Fall Back Up with Tim Moore

Tim Moore is the founder of several highly successful Canadian businesses. Starting in 1971, Tim borrowed $2000 to purchase a small moving truck.

That launched a career of serial entrepreneurship resulting in the founding of AMJ Campbell Van Lines, Premiere Executive Suites, Premiere Van LinesPremiere Self-Storage, Premiere Mortgage Center, Oceanstone ResortsMoore Executive Suites and Atlantic Signature Mortgage and Loan.

He is the author of two inspirational books, On the Move and You Don’t Need a MBA to Make Millions where he shares his journey and provides practical advice for entrepreneurs.

MovingVan1.jpg

Tim has received The Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal, The Distinguished Service Award from the Canadian Mover’s Association, and the Certificate of Merit, Entrepreneur Category, in the Canada Awards for Business Excellence.

He’s been honoured multiple times as one of the Top 50 CEO’s for Atlantic Canada and awarded a tribute as Master Entrepreneur of the Year, Atlantic Region.

An active philanthropist, Tim has given back through mentoring and charitable activities, including Junior Achievement of Canada, Best Buddies of Canada, the Canadian Olympic Association, the Alzheimer Association of Nova Scotia, the Mental Health Association of Nova Scotia and the Stephen Lewis Foundation.

I met with Tim at his ocean-side home in Chester Nova Scotia, where we sat down to talk about his life and his philosophy of doing business…

Click here to go to my podbean site to listen

Let’s Start Clearing the Smoke on Cannabis

In another 12 months, we’ll be dealing with the real world impact of the federal government’s legalization of marijuana. There are still lots of unanswered questions about how this will roll out. These are questions with huge economic and social implications.

While the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) has conducted only one survey of its members so far on how recreational marijuana should be sold, comments from our members suggest there are still considerable divisions on whether legalizing marijuana is even a good idea.

While we have limited experience with cannabis per se, CFIB is a respected international leader on regulation, including how to get it right and what not to do. This includes considerable experience with liquor and tobacco regulation. The federal government has handed responsibility over to the provinces who will need to apply a laser focus on these key critical regulatory pieces.

Too often, governments examine a new area where regulation is needed and quickly expand the mandate to include every moving part. This automatically means proper enforcement is near impossible. We recommend focusing on a few critical regulatory priorities, such as preventing sales to minors, ensuring proper product safety information and rules, and prohibitions at work or while driving. Choose the most important aspects to regulate and then do them well. Leave the rest alone.

We also hope to see the same rules across the country. The provinces should be working together to ensure as much consistency as possible as legalization rolls out across the country.  As the new Canadian Free Trade Agreement works to undo the damage of multiple complicated regulatory schemes, the last thing we need is another patchwork quilt of rules in an emerging industry.

Additionally, while bringing recreational cannabis sales out of the underground economy will no doubt have positive revenue implications for the government (excise, sales, and corporate income taxes), there will be added costs for policing and health care. Government would be wise to resist the temptation to frame this as a giant cash cow.

That means getting the tax mix right. If taxes are excessive, particularly in early days, much of it will remain black market. High tax rates may discourage users, but they’ll also push sales into the underground economy. It is estimated that close to a third of tobacco sales are underground, often with links to organized crime.

Also, provinces would be wise not to let regulation get in the way of innovation. An above-ground private sector can stay much closer to customer preferences, the edibles market is a good example. It’s also a myth that only public sector employees can responsibly handle controlled substances. The private sector has held an important role in tobacco and pharmaceutical sales, as well as alcohol in some provinces.

CFIB is also recommending a central role for smaller, independent businesses within this emerging industry. We are already advocating for access to banking and payments services for smaller, independent businesses involved in legal cannabis retail and distribution as a measure to help achieve the goal of limiting the underground economy.

Even those who are involved in the emerging industry appear to remain unsure of where this is all going. A year out from implementation, we should be seeing some of the smoke begin to clear.

Jordi Morgan is Vice President, Atlantic of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. CFIB represents the interests of 11,000 small and medium size businesses in Atlantic Canada.

Fall Back Up

This week, I have two more episodes of Fall Back Up for your weekend listening pleasure.

