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.

Why Small Business is Concerned About the 15 Dollar Minimum Wage

Atlantic Canadian small business owners should start bracing themselves for the 15 dollar minimum wage campaign. The governments in Alberta and Ontario have both bought into the idea, and now British Columbia’s new ‘GreeNDP’ coalition is putting it on the table. It’s being driven principally by Canada’s largest labour unions and a coalition of the federal and provincial NDP and social activists.

Let’s be clear, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) is responsible for advancing the interests of our members, small- and medium-sized, independent businesses. Firms ranging in size from your mom and pop shop to companies with up to 500 employees. CFIB has led awareness on this 15 dollar minimum wage issue because these are the businesses who will suffer, shrink or die with such a sudden spike in labour costs.

Because of their size, the Loblaws, Walmart and Shoppers Drug Marts of the world will be much better positioned to absorb this shock, but make no mistake, they will also be shedding staff, cutting hours and eliminating opportunities for young, entry-level workers, who make up the vast majority of those who are earning a minimum wage.

Most CFIB members already pay well above minimum wage for employees as most small businesses understand the importance of valuing and retaining staff. CFIB certainly has no argument with improving pay and benefits for employees when appropriate and our members support these efforts.

Our argument is with a government mandated spike in the wage floor which will put the sustainability of small business in peril. Remember, this is not just about entry level workers, a 32 per cent increase in the wage floor will put enormous pressure on employers to increase the wages of all staff.

Armine Yalnizyan, a principal advocate for the 15 dollar minimum wage and an author of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ (CCPA) Inequality Project, clearly stated this week, “Yes there will be a reduction in some hours, some jobs, some businesses. No argument there. And most vulnerable workers (teenagers and newcomers) will bite the bullet first, particularly when there’s a downturn in demand.”

Her comments are remarkable unto themselves, but I would also ask, what is the acceptable casualty rate? How many hours should be cut and how many young workers should lose their first jobs? How many businesses are they prepared to sacrifice to hit this arbitrary target?

And where will this new money for wages come from? Will it come from increased profitability? That seems unlikely in light of increased labour costs. Will it come from stronger employment? That’s not happening as, it seems everyone agrees, these higher wages will inevitably lead to reduced hours and/or job losses. Will minimum wage workers suddenly become 32 per cent more productive? Unlikely.

Finally, our region’s economy is far more fragile than Alberta, Ontario or BC. If there are politicians musing about this here, we would ask they understand the repercussions of this kind of wage spike before we even think about such a move in Atlantic Canada. We’ll have the opportunity to watch how this experiment plays out in those other province’s economies first. Fortunate for us, not so much for them.

This originally appeared in the Chronicle Herald, June 9, 2017

Fall Back Up

In 1997 Brian Titus was in the navy working as a diver in Halifax…but he had a passion for making beer. At the time, the craft brew market hadn’t washed up on the east coast and he saw an opportunity.

Over the last 20 years, Garrison, along with Halifax’s other well established brand Propeller, settled as two of Nova Scotia’s best known craft beer operations.

However, in the last few years, the craft brewing industry has exploded around the world and other new Nova Scotia brands and brewery operations seemingly come on stream every month.

BRIAN-HS-2For Brian Titus, it’s been a pretty amazing ride and Garrison continues to grow, trying to compete with new entries into the market and a shifting landscape.

I dropped into Garrison Breweries at their headquarters located in a part of Halifax’s original immigration annex on the waterfront, next door to the Seaport Market. Brian and I grabbed a Spruce beer and settled in for a conversation as a couple of folks nearby worked on a collaborative brew…

What the parties are saying about small business in the Nova Scotia election

baillieburrillmcneil

As an advocate for small business, job one is getting issues in front of politicians. Prior to this election, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) presented each of the parties in the Nova Scotia election a small business “platform’ outlining key areas our 5,200 members in Nova Scotia have identified as priorities.

We sent out a survey to the leaders and they responded. While it wouldn’t be appropriate for CFIB to endorse any of the party’s positions during a campaign, it seems clear each of them understand the importance small- and medium-size business plays in the economy. It’s also clear their approaches differ, sometimes dramatically.

The areas we focused on in the creation of the platform were tax relief, regulatory reform (or “red tape” reduction), spending restraint and support for SME innovation activities to increase productivity and competitiveness.

