North America simply in terms of exchanging goods and services across provincial or state borders is simply not useful,� says Stephan Blank, a professor of International Business at Pace University in New York City. �We are not just small-time trading partners. We collaborate in complex, cross-border production, distribution, and delivery systems. Increasingly, we share a single, integrated economy. But our integrity depends on our ability to present a united face to the rest of the world. That�s where we are going to have to compete in the new global economy. The northeastern region of Canada and the U.S. is a perfect example of this principle.�

Again, though, not without the bricks and mortar. �Today, our transportation and border infrastructure barely suffices to support the expanding economy,� Blank says. �Even before 9-11 it was becoming clear that the increase in volumes of goods flowing across our borders was outrunning the capacity of our highways, bridges, railroads, marine, and air transport crossings.�

Indeed, according to Mary Brooks, a professor of marketing and transportation at Dalhousie University, the challenges are not merely restricted to Atlantica. �Outside of New England, transportation is not seen as an issue among Americans. They don�t see Canada as part of the solution to their own congestion problems when it comes to accessing global trade. Most decisions about transportation issues are made by individual states. The model for development is still based on backroom politics.�

This, she says, is appallingly short sighted. �In North America, we are long past due for a comprehensive vision that incorporates all of our transportation needs. And we still haven�t addressed this. The fact is that transportation is dependent on trade. But trade is also dependent on transportation. It�s a chicken and egg situation. I used to teach that trade comes first, then transportation. But now, we hear people saying the reverse. It may be true that trade comes first, but when you hit the wall on capacity, you can�t keep the up the trade. It�s no longer about what any individual government can or should do. It�s about creating a vision that is multi-lateral in scope and nature.�

Michael Gallis, a North Carolina-based international consultant on large-scale development issues, calls this �the process of creating a new conceptual framework. The big problem in North America is that we don�t tend to create transportation infrastructure deliberately. It seems to be an accidental process. But the new conceptual framework, especially for the Atlantica region, has to acknowledge the fact that the entire continent is rapidly becoming a zone within the larger global economy. The Far East�s population and economic growth dwarf our own. So, the long-term opportunities for Atlantica are not within the confines of its own cross-border business relationships but in becoming a coherent gateway for the Asian trade into North America. Understanding this helps crystallize the point that all transportation assets must not only be efficient and plentiful, but integrated as never before.�

Interestingly, despite the hurdles, a �new conceptual framework� may be taking root in Atlantic Canada and New England � in, of all places, the trenches of the regional goods-moving industry itself. �I get the impression that things are gradually changing,� says Raymond Dufour, coordinator of the Moncton-based Atlantic Institute of Logistics and Transportation. �There is a growing recognition among businesses and transportation providers that the issue is not singular, but multifaceted, and that it needs to be tackled in a joint manner by a wide variety of stakeholders. People are starting to talk the same language about the serious transportation challenges in this part of the world.�

Karen Oldfield, President and CEO of the Port of Halifax concurs. �My perspective is that we are beginning to look at all of our multi-modal transportation assets � ports, roads, rail and air � differently than we once did. They are not so much separate entities, but parts of the same overarching system; a system we need to function at peak performance in order to ensure that the region operates well in a globally competitive environment. And to ensure this, we need to work collaboratively and strategically to tackle the problems we all face.�

Adds Captain Alwynn Soppit, President and C.E.O. of the Port of Saint John: �Cooperation is the key. It is absolutely the way to go, the way forward for the region. And I get a real sense that those of us involved on a daily basis in this industry are waking up to the fact that the status quo of looking after our own little principalities, and missing the big opportunities of global trade, simply won�t work anymore.�

In fact, both Oldfield and Soppit acknowledge that their respective facilities offer separate, but complementary, capabilities to the world. Halifax, for example, is the third-largest container port in the country, handling about 550,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (teu) a year, behind Montreal and Vancouver. Its capacity is currently running at about 60 per cent, which means that without spending a nickel it can handle at least another 500,000 teu annually. Saint John, meanwhile, is emerging as the region�s gateway to the international cruise ship industry. Over the past decade, the port has welcomed nearly 700,000 passengers who have, collectively, spent upwards of $58 million.