 

Bill CarrIn the first I talk with actor, commentator, motivational speaker, restorative justice specialist and now president of the Professional Speakers Federation, Bill Carr. I’ve known Bill for many years and we cover lots of territory in our conversation, from growing up in rural Nova Scotia and his athletic and theatrical career at Acadia, to restorative justice practice and how to give a better speech.

 

LisaAlso this week, entrepreneur, designer and philanthropist Lisa Drader-Murphy. After building a successful career in the textile business in Calgary, Lisa decided, along with her partner, to move their family to a renovated 18th century sea captain’s estate in Falmouth, Nova Scotia. I met her there to talk about why she decided to move to Nova Scotia and what it takes to build a successful business with no debt, on retained earnings and find ways to give back.

 

You can either click on the images above to go to my PodBean site or play the podcast directly from the Soundcloud players below. I’m still testing each of these platforms and if you have any comments on which work best for you I’m all ears…so to speak.

Again, if you have any suggestion of people you think might be good to interview for this podcast, just let me know on the contact me page up top…

Cutting Red Tape: An old problem finding new solutions

scissor-red-tape

I was having coffee with an old political warhorse recently and we were talking about red tape. He told me a story about how after John Buchanan won the 1981 election, his government promised to cut red tape. The classic line from Digby Liberal Joe Casey in the legislature was, “He sure is cutting, but lengthwise.”

This is to say, there’s nothing really new about politicians promising to cut red tape. The idea has been kicked around for years because red tape is a horrible drag on the economy. What’s new, however, is after years of hounding federal and provincial governments, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) is beginning to see some results.

To give credit where it is due, during John Hamm’s government, there was some movement on red tape, but it was no secret the bureaucracy regarded the project as bothersome. The “Better Regulation” initiative was largely ignored, then quietly shelved during Rodney MacDonald’s years and completely jettisoned during the Darrell Dexter years.

However, under Stephen McNeil regulatory reform has been revived and Nova Scotia’s grade on CFIB’s annual Red Tape Report Card has climbed from the “D” he inherited in 2013. As it is Red Tape Awareness Week, CFIB is announcing Nova Scotia is receiving a mark of “B” for 2016 putting the province back in the top half of Canadian jurisdictions.

The improvement in the mark is not because we’ve seen significant regulatory burden reduced for business, it’s because of the political leadership and excellent groundwork completed by a small group of dedicated individuals led by Chief Regulatory Officer, Fred Crooks.

We were very pleased to see Regulatory Accountability and Reporting Act passed, the creation of the Joint Office of Regulatory Affairs and Service Effectiveness, the Premiers’ Charter of Governing Principles for Regulation adopted, the creation and implementation of the ground-breaking business economic impact analysis tool and the initiation of a “Business Navigation” project to help new businesses get off the ground.

In particular, the Premiers’ Charter is a beacon of hope for small businesses in Nova Scotia. The commitment to enact fewer and better regulations, as well as the cost-for-cost rule, should keep the current regulatory burden in check. It’s now also been adopted by the three other Atlantic Provinces with mirror legislation as part of their participation in the Joint Office.

While this is all good, to see improved satisfaction levels from business owners, the government must begin producing results in time and/or money saved. With new technologies designed to make secure, online transaction readily available, there are tremendous opportunities for government to find creative solutions to cut costs, fix the government customer service experience, measure improvement and deliver real results.

To advance this, CFIB is recommending the province establish a baseline measurement of the existing red tape burden faced by Nova Scotia’s small businesses, set clear targets for its reduction, and publicly report on how it’s going. We believe only accountability will force this innovation.

If the Premier really wants to make Nova Scotia “the best regulatory environment in Canada”, we need to get at it, and now. The groundwork is done, it’s time to take action. Let’s navigate away from bureaucracies that are simply held accountable for process and move to a service oriented public sector that is held accountable for results.

This article was originally published in the Chronicle Herald on Thursday, January 26, 2017 

We have all the evidence we need. It’s time for action to support small business

reports1

How many more studies until government finally takes the necessary steps to fix the drag on our regional economy?