You can find our platform here, the survey for the leaders here and the responses we received on these issues from the parties, by clicking on their logos.

Atlantica  Green Party of NS nslplogo NDP  Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Nova_Scotia_2016

If you operate a business in Nova Scotia and are still considering your vote in this final weekend, it might be worthwhile to have a quick look at these documents. You can glean from them the importance each of the parties place on the issues we presented.

CFIB establishes its advocacy agenda based on responses to the many surveys we do of our membership to ensure we are focusing on the priorities that are important to small business. It’s our hope that any government elected on Tuesday, will do the same.

The future of our region depends on the prosperity of our small- and medium-sized businesses. We are not only the engine that drives the economy but are also the first to be impacted by bad government policy. I would encourage you to take few moments and have a look at where each of these parties intends to focus should they be given the opportunity to govern.

Winter is Coming

Game of Thrones

Nova Scotia’s electoral Game of Thrones is in full swing and while it may lack the dramatic flair of the HBO series, it has one thing in common, winter is coming. Unfortunately, the parties are either unaware of it or are seemingly oblivious to a stark reality.

All of the parties have launched their offensives by flinging open the doors to the treasury, each with new and creative ways to spend our tax dollars with the greatest political efficiency.

The number one priority for CFIB’s 5,200 members in Nova Scotia, consistently, is a reduction of the overall tax burden and the clearest path to this is through alignment of public sector wages and benefits to private sector norms and an overall reduction of the size of the public service. In other words, reduce the cost and the size of government.

For those who argue we have already been dealing with austerity budgets, here’s the reality. Since 2007 Nova Scotia government spending has risen from $7.3 billion to $10.5 billion, an increase of 43 per cent. Additionally, we’ve seen a whopping 22.5 per cent increase in our debt from $12.4 to $15.2 billion over the same time period. All this with an increase of only 16 per cent in the CPI (inflation) and our population flat-lining at 1.5 percent. This is not restraint and certainly not “austerity” by anyone’s definition.

Spending restraint is becoming more important than ever before. Perhaps because the weather is warming our politicians are floating sunny prognostications but there is an inevitable, relentless sociological cold front headed our way. Stretching our Game of Thrones metaphor, let’s call it “The Wall”.

According to Statistics Canada, that “wall” can be found in baseline population predictions. In 20 years, those over 65 years of age will make up fully 30 per cent of our population. A great majority of those will be out of the workforce and needing higher levels of healthcare. Keep in mind, in 2013, that same cohort made up only 17 per cent of Nova Scotia’s population.

By 2038, the forecasts indicate our median age will be nearly 50 and our overall population is expected to decline to under 934,000.

So who will carry additional tax load? If you’re a voter in your 20’s and 30’s, have a look in the mirror.

While efforts are being made to increase immigration, and claims are being made about having the largest population “ever”, the fact remains, unless we make some fundamental and dramatic changes to the way our government spends, we will be faced with some very, very difficult decisions indeed.

Absent in all of the spending promises in this election is a discussion of any long-term fiscal planning to deal with this issue. By long term, we don’t mean 4 years out, we mean 25 years out. Intergenerational forecasts which will set sustainable spending patterns.

Where are the real plans to deal with the inevitable decline in revenues from a shrinking and aging workforce? While some creative gains are being made through immigration, they are incidental and the problem is not getting people to Nova Scotia, it’s keeping them here. More than half of those who arrive leave within five years.

It’s not much wonder as we’ve been struggling with economic growth and carry the some of the highest tax burdens in the country. Our public service is nearly 5 points larger than the national average and their salaries and benefits are completely out of whack with private sector norms. Is anybody connecting the dots?

Meanwhile, the front pages are littered with political spending sprees.

Small business owners want politicians to have the courage to not just stop the bleeding, but begin to fix the problem through an actual reduction in the size of government, lowering the costs of doing business and a putting laser-like focus on better regulation and more efficient service delivery.

If not, we are sentencing our next generation to a cold, bleak future, on the other side of the wall.

This originally appeared in the Chronicle Herald, May 13, 2017

Cap and Trade for Nova Scotia Still Fuzzy for Small Business

cap-and-trade

The Nova Scotia government’s decision to go it alone with cap-and-trade to put a price on carbon raises more questions than answers.