The lesson, Soppit says, is obvious: �Ports must be in the position to address fast-moving market forces, and an innovative way to approach this is to build strategic alliances and a network of partners. Instead of being all things to all people, individual ports can then focus on what they do best by maximizing existing assets � taking their slice of the pie and leaving the rest to a wide array of regional partners, big and small.�

Says Oldfield: �We are very fortunate to have a terrific working relationship with Al Soppitt. He may be doing things in markets where we are not involved. But it comes down to sitting across the table from one another and identifying areas where we can work together, not just to promote the success of our individual ports but also to benefit the entire region. In this spirit, the CEOs of all the Atlantic port authorities meet three or four times a year. It�s an example of the new attitude.�

Another is the U.S. Federal Highway Transportation Reauthorization Bill, passed last year, which commits millions of dollars to upgrade and improve the border crossing at Calais/St. Stephen. The U.S. Congress also approved a Highway Priority Corridor designation for a route from Calais to Watertown, New York, a first for the entire northeastern United States. This move represents an important step towards establishing a trade corridor extending from Saint John and Bangor to New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Quebec and Ontario. The designation will provide the proposed International Northeast East-West Corridor with priority access to future U.S. federal planning, transportation and infrastructure funding.

Significantly, these developments came about only after heavy lobbying by the Eastern Maine Development Corporation and Enterprise Saint John whose Memorandum of Understanding commits both to work collaboratively to challenge and persuade policy-makers in Canada and the U.S. on crucial transportation issues.

In Dieppe, New Brunswick, another experiment in connectivity is underway. �We�ve been working on a project to establish an inland port,� Raymond Dufour explains. �The city is at the junction of Highway 15, the Trans-Canada and the Moncton International Airport. The concept is to create a new hub that will both facilitate the movement of goods and services and act as a magnet for industrial development. We are also looking at the possibility of exporting the model across the Atlantic Provinces.� �����

Though promising, the �new attitude� and the projects it is inspiring is still in its infancy. And business leaders and transportation officials in the region remain clear-eyed about the enormity of their task. �None of this is going to happen overnight,� Dufour says. �But to put our best face to the world, we have to put all of our transportation assets together on both sides of the international and commit them to our mutual progress. This is what Atlantica means, after all.�

With an ice-free harbour, jet-powered tugs, deep-water jumpers, hot and cold-running longshoremen, inter-modal mega-machines, just-in-time delivery, and a reliability record only a rock star could hate, the Port of Halifax is among the best in the world.

But ask a businessman in, say, India what he makes of such boasts and he�s more than likely to laugh appreciatively at your rich sense of humour, and politely remind you that this unpromising inlet is nothing more than a cartographic afterthought on the map of global shipping.

I say more than likely, because that�s exactly what happened not long ago to Karen Oldfield, the port�s president and CEO. �I was in India talking to people about what we do, and what we can offer,� she says, �when I was informed, in no uncertain terms, that Halifax simply doesn�t have a port. That�s when I realized that we had a serious marketing problem.�

In fact, over the past few months Oldfield and her board of directors have transformed themselves into something akin to luxury car salesmen (as in, what do I need to do to put you into this fully-loaded Ferrari of a port?), taking names and numbers, and giving no quarter to international competitors. They�ve hired a new business development manager to represent their interests in India, and contracted with Jeena & Company, a Mumbai-based freight-forwarder with more than a century of experience in global markets.

If all this sounds precipitous, it should. Despite its undeniably superior infrastructure, technology, management, and labour force, the Port of Halifax has been relatively late in recognizing the truth of the doorknocker�s credo that if you don�t make the calls, you can�t make the sales. In reality, international port marketing has become big business in recent years, thanks largely to the emergence of China, Southeast Asia and India as export powerhouses. The volumes of container traffic from these regions have been rising faster, on a percentage basis, than the gross domestic products of most G7 nations. The North American ports that have benefited � New York, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver � have done so because they have aggressively promoted their capabilities abroad.

Still, if Halifax is only now playing catch-up with the continent�s major players, it may soon enjoy a rare opportunity to beat them at their own game. Western ports, in particular, are rapidly becoming victims of their own success. Overburdened and underfunded, they are reaching the limits of their tonnage and handling capacities. Meanwhile, the construction trend in post-Panamax shipbuilding � that is, vessels too large and heavy to squeeze comfortably through the Panama Canal � favours a shift in trade through the Suez Canal, en route to places just like the Port of Halifax.

Of course, Karen Oldfield knows this like she knows her own name. She knows that her port�s annual container traffic stands at roughly half its potential capacity (currently about four million metric tonnes of cargo). She knows that Halifax could become a new haven for post-Panamax business. And she knows that the 460,000 tonnes-a-year of containerized goods passing through her watery gates from burgeoning Far East markets are mere drops in a bucket. Most importantly, perhaps, she understands the critical importance of the Port of Halifax as a nexus of regional economic development.