There have been many reports generated to reinforce that which we already know. We know this because we’ve written many of them.

From CFIB’s work on inter-provincial trade barriers to multiple pre-budget submissions, red tape report cards, and other position statements, our members have consistently identified regulatory burden and taxation levels as the primary constraints on their business growth.

The latest, compelling piece of proof, comes from the government’s own joint office of regulatory affairs via Atlantic Provinces Economic Council (APEC). The new APEC project, Trade Barriers in Atlantic Canada: Opportunities for Regulatory Reform, reinforces what CFIB has been repeating for years; red tape and trade barriers are destructive to our economy.

The author, economist David Chaundy, says it’s some of the most significant work he’s ever done. In a career that has seen plenty of economic analysis of our region, that’s saying something. We were pleased here at CFIB to see APEC provide clear quantification of the problem. We believe this report, along with the other work we and other groups have presented, provides plenty of evidence to put regulatory reform (red tape) and interprovincial trade barriers squarely on the front burner in Atlantic Canada.

If governments in our region are serious about doing something meaningful to assist economic growth (as they should if we want to avoid plummeting head-first into a demographic abyss), it’s time everybody gets with the program.

Chaundy’s work identifies how the Atlantic provinces, more than any other region in the country, suffer economically under the weight of unnecessary regulation and inter-provincial trade barriers. It points to recent research which estimates the gains from removing all trade barriers in Canada could be as high as 3.3 per cent of GDP ($65 billion). This translates proportionately to even greater gains in the Atlantic region of 7.6 per cent of GDP or $8.5 billion.

trade-liberalization
From Trade Barriers in Atlantic Canada – APEC 2016

To put it in more relatable terms, this kind of cost reduction is the equivalent of an after-tax income increase of $2,000 for every person in Atlantic Canada.

Lowering interprovincial trade costs for Atlantic businesses will also improve their international competitiveness. With the signing of the Canada and European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), eliminating regional trade barriers have now become increasingly more urgent and more important.

Freeing up trade restrictions must become a central ingredient in the economic growth model being prioritized by each of the Atlantic provinces. It’s time for politicians to discard Donald Trump style parochial protectionism in favour of unfettered interprovincial free trade.

We have enough reports now all pointing in the same direction. As we noted at the time of its inception, the joint office of regulatory affairs can play a pivotal role in dismantling these trade barriers, removing red tape and setting our region on a path toward greater economic growth and prosperity.

There have been some good first steps, but each of the provinces now must re-double its efforts to tackle these important issues. With the body of evidence in front of them, the premiers must unify behind and forcefully advance this agenda.

Why are Halifax building inspectors trying to kill small business?

Cross-eyed businessman wrapped in red tape

Today, Sailor Bup’s posted a missive about what has become an all too familiar story of the heavy-handed, anti-small business attitude of the building inspection department in the City of Halifax…you’ll find it below and if you have any interest in the growth of small business in Halifax, I encourage you to read it.

This comes on the heels of a meeting CFIB had this week with the folks at The Darkside Cafe on Wyse Road in Dartmouth who are suffering under the same level of destructive bureaucratic engagement. The Darkside story is equally discouraging with the city’s Chief Building Inspector directing subordinates to “throw the book” at a small business operator who has perpetrated the egregious crime of not being clear on if it’s an art shop that sells coffee…or a coffee shop that sells art.

Cultures of mediocrity in public service delivery become ingrained in government in spite of the even the best individual efforts. In Halifax, we’ve had poor public service so long, the city is no longer even embarrassed by its shortcomings, and it would be difficult to imagine how the opinion of citizens and business around of the delivery of public services could be much worse.

In a submission to HRM, the Greater Halifax Partnership provided an Index of Business Opinions of Municipal Government Regulation. With 0% being the point of neutrality, the City’s score was minus 26.1%. In fact, it has been below zero for the past 12 years, ranging from a worst of minus 39% to a high-water mark of minus 14% in 2013. This data was supplied by staff to Council in their recent recommendation on red tape reduction.