This spring, government released a discussion paper, looking for feedback. They gave less than a month for responses and you needed a degree in environmental science to make any sense of what was being asked.

At an information session, executive director Jason Hollett of the climate change unit tried valiantly to outline a coherent picture, but he was working within an unreasonably tight timeline and without all the tools. In spite of a commendable effort, many left the session scratching their heads. Under questioning, somewhat ominously, he referred to the scheme as “a big regulatory beast.”

Without much heavy industry, Nova Scotia has few large greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters. Our coal-burning generating stations are pumping out the lion’s share (44 per cent). The transportation industry creates 27 per cent, followed by commercial and residential heat (combined 13 per cent) and the oil and gas industry (five per cent). The remainder comes from waste, agriculture and other industry.

For years, Nova Scotians have been paying through the nose to achieve GHG reductions through transition to renewable electricity generation and efficiency. We can pat ourselves on the back. After coughing up the highest power rates in the country over the last 10 years, our renewable portfolio has grown from seven to 27 per cent, exceeding our reduction targets.

Apparently unsatisfied with this progress, the Trudeau government, riding its mandate to legislate away climatic catastrophe, told Nova Scotia to put a price on carbon by 2018 or we’ll do it for you. The McNeil government initially balked, then came up with what it felt was the best option, a go-it-alone cap-and trade-system.

Using cap and trade, the premier successfully avoided the “carbon tax” narrative, opting instead for what appears to be a more saleable version.

The proposed Nova Scotia cap-and-trade model is fairly simple, but its administration is expected to be complex and therefore, presumably, costly.

Government will cap the amount of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere, hand out free credits for that tonnage to this handful of larger polluters and they can trade among themselves. When someone needs more, they can buy in this tiny market of emitters. How that will affect price is unclear.

A central tenet of carbon pricing is revenue neutrality. But with this plan, at least for now, there is no clarity in respect to dollars changing hands or how it will affect the price of electricity or fuel. Other questions: Will the incentive to be greener simply be higher energy and transportation costs? What would be the offset?

Moving ahead without the required evidence in respect to cost and competitiveness will frustrate business owners. In spite of a stated intention by government to measure and cost all regulation prior to application, none of these calculations are yet available.

While public servants are trying to align regulations between provinces to break down trade barriers, Nova Scotia’s approach (in spite of the premier’s openness to having the other Atlantic provinces jump on board) could result in two, three or four carbon pricing schemes in the region.

cap and trade chart

CFIB members support environmental initiatives. Seventy-nine per cent believe it is possible to grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time. But 80 per cent say government must consider the cost to small business before implementing a mechanism to price carbon. That means measuring and communicating real economic costs and environmental benefits and establishing a reasonable window for consultation and implementation.

In light of the work by this government to improve the regulatory environment, introduction of a “regulatory beast” feels counter-intuitive and environmental and economic impacts are still fuzzy. For something of this size and importance to be a cost of doing business in Nova Scotia, we need clarity.

This originally appeared in the Chronicle Herald, April 26, 2017

Council candidates on a Living Wage ordinance…leaving more questions than answers.

confusion

Halifax journalist/blogger Tim Bousquet has re-opened up a particularly interesting debate during this municipal election by asking candidates for council their opinion on a living wage ordinance.

On his Halifax Examiner site, Tim is dedicating a page to a couple of questions, one of which is, “Will you support a living wage ordinance?”* Tim provides some background where he argues his position in favour of such a policy and also includes another link to material promoting the idea at Living Wage Canada. There are no counter arguments presented.

*This might be behind a paywall, so if you really want to read the responses…click here

I’ve commented about this before, but here we go again.

For anyone unfamiliar with the idea, the Living Wage for Halifax was identified by the Centre for Policy Alternatives in a report commissioned by the United Way in 2015 and set at $20.10 per hour. The study sets the wage by establishing a baseline standard of living for a family of two working parents with two school aged children.

It weighs the needs of the family to live what the CCPA considers a dignified life with opportunities for advancement. There are a great many reasons to question the methodology, but for our purposes, let’s accept the figure at face value.