�Functioning at full capacity, we would bring new business into the Atlantic provinces and New England,� she says. �There would be enough traffic to generate demand for newer, more efficient transportation infrastructure linking the cross-border, Atlantica region of East Coast Canada and the U.S. northeast to the rest of the globe.�

Half-a-world away, Sachiem Singh, the Port of Halifax�s freshly minted Delhi-based business development manager, couldn�t agree more. �Atlantica is a big, big market for India, and the reverse is also true,� he says. �Look at Singapore or Hong Kong � they are nothing compared to Halifax. Their natural advantages and facilities can�t compete. But what they do have, what they�ve always had, is strategic marketing. What India doesn�t understand yet is that the most efficient gateway into North America in the coming years will be through the Suez Canal and through the Port of Halifax. It�s my job to send this message.�

Let�s hope that he does, and quickly, before a cartographic afterthought becomes nothing more than a footnote in the history of global shipping.

David Wilkins, U.S. Ambassador to Canada, recently completed his first full year on the job. A native of South Carolina where he served for 25 years in the state legislature (11 as Speaker), he sat down recently with Progress Contributing Editor Alec Bruce �General Editor of�www.thebrucereport.com�� to offer his wide-ranging perspectives on the�state of Canada-U.S. relations.

Bruce Report: Mr. Ambassador, I believe you were briefed not too long ago about the Atlantica concept, which promotes greater economic coherence between New England and the Atlantic Provinces. I am curious to know your impressions about this movement.

Wilkins: I was in Saint John to deliver a speech to the Atlantic timber association, where I had an opportunity to meet with the head of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce and a couple of board members. They did brief me on what they were about. They told me about the meeting they were hosting in Saint John about a week later (June 7-11, 2006), about the number of people who were going to be there and what they were going to be discussing, and about the involvement of the New England states in their efforts. It was very informative. It�s fair to say that I am certainly not the expert on what all the objectives are, but from what I�ve heard, it certainly appears to me that it�s all about economic development, increasing trade between the Atlantic Provinces and New England � the U.S. in general, but particularly New England. And it deals with such things as how to bolster trade between the provinces and the U.S., and how to make trade flow more easily. It seems to me to be very pro-business, pro-economic development.

Bruce Report:�The Atlantica agenda is focused on improving economic prospects for both countries in the eastern cross-border region, a part of the continent that suffers many common problems: outmigration of people and capital, comparatively weak productivity and innovation capacity, underdeveloped transportation infrastructure, among others. Do you believe, as a point of principle, that shared problems like these can be solved by shared solutions, notwithstanding the international border?

Wilkins: Why sure. I think that�s one of the strengths of our relationship: neighbour to neighbour, business partner to business partner, sometimes family member to family member working together. You know, I think that is the underlying strength of the Canada-U.S. relationship. It�s those personal relationships. Atlantica is a good example of those business contacts that members of this organization make and develop and the friendships they develop.Obviously, the tone at the top is important. The decisions made by governments are important. But, in my opinion, just as important are the individual relationships and the individual efforts made provincial and state governments, or by businesses, or by people working together.

Bruce Report:�Well, just following up on that point, where does Atlantica fall on the U.S. administration�s radar? For example, are improved transportation links a priority?

Wilkins: I would defer to the administration on specifics about that, obviously. But I do know that money has been appropriated for a new bridge between Calais and St. Stephen. One can draw from that that obviously transportation is important in the free flow of goods in trade, which is obviously very important to both countries. This will be one of the first new bridges between the two countries in quite some time, and that represents a commitment by both governments that we have proper flow of trade and people.

Bruce Report:�Shifting gears just a little, you�ve been on the job as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada for about a year now. With this time under your belt, what progress do you see as having been made in relations between the two countries?

Wilkins: As far that�s concerned, I think we�ve seen great progress in a year. We have entered an era of cooperation between the United States and Canada. In dealing with problems, there�s more of a shared responsibility. We are resolved to work together to solve a problem or deal with a situation. It�s more about fixing the problem, rather than fixing the blame. Again, I think that the tone at the top matters. And think that trickles all the way down. We now have good, strong relationships being developed between the president and the prime minister, and between cabinet ministers and members of the administration. I mean, we have great meetings between Minister MacKay (Hon. Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) and Secretary Rice (Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State). In just a few days, Minister Lunn (Hon. Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources) will be meeting with Secretary Bodeman (Samuel Bodeman, U.S. Secretary of Energy), where they will be touring the oil sands in Alberta. I think the relationship is, hopefully, better now than it was and will continue to get better. I think it�s positive for both countries. It�s more about how we help each other, rather than blame each other. I mean we have, as you know, the largest trading relationship the world has ever known. And we have a relationship that is peaceful and prosperous and one that is the envy of the world.

Bruce Report:�Still, there are some here in Canada who believe that this country is poorly understood by the Americans. I am wondering if the reverse is also true. And if this is the case, how can we fix it?