Regulation opinions HRM

While “regulation” itself may seem like an abstract, it is the backbone of government service. Councillor Jennifer Watts pointed out to The Coast, “That’s the nature of who we are…Everything we do in government is regulation.” Poor service delivery can utterly destroy the application of even the most reasonable regulation…and the opinion of service delivery in HRM is clearly abysmal.

And this is not news. Years of protestations from the citizenry notwithstanding, in 2013 at the Atlantic Mayors’ Congress here in Halifax, leaders of 24 municipalities passed a motion to create a committee to study ways to engage provincial governments and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses. So, how’s that been going?

If you have similar stories of building inspectors in Halifax acting in this fashion, we want to hear about it. Last year Halifax was awarded CFIB’s National Paperweight Award for the ridiculous nature of its patio laws. We are continuing to take submissions to shine the light on heavy-handed, unnecessary regulatory burden imposed by the city government. We want to hear from you at msns@cfib.ca

SAILOR BUP’S VS HALIFAX – ROUND 3

We sat quietly on this for almost a year, but now it’s time to go public.
First the liquor, then the sign in our downtown shop, now our Dartmouth shop. We may be a little brash and outspoken (we think it’s part of our charm), but since people trust us with their heads and faces, we always play by the rules where regulations are concerned. Today, we are bummed out to tell you we have now AGAIN been pushed into a battle with HRM. This is a lengthy read, but if you like gossip straight from the source, here it is.
A couple weeks after opening in Dartmouth, we were visited by an HRM building inspector. Before we opened the shop, we painted, installed a back bar, put up a partition/non load bearing wall, built a bench, laid down flooring, painted, installed shelving on the wall, installed some new lighting, installed new sinks (to existing plumbing) and that was about it. Pretty standard stuff. The trigger to spur HRM’s visit was the sign that we installed on an already existing sign holder that had been there for decades. Starting to sound familiar?
That inspector walked in and, before “inspecting” a thing, said “Nice shop you have here. Looks like you did a lot of work. Too bad we’ll be shutting you down in 30 days.” This was said in front of both staff and our customers. It’s important to note that this happened only a couple months after our first sign battle with HRM Planning & Development. Ourselves and another business protested a number of seemingly arbitrary fees that kept getting tacked on to our applications, got a bit of media attention, and the city backed down. We assume they didn’t like that. Maybe that’s just us.
A formal complaint was lodged with HRM against this inspector and, to our knowledge, it has yet to be addressed—no one ever followed up with us. A little while later, HRM ordered an issue of compliance for us to obtain an occupancy permit, stating that the day-to-day business of the leased spot had since “changed use” from the previous occupant and we were in violation.
The previous occupant was a DVD rental and laptop repair shop. This means they fell under the category of personal services and mercantile. That’s how we are categorized, too. Haircuts, shaves, beard treatments, etc. are personal services. Selling pomades, t-shirts, etc. makes us mercantile as well. Seems pretty straightforward. Still, we welcomed the inspection without question.
HRM sent a different inspector this time (we wonder why…). They told us we needed to patch a few small holes in the ceiling made by the previous owner, install an illuminated exit sign over the door, and move the fire extinguisher by 3 metres—and that if we did these things, the permit would be granted. Okay, fair. We had this work done in a matter of days.
At the same time, we were getting nervous. Not because we thought we were doing anything wrong, but because we had gone down this road with HRM before and suspected the circus was just beginning. We contacted both our lawyer and Councillor Gloria McCluskey. Our lawyer advised us to let him handle anything else stemming from this issue going forward. Councillor McCluskey looked into the inspection history and told us to simply get back to work and not worry about it from this point forward.
When it came time for the followup inspection, our lawyer made sure he was present. This next inspector informed us that the plumbing was not vented and that he was concerned about some aspects of the residential side of the building. Our lawyer asked if that was the end of his concerns because we wanted to get everything sorted and get back to work. The inspector sneered at our lawyer and said “well, let’s get everything, then.”
He picked up his clipboard again and took another look around the shop. He found two additional holes in the washroom (literally made by thumb tacks) in a spot he had inspected not five minutes before. Our lawyer asked why the other two inspectors hadn’t made any mention of them and the inspector laughed and said “I guess they didn’t look up”. After that, the inspector asked to have access to the apartments upstairs. Our lawyer informed him that we couldn’t give him access as we didn’t own the building and had no legal connection to or authority over that portion of the building. In response, the inspector said the building wasn’t up to fire code. Our lawyer asked why two previous inspectors AND the inspection he had “finished” before apparently being rubbed the wrong way by a question hadn’t caught such a large issue. The inspector handed our lawyer his report and walked out without saying a word.