Bousquet sells the idea, explaining how he is puzzled how anybody not paying employees over 20.00 per hour can “look at themselves in the mirror” and goes on to note that at his publication, the Halifax Examiner, he pays everyone a living wage.

As a small business owner, Tim’s desire to see those he employs earning a fair wage is admirable. It is also not particularly uncommon. Most small business owners try to do the same. However, many small business owners do not have the luxury of meeting an arbitrary living wage target by simply employing part-timers and freelancers on an ad hoc basis.

Employers with full-time employees base their salaries on a variety of economic factors including the industry standards, the economic value and availability of labour, revenue and business costs, the profit margin of their company, payroll taxes, benefits and a myriad of other market-driven external economic pressures beyond the employer’s control.

Living wage ordinances are nothing new. They’ve been in place in many jurisdictions in the US since the 90’s but it is difficult to compare the Canadian and US experiences as the minimum wage rates and labour standards, in most states, have historically been much lower than the levels we have in Canada.

The beachhead for these living wage policies in Canada is in British Columbia. New Westminster has had a living wage ordinance in place since 2011, followed by Port Coquitlam.

Vancouver also recently approved a plan to become a living wage employer. However, interestingly, evidence now shows almost no one will earn more under this policy. Why? Because Vancouver established much stiffer criteria around who should be paid a living wage. Among other restrictions, only contractors who have an annual service contract with the city more than $250,000 and provide regular and ongoing services on city sites fall within the scope of the city’s guidelines.

The result is the Vancouver living wage policy is little more than a feel-good, public relations campaign so politicians can say they are doing something about wage inequity or poverty.

For municipal employees and large-scale suppliers, such as is the case in Vancouver, it won’t matter a whit. The vast majority, if not all, already are making more than $20.10 per hour already. In Halifax, many make much, much more, but for smaller firms where profit margins are slim, costs continue to escalate and labour is hard to find, it would matter a great deal.

Without the sort of restrictions we’ve seen in Vancouver, a living wage ordinance would be highly discriminatory for many small businesses who want to bid on city contracts.

It is a simplistic notion to think all companies doing business with the city can set an arbitrary full-time wage floor of $41,808 annually. Adopting a municipal ordinance to enforce such a notion would be disastrous for some small firms, which as part of their business model, do business with the municipality.

What would such an ordinance mean for employers who pay their seasonal employees $15.00, $17.00, $19.00 per hour? Are they simply be disqualified from the tendering process? It stands to reason a policy of this sort would also force employers wanting to be compliant to eliminate full-time positions and replace them with temporary, contract positions to meet the $20.10 per hour threshold.

Also, how would such an ordinance be enforced? How much red tape is required? Would the city demand all businesses submit their payroll to the municipality to confirm they employees are meeting the requirement or do they just sign a declaration? Does CRA get involved? Also, how would it affect the competitive tendering process?

And what happens to employment opportunities for lower-skilled workers? Certainly, employers are not going to be providing entry level positions at that pay scale. This means employment opportunities will simply dry up for youth and entry-level employees.

There would also be job losses with larger employers.  CentrePlate has a contract with the city and provides both part-time and full-time employment. Their workforce employs many youths and other entry-level or lower-skilled workers. For some, it’s an all-important first job, for others, it’s additional household income.

If the city were to institute a living wage policy, even one with the sorts of exemptions we see in Vancouver, CentrePlate would be captured. By almost doubling the wage floor from the current minimum wage of $10.70 to $20.10, a significant labour market distortion is created. CentrePlate would then have decisions to make. They would either reduce staff, cut service or operate at a loss. What do you suppose would happen?

My guess is the more experienced workers would keep their jobs, all full-time entry level positions would be eliminated, workers hours would be reduced and service levels lowered. How exactly does this help? Would council decide to exempt Centreplate? If so, what then becomes the criteria for exemption?

A municipal living wage ordinance would also mean private sector service providers would lose competitive advantage against municipal unions, which (in case the connection is not clear) is why CUPE, Unifor, and other labour organizations are funding these Living Wage campaigns.

There could be other unintended consequences as well, including upward pressure on other salaries. If $20.10 is the new base rate, experienced employees will rightly be asking for higher levels of compensation for their work. As labour costs rise, so will inflation.

With increased costs to government, businesses would also be forced to absorb higher taxes in this equation. Along with the higher wages, there will be additional payroll taxes in higher EI and CPP contributions and additional municipal property taxes.

