Author Archives: brucescribe

May 16 2014
Leave a comment
Economy, Transportation

Who’s been working on the railroad?

 

DSC_0078

A former Conservative henchman once declared that Canada’s passenger rail line receives operating subsidies from the federal government thanks solely to the general public’s sentimental attachment to trains – or, rather, the idea of them.

During an interview with the Globe and Mail in 2012, ex-transport minister Chuck Strahl, opined that “train travel in Canada has this romantic notion that if we all rode the rails, all of our problems would disappear.”

To which I might rejoin, “Well, wouldn’t they?” 

Though I haven’t had much occasion recently to “ride the rails,” when in the past I have, I managed to settle the affairs of my own corner of the world with greater alacrity and confidence than I’ve ever managed to muster whilst whipping down a pot-hole-strewn highway or jetting through turbulence in the lower stratosphere.

There’s just something about a train ride that’s so comforting, so evocative of a more elegant, civilized time. Indeed, Mr. Strahl was right. All such sentimental journeys are, by nature, romantic. But what, pray tell, is wrong with that?

The blunt truth is that without some form of public support (both financial and material) passenger rail service in Canada would die a fast and furious death. The numbers just don’t add up to suit the neo-cons and free-market proselytizers among us. Predictably, every government cut to Via Rail since the early 1980s, has hastened that federal Crown corporation’s demise. In fact, if I had any faith in the proposition that governments actually know how to plan for the future I would swear that the gutting of the “national dream” was a deliberate, carefully executed plot.

Today, Via’s national, intercity service provides 497 trains a week in all provinces, except Newfoundland Labrador and Prince Edward Island, rolling over 12,500 kilometers of track. More than four million passengers a year avail themselves of the service, though most travel the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

That may sound like a robust business, but since 1981, federal subsidy cuts have have prompted the railroad to chop from the outside in. 

In 2012, the Canadian line between Toronto and Vancouver was reduced to two, from three, days a week. The Ocean line between Halifax and Montreal was hacked to three, from six days a week. Other service cutbacks in the Corridor line west of Toronto followed suit. 

With each cut, of course, comes a self-fulfilling prophesy: ridership actually falls which, in turn, justifies more reductions in service and frequency down the road. 

All of which makes the news of Via’s decision last week to spent $10 million fixing a stretch of track between Miramichi and Bathurst welcome, indeed, though Via CEO Yves Desjardins-Siciliano offered an overly circumspect explanation for the move:

“We took three months to look at our options with the rail line, meet the province, municipalities, look at the market opportunity, and convince ourselves that if we made the investment and re-tarted the service, that there would be a possibility for growth,” he said at the announcement. “I think three months to look at that is reasonable.”

Actually, it’s rather ominous, for what Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano is scrupulously avoiding, in his statement, is the fact that without this paltry investment, all passenger rail traffic from the Maritimes to Quebec would effectively cease. Thirty years ago, such a scenario would have been unthinkable in official circles. Today, well, not so much.

As for the financial patch, “it’s useful,” national transportation consultant Greg Gormick told this newspaper’s Cole Hobson recently. “It’s useful, but it doesn’t represent any big change in thinking, any admission that we have some problems with the rail passenger system. . .There has to be a plan to boost the ridership and improve the promotion of the train. That’s the crunch. I think there’s still a lot of things that need to be done before anyone knows which way they can turn on this.”

The fact remains that without some form of government support, the numbers for privately administered rail – especially along the lightly populated Halifax-Montreal corridor – will never add up.

Yet, trains are an integral part of our history, our psyche, and, despite their cost, they do provide an essential, environmentally efficacious, mode of transportation without which all Canadians are somehow diminished.

 

Tagged , ,
May 15 2014
Leave a comment
Business, Municipal Affairs

Moncton’s cultural climate change is past due

 

IMG_0743

The great “snow dome of 2014” across the street from this fine rabbit warren of esteemed scribblers and other ink-stained wretches has all but vanished – proof, perhaps, that when Moncton wants to get things done, it does so in a more convincing fashion than any other city of its size in Canada. 

Here, even the weather cooperates, eventually.

Of course, what’s now emerging, as the ice melts, is the vast, crumbling parking lot that once belonged to the now vacant Highfield Square – a testament either to unrealized potential or dereliction of duty, depending on how the municipal cards fall over the next few months. 

In our bones, we Monctonians know that the greater metropolitan area needs, nay deserves, a new multi-purpose events and entertainment centre. We’ve been thinking about it for decades, talking about it for years. After all, it only makes sense.