By the way, we called a plumber in that same day to find out why the plumbing wasn’t vented. It was. The vent pipe is the first thing you see when you open the access door. The plumber was quite confused as to why the HRM inspector would have claimed that.
Anyway, we patched up the thumb tack holes, got a letter from the building owner confirming that all plumbing was pre-existing and were reassured by a plumber that everything was in order, and called HRM back for a followup inspection. That was in April. This is September. They haven’t been back. They’ve ignored our requests to direct correspondence to our lawyer on numerous occasions.
This is a David vs. Goliath story, and Goliath is accountable to no one. They seem to make the rules up as they go.
The story gets better, too.
After all this, we had a meeting with two individuals from HRM Planning and Development thanks to the help of Councillor McCluskey. We left completely astounded and more confused than we were going in. They told us that their definition of “previous tenant” was not the last person actually in the unit, but the last tenant to hold an occupancy permit on record with them. They then told us according to their information they were leaning “90% in the other direction” in terms of the change of use claim. We asked them who the last “previous tenant” was so we could look into it. They replied with a brief pause and, then, “we’re not quite sure”. It’s very interesting to us that they could calculate their disagreement to the precise number of 90% without even knowing what they were disagreeing with. It’s also very interesting that they weren’t at all bothered by the previous tenant (according to everyone’s definition except, apparently, their own) allegedly operating without an occupancy permit for over a decade (again, according to them).
Our research shows the last tenant was a DVD sales and rental/laptop repair place. The one before that was a trophy shop that also did engraving on the plates of the trophies he sold. Both personal services, both mercantile. This puts us back almost 20 years.
Planning and Development asked us to write them a letter stating that we changed our stance on the “change of use”, and they would grant the permit. Nothing came. No permit. And now, months later—after absolutely no reply from the city to come follow up on the inspection—they have had us charged in relation to the building code with items such as plumbing (that was independently inspected by another plumber who we’re sure would have loved to hand us a repair bill but couldn’t actually find anything to repair, and was pre-existing according to a letter from the building owner himself) and other items that pertain to the residential portion of the building which we have no control over because we do not own or lease it. We lease 700 sq ft in the front of the building. That is it. Nothing more. That would be like your next door neighbour hitting you with a repair bill for his broken furnace. Ridiculous at best.
Among the laundry list of things we discussed with HRM, they told us the building is not wheelchair accessible and that every business in HRM needs to be wheelchair accessible. Which is 100% correct. They do. In the worst way. In fact, we requested a ramp for our downtown shop. And were rejected. We were told that if we even had a removable one, we would be fined each day it was out on the sidewalk. So all we can take from this is that the enforceable by-laws are enforceable based on the level of interest from HRM. Now they have an interest in seeing that our Dartmouth shop gets closed, so it is suddenly enforceable.
We know that consumers are entitled to support the businesses they like and not support the businesses they don’t like. HRM doesn’t have that right. They have to be impartial, even if they didn’t like the outcome of a previous disagreement over, say, a sign. They have to be fair, even if they looked a little silly, just as a hypothetical example, after telling adults they couldn’t enjoy a single beer in the middle of the afternoon. They can’t make up problems out of thin air and cost a small business thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees just because.
Except, unfortunately, it seems they can.
Mayor Savage, you say you love small business. You say that Halifax needs small businesses. Do you really? Does it really? These employees report to you. Hold them accountable. When is this going to end? Take a look around your city. Empty spaces and businesses closing down everywhere. You need to change how officials interact with small businesses in your city. If small businesses are the backbone of your city, stop trying to break them.
We are already anticipating the visit to our Gottingen St location after seeing the HRM By-Law vehicle parked immediately outside and someone writing on a clipboard. Stay tuned for that one.