So the two options emerging are; adopting a living wage policy with many exemptions such as in Vancouver or; adopting a universal living wage for all municipal staff and contractors. The first option is a do-nothing, status quo, public relations exercise, the second is an arbitrary, inflationary tax grab and job killer. Take your pick.

Money obviously just doesn’t magically appear when a policy like this is adopted. For most small businesses trying to grow, there is no money tree they can harvest or a pot of unused cash to make up these wages.

I do applaud Tim and the Examiner for injecting this question into the municipal election. While we don’t agree on this, there is no doubt it will be an important public policy debate in the months and years ahead. The labour movement is plowing lots of money into this campaign and there are lots of social activists cheerleading this as a poverty reduction measure, so it isn’t going away.

For those prospective councillors who have provided answers, I would respectfully suggest it might be a good idea to go back and do a little more research and then make up your mind. From the answers I read, for many, there appears to be confusion around what is a minimum wage, a living wage and for that matter, where and how the idea is being adopted.

You can find other background material here and here. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable as citizens to expect well thought out responses to complex problems from our prospective politicians after they’ve taken the time to evaluate more than one argument.

 

Economic barbed wire

Barbed Wire

Steps are being taken by Atlantic Canadian political leaders to dismantle a virtual wall erected between provinces over more than a century.

In perhaps one of the most memorable moments of his presidency, in 1987 Ronald Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gates in Berlin and implored Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall!” The purpose of the speech was to compel the Soviets to submit their economy to accountability, transparency, and greater freedom. While there may be lingering questions about the impact of Reagan’s rhetorical flourish, there’s no doubt the subsequent destruction of the Berlin Wall was transformative for the European economy.
While not the magnitude of Reagan’s oratorical overture, steps are being taken by political leaders in Atlantic Canada to dismantle a virtual wall erected between provinces over more than a century by creating a new office to begin pulling apart the red tape that often acts like economic barbed wire between provinces. Mention of internal trade barriers is frequently met with confused stares. After all, there are no border guards on the Confederation Bridge or economic sanctions against the province of Nova Scotia. Our members tell us that these barriers take the more insidious form of unnecessary and burdensome regulation.
Whether due to political interference, parochial interests, or simply grown from the nature of our different bureaucratic cultures, red tape inhibits businesses that aim to work in other jurisdictions by creating a prohibitive and expensive maze of differing rules, requirements, regulations, and practices.

From a business perspective, why do New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have different requirements in fall arrest requirements when gravity appears to act with remarkable similarity in both provinces? Why would first-aid kits in each province require different contents or trucks require different wide-load signage? Some of the examples border on the ridiculous, but either by default, or in some cases by design, all of these differences add cost, drag productivity, and ultimately make things more expensive for consumers.

The recent signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Europe further highlights the need to move on freer trade within Canada. In some cases, the new agreement means that European companies will have access to opportunities across Canada that companies in a neighbouring province or territory may not. With a more global business environment and greater opportunities for free trade, we can’t continue to ignore the impact that our own provincial differences have on our economic competitiveness.

In fact, a recent poll conducted for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) by Ipsos-Reid shows that the majority of working Canadians agree it’s time for premiers to work together to remove impediments to the flow of goods, services, and workers across provincial and territorial boundaries.

With that in mind, CFIB has been cheering some of the recent work being conducted by both the Council of Atlantic Premiers and the Council of the Federation to help tear down those walls. Earlier this year, Premiers Gallant and McNeil took the significant step of creating the Joint Office of Regulatory and Service Effectiveness between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. More recently, Prince Edward Island’s Premier Wade MacLauchlan and Newfoundland and Labrador’s government are showing interest in the process.

All of the Atlantic provinces stated in January that they would create an Atlantic Red Tape Reduction Partnership that would help streamline business requirements to create a more competitive economic environment within the region. Our neighbours are important trading partners, and we encourage these bodies to set meaningful regulation reduction targets, reach them, and report publicly on their achievements.

Further to regional work, the Council of the Federation (Premiers) has also been the scene of some encouraging progress. While we’ll have to wait until next spring to see what progress is made with reforms to our main national trade agreement, the Agreement on Internal Trade, we did see a positive step with the premiers signing the Provincial–Territorial Apprentice Mobility Protocol at their recent meeting in St. John’s.