A facility with suitable amenities and capacity (the sweet spot is between 9,000 and 12,000 seats) would generate, according to reputable estimates, between $12 and $15 million in annual spending and attract between 317,000 and 396,000 people to the downtown core, where 18,000 souls already work, thousands more reside and hundreds of shops, cafés, bistros, and restaurants operate under seasonably variable circumstances. A downtown centre would, quite simply, anchor these opportunities year round.

Those few among us who still cling to the proposition that Moncton is at its best when it’s flat on its back romanticize adversity to maniacally absurd dimensions. A turtle dies when it can’t turn over, when it can’t move. And Moncton is no turtle. 

Mayor George LeBlanc’s state of the city address earlier this week was instructive. In it, he reminded his Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club audiences that a centre will cost $100 million, give or take, and that “we have to get it right. Let’s go big or stay home.”

He also pointed out, according to a report in this newspaper that, “for the first time, the city reached more than $400 million in tourist dollars spent last year – $409 million, to be exact. Moncton saw 1.65 million visitors in 2013, which outperformed all of the Maritime cities by about 20 per cent. LeBlanc reiterated the city’s stance on a hotel levy which would need to be regulated by the province. It would aid the infrastructure spending needed to attract even more tourists to the city.”

What’s more, “LeBlanc touched on the fact that the city saw an average of about $500,000 in new construction spending a day with 2013’s total building permits issued and reminded those at the meeting that Moncton was named best place to do business in all of North America – not once but twice, referring to 2012’s and 2013’s KPMG cost-competitive ratings.”

These are not the indicators of a city that resigns itself to second- or third-rate status in the nation’s municipal cosmos. 

Moncton’s civic boosters (and I am one of them) have routinely trotted out that old trope that we “punch above our weight class.” It’s a phrase that always plays well in the center of the country, where condescending attitudes about small cities insulates citizens in the megalopolis from the truth about their obligations to the rest of us. Good for us, they say; just as long as we look after our own problems, as we orphans in this Constitution must. 

I wonder if we, in this distinctly unpromising corner of of the nation, should adopt any spin-managed message to represent ourselves to the world. Our economic development record in Moncton speaks for itself. Our community is as diverse and vibrant as any other in this country. We have been, and continue to be, the masters of our own fortunes – the true “hub”’of economic adventure, of enterprise, in New Brunswick. 

That we should honour this by enhancing it with a sparkling, glittering, ridiculously busy downtown core is, frankly, a no-brainer. It’s in our civic DNA. It’s our customary right of passage through the chaos of economic and social dislocation elsewhere in New Brunswick. 

It is time to move our municipal conscience forward, before another deep winter buries us in ice, before our hearts finally fail to melt the “snow dome” that threatens to take up permanent residence where culture deserves to triumph.

 

Tagged ,
May 14 2014
1 Comment
Society

The time is for taking more responsibility

 

DSC_0027

When did everyone suddenly become so accountable?

Clearly, it happened on one of those occasions when we had our backs turned against the zeitgeist, when the arbiters of les mots du jour were feeling particularly shame-faced over some likely inconsequential misdemeanor. Now we’re stuck with one of the least inspiring measurements of virtue ever invented.

Politicians must be accountable, so must the governments they lead: To whom, exactly, is still a matter of some conjecture.

Corporate directors are nothing if not accountable to their shareholders whose interests they protect with quantities of vigor in direct proportion to the size of voting-class stock in play. 

Doctors are accountable to their patients, and patients are accountable to their insurers. Meanwhile, insurers are accountable to their (you guessed it) shareholders.

Teachers are accountable to their students. Students are accountable to their parents. Parents are accountable to their credit card companies, which, in turn, pay junior’s tuition and away-from-home living expenses.

To be accountable is to be answerable, subject, liable amenable, obligated, chargeable.

On the other hand, to be accountable is not necessarily to be responsible. There’s an important distinction between the two. 

Just ask Pasi Sahlberg, the Director General of Finland’s Centre for International Mobility – the centerpiece of its teacher education system. In an interview last year with American documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, the administrator was unequivocal:

“The Finnish language doesn’t have  word for ‘accountability’, particularly in education. Accountability is something this is left when responsibility is subtracted. In many places, people are getting education completely wrong when they think that stronger accountability – more testing, more evaluation, more penalties against teachers and principals – works.”

His bragging rights appear to be genuine. According to a piece in the Smithsonian magazine not long ago, “In 2000. . .the first results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues, revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. Three years later, they led in math. By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science. In the 2009 PISA scores released last year, the nation came in second in science, third in reading and sixth in math among nearly half a million students worldwide.”