Wilkins: Let me say it this way. I think you work on that by having the dialogue of top officials, and that filters on down to the individuals and the business associates. I think communication is the key. And what I�ve seen in the last six months has been a real upward move � a real increase in the number of official visits, the number of dialogues, the amount of communications between elected officials. There�s been a real effort to get to know each other and work together. So, there is a better understanding already. And I take that as more to my responsibilities. It is to increase the awareness of the importance of Canada, not only to the United States, but in the world. When I go to Washington, I talk about things like that. When I go back to my home state, I talk about the fact that Canada is the number one supplier of energy to the U.S. And I think as we increase the awareness of each other, we increase the appreciation of each other.

Bruce Report:�Now, you wanted the Canadian posting. Is that right?

Wilkins: Oh, very definitely.

Bruce Report:�Why was that?

Wilkins: So I could talk to people like you! No, but I really did. When I was told that I was being considered for an ambassadorship, I made it very clear that Canada was where I wanted to go. There were a lot of reasons for that. Number one was the fact that you are our number one trading partner, and I knew there were a lot of issues to deal with and I wanted a challenge. I wanted to keep very busy, and I certainly am. And then there was the wonderful relationship we enjoy with Canada, the close proximities of the capitals. There were just a number of reasons, including the quality of life. Certainly I had not traveled extensively (in Canada) before then, but I had met Canadians from time to time in the States, and I liked the ones I met. So it felt good. It was a good fit for me. I am very blessed that I was given the opportunity to come here. I feel like it is the privilege of a lifetime to be able to serve my country and your country.

Bruce Report:�Has anything surprised you about Canada?

Wilkins: Well, now, I don�t think you can�t help but be impressed with the vastness of the country. I�ve now traveled well over 100,000 miles in the air. I�ve visited every province, every territory. The beauty and the massiveness of the country are very impressive. I�ve also been impressed by the warmth and friendship of the Canadian people coast to coast.

Bruce Report:�As you look forward, what would be the biggest opportunity or opportunities that could be achieved by the two nations working more closely together?

Wilkins: I don�t know that I have one specific thing. But it is to continue working according to the pattern that we�ve established. It is to be consistent in working together to solve problems as they come up. That�s what we do now, because that�s what friends do, and above all else we are friends. But whether it�s the passport issue � to resolve that and still achieve the security that is needed � or whether it�s the softwood lumber issue � it actually looks like we have resolved that irritant � or the BSE issue, whatever the case may be, as long as we continue to increase the dialogue as these issues crop up, we have a better environment in which to progress. I think that is what we ought to strive for. We should put ourselves in an environment where we can have a dialogue when we have a disagreement and ultimately resolve it. My goal in Canada is quite simplistic, but when I leave I want to feel like the relationship is stronger than when I found it. So I strive every day to try to achieve that, and I accentuate the positive, and I make sure Washington knows what�s going on up here, and what is important to Canadians.

Bruce Report:�Related to this, a recent survey of Atlantic Canadian companies indicated that improved relations with the United States should be a major priority for our federal government. What can the private sector and provincial governments do to work more effectively with their U.S. counterparts? Is it just about dialogue?

Wilkins:�I think they should continue to foster their business relationships. I mean, that is so important. And I think they need to make their concerns clear to their elected officials. I mean that�s how things get done in our two countries.

Bruce Report:�You are something of an expert on economic development in the U.S. south, where you spent your career prior to government as a lawyer. . .

Wilkins: Well, you are kind to say that. I�m not sure I am an expert on anything. But I served 25 years in the state legislature in South Carolina, and 11 years as Speaker. A lot of the issues that we were involved in dealt with economic development. I have some experience in that.

Bruce Report:�Can you think of a breakout success story, in terms of economic development, for the U.S. south?

Wilkins: We were involved in a number of things that tried to create an environment for business growth and job creation. In particular, we had a number of pro-economic development incentives � tax credits, endowed chairs when we put money into research, encouraging public-private partnerships. We passed tort reform bills, medical malpractice bills. It was all designed to bolster the economy and create jobs. That was really what we were all about

Bruce Report:�Is there anything that you learned during your legal and political careers in South Carolina that might be relevant to developing a more prosperous cross-border region in the Atlantic Provinces and New England?

Wilkins: I think there are skills that you learn being an attorney and being in the legislature dealing with the press, and business leaders, and elected officials that, hopefully, you can transfer to a job in the diplomatic world. Fundamentally, though, building prosperous economies between trading partners is about keeping the lines of communication open. It�s about dialogue, solving shared problems together, and making positive change collaboratively with elected officials.