Most notable about this new mobility protocol is that it follows the principle of mutual recognition. Rather than a lengthy bureaucratic process of trying to harmonize each and every regulation across each jurisdiction, the premiers simply said, “If it’s good enough in Province A, it’s good enough for Province B.” This is the gold standard for modern trade agreements and is precisely the direction we want our governments to go when removing barriers.

While the stakes may not seem as high in Atlantic Canada as for the Soviets in 1987, reality shows that we’re facing many daunting economic challenges and unfavourable demographics. With the world of trade changing around us, it’s becoming increasingly important that we work together to break down barriers between our provinces to make the best use of our economic and human resources. If we don’t, we risk isolating ourselves behind our walls of red tape.

Jordi Morgan is the vice-president, Atlantic Canada, and Erin McGrath-Gaudet is the director, P.E.I. and intergovernmental affairs, for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. CFIB represents the voices of 11,000 small and medium-size firms in Atlantic Canada, with 109,000 members across Canada.

This piece originally appeared in Progress 101 issue online, by subscription and on newstands across Canada

An Open Letter to Mayor and Council on the Donair Debate

KoD

October 27, 2015

Mr. Mike Savage
Mayor, Halifax Regional Municipality
Office of the Mayor
1841 Argyle Street
P.O. Box 1749
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3A5

Dear Mayor Savage,

As Vice-President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) which represents 1,600 small- and medium-sized employers (SMEs) in Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), I would like to offer my input on an important decision with which you and other members of council are currently grappling.

As you know, our organization communicates our members’ municipal concerns to you frequently via meetings, reports and appearances before council. We strive to provide background on the size and importance of the small business community across Nova Scotia and we share data which we collect through carefully controlled research procedures.

Among the recommendations we have made on behalf of our membership, we have advocated for reducing municipal red tape, additional controls on municipal spending, the gap between residential and commercial property tax rates, mitigating the impact of construction projects and other issues which affect the bottom line of small and medium size businesses.

Today I’m personally asking council to examine with diligence a proposal which may have significant and long term impact on the economic and cultural success of HRM. While CFIB has not undertaken direct research to determine the percentage of support among small businesses in the city, the overarching principles of support for small business guide my comments on this matter.

In many ways, the donair is emblematic of our way forward in Nova Scotia. In its history it has incorporated elements of innovation, supported the success of our immigrant community and added value by providing employment and cultural benefits.

Through the lens of the Ivany report, we can view the donair is both an asset and an opportunity. It is about Halifax as a community, it is about the courage to take a chance, our imagination and our determination to do better. The donair as an official food is a game changer that addresses the need for a city-wide commitment to growing the economy and the population.

Also in line with Ivany recommendations, making the donair the official food of Halifax has the potential to assist in slowing our demographic decline. How many times have you heard from ex-pat Haligonians on your travels, “I need to come home so I can have a donair.”

In many ways, the donair is indeed the embodiment of the Ivany’s goals. Who in Halifax has not after an evening out on the town not been compelled by an urgent call to action and chosen to have a donair? Who at one time or another has not stepped up to the counter, looked at the kebab and said, “It’s Now or Never!”

There are a great many attributes of the donair which must be taken into consideration from the perspective of supporting small business. The donair (in its purest form) is exclusively the product of small- and medium-size business. It is affordable, requires no increase in public sector spending and is virtually free of red tape. (Hot banana peppers should never be confused for red tape.)

Since the early 1970’s, Halifax has been the epicentre of this growing culinary phenomenon. One important small business played a critical role in the establishment of the donair as a staple in the Haligonian diet. My first exposure to a donair was in 1977 when, as a student in broadcasting school, the donair was my primary source of sustenance for well over 8 months. Every day before heading off to learn my trade, I would stop in at King of Donair on Quinpool Road and spend, as I recall under $3.00 for a single donair with hot peppers, parsley and a squeeze of lemon washed down by an ice cold Brio Chinotto. (Totally old school).

How many others, like me, were convinced to stay here in Nova Scotia and help build the economy as the result of having access to a cultural and culinary resource unavailable at the time in other parts of the country?

The Lebanese community has added a great many economic assets to our community and many of these were precipitated on the economic foundation provided by their culinary heritage. In recognition of their commitment and the commitment of all small business to the growth of our community and province, I provide my full support to the consideration of the donair as the official food of Halifax.

Jordi Morgan
VP Atlantic

cc:
Norman Nahas,
President,
Canadian Lebanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Embedding Entrepreneurship in Our Education Culture

Coding_Children_Blog
We may be witness to a tectonic shift at the Department of Education and small business should be pleased. Recognition is finally being given to the Ivany suggestion that for far too long Nova Scotia’s schools have valued raising public servants rather than entrepreneurs. The result of this refreshing direction of thinking is the inclusion of the voice of the business community in the P-12 education system.

The shift in thinking also seems to have been ignited by the shockingly dismal statistic that only 12 per cent of Nova Scotia’s students envision themselves as future entrepreneurs.

This fall, the department will create a Business-Education Council. It is, in the words of the action plan, “a forum where business can identify the skills and attributes students need to be successful, create a database of entrepreneurs to serve as mentors, support teachers’ awareness of economic growth sectors and the importance of developing entrepreneurial skills across the curriculum.” Bravo. It’s about time.

There are a variety of other positives in this initiative including expanding the delivery of Junior Achievement and embedding and updating entrepreneurship courses. CFIB is hopeful Nova Scotia’s entrepreneurs will find time to contribute to this opportunity.

In recent surveys, CFIB members are expressing dismay with the qualifications of young people who are coming into the workforce poorly prepared for real world challenges. Many business owners tell us they find both the quality of applicants and the work ethic of new hires have deteriorated in recent years, particularly when recruiting for entry-level jobs. There are also serious gaps in finding workers for higher skilled jobs resulting from disconnects in our education system.

For example, when the shipbuilding contract was awarded, the department was quick to highlight the creation of training programs to fill what was seen as an immediate need for welders, pipe-fitters, electricians, etc. While these are useful and praiseworthy trades, the glaring omission was the tremendous opportunity the shipbuilding contract offers in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector.

Naval warships are second only to spacecraft in the advancement of technological innovation. Most of our computing advances of the 20th century are rooted in NASA and military applications. Along with biotech and other digital start up opportunities, Nova Scotia is poised to become an epicenter not just corporate development, but also growth of small and medium-size businesses in ICT.

So it is good news to see the Minister announcing that coding will finally be introduced in Nova Scotia classrooms next year. Until this week`s announcement, coding and computational thinking has been largely absent from our school curriculums. Yes, children must be given a strong, broad based education in the early years focused on numeracy and literacy, but options must be available as they progress through late elementary and junior high to understand code, the working language of the tech sector. It’s great to teach Gaelic, but C++, Java and Python may be a tad more useful in the workplace of the 21st century. Pardon the pun, but it’s about time we got with the program.

Imagine if we are able to create an education system where other western school systems look for best practices in ICT education, where learning about the development of ICT is as important as using it, where parents wish to immigrate to educate their children in these areas and where businesses want to locate because of the base of ICT talent.

There are other positive signs. Spurred by private sector investors and supported by the province, Brilliant Labs is establishing spaces where young children can grasp the fundamentals of technology and design through interactive workshops. Acadia University’s high school robotics competition could also be a game-changer, but the fact remains, beyond bringing in IBM and Google consultants to orient existing teachers, there is a need for systemic change to grow our capacity to teach coding, CS and entrepreneurship.

Acadia University’s Master’s level teaching programs is producing a very small stream of new teachers who have a background in CS. For this to be successful however, we need the department of education to do what it must to keep these teachers in Nova Scotia. That means plans to create teaching positions for those who are qualified to instill not just the spirit but also the competencies of entrepreneurship in our next generation.

There are tremendous opportunities for contributing to society and personal success available through entrepreneurship and CFIB is delighted the Department of Education has identified this as a priority. We wholeheartedly support the establishment of the Business-Education Council.

Let’s hope this government’s action plan takes root in the department. Let’s also hope along with public service and personal growth, innovation, the development of a strong work ethic, creation of personal wealth and local economic prosperity are also seen, as they are by entrepreneurs, as important measures of success.

This blog post also appeared in the online version of the Halifax Chronicle Herald on October 24th, 2015