None of which explains why Finland dropped from first to twelfth in the world in last year’s PISA assessments, of course. But does that make Finnish educators accountable to a system that’s creaking or responsible for getting everybody, including themselves, back on track?

Personally, I prefer door number two in this and just about every other human game show in which people rely on one another’s good graces to get ahead.

In the latter part of the 20th Century, notions of accountability emerged in the sometimes indistinguishable fields of government, business, sports and entertainment when, it became appallingly clear, leaders and celebrities oftentimes shared the moral compass of an amoeba. 

Oh look, there’s Billy-Bod Clinton playing “chase the nubile political intern” in the Oval Office. What a dirtbag! Oh well, if we can’t make him more responsible, we can certainly hold him accountable. How do you spell impeachment, again? 

The current Canadian government adores the concept of accountability and all it implies. It even maintains something called a Management Accountability Framework that purportedly, “support(s) the management accountability of deputy heads” and 

“improve(s) management practices across departments and agencies,” though it’s not immediately clear how any of that works.

The problem with emphasizing accountability over good old fashioned responsibility is that, in a funny way, we let out ourselves off the hook. We imagine that as flawed, weak mortals, we will transgress in, as yet, uncountable ways, so we’d better have the woodshed site-ready for the inevitable floggings we’ll take. Once properly flogged, we’re again free to offend if, that is, we’re again prepared to face the consequences.  

Accountability assumes that punishment is the inevitable denouement of every story. Responsibility resides in the spiritual fortification where trust, faith, honor, duty, and charity still thrive.

There, with only the best of all possible luck, we may find the next generation of political leaders. 

 

Tagged , , , , , ,
May 13 2014
Leave a comment
Economy, Employment, Oil and Gas

Where are our new adventures in enterprise?

 

Down the rabbit hole of unemployment

Down the rabbit hole of unemployment

In coming to grips with what ails the Canadian job market, the nation, the region, our cities and towns have tried it all, only to conclude that the 21st Century is looking less like the 20th and more like the 19th.

A piece in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal yesterday brilliantly evokes the wild west that is Fort McMurray. “Go and spend a week (there) and see what life is like,” a local family lawyer, whose juggling several divorce cases, says. “From what I understand, and what’s described to me by women, it’s Dodge City, circa 1870. There are bars, strip joints, hookers.”

Such are the familiar lures of a boom town hooked on the almighty petro-dollar. In fact, most good jobs in this country are going this way (sans strippers and prostitutes as signing bonuses).   

Forget environmental engineering; think geology and hydrology. If that’s too academically rich for your blood (and if you can drive a stick) consider that an oil sands worker with a high school diploma can earn between $90,000 and $120,000 a year base salary. 

Consider, also, that federal government labour policies explicitly encourage people to work in this sector – to leave their homes in their less promising regions and lasso their own personal moons in Big Sky country. 

Yet, lest we fully become a nation of truckers and wildcatters, a few are issuing one last, possibly quixotic, call for reason in the job market. Weirdly, they are bankers who, one could argue, have the most to gain from unalloyed oil and gas prosperity.

Still, writes Gordon Dixon, chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada and chair of the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council, “Diversity and immigration are important parts of Canada’s past, present and future.”

His commentary appeared in yesterday’s edition of the Globe and Mail: “Our diverse population is only an advantage to the extent we are inclusive. Full inclusion means means everyone feels enabled to bring their perspectives, knowledge and experience to the table. Diversity, together with inclusion, plays a central role in driving productivity, innovation and growth.”

And here I thought productivity, innovation and growth had only to do with how much oil you can squeeze from a stone. At least, that’s what I read on the packaging before I drank deeply of the Kool-Aid. 

Not that there aren’t immigrants labouring away in the oil sands. It’s just that there aren’t many opportunities in the new west’s resource industries to demonstrate one’s native proclivities for diversity. Fortunately, we don’t have that particular problem in merry old New Brunswick, where our primary industries (such as they are) are failing both to retain existing residents and attract new ones. 

Last week, Statistics Canada (yes, it’s still alive and kicking after the federal government’s latest round of cutbacks, though just barely) reported that New Brunswick had lost 5,400 jobs (or, at least, 5,400 fewer people were working) in April. That pushed up the overall provincial unemployment rate to 10.5 per cent.

Imagine the entire population of Sackville – home of sweet Mount Allison University, alma mater to my grandfather, father and daughter – suddenly packing up their things an hitting the road en mass like a caravan of Okies from Muskogee. 

Charlie Coffey can imagine it. He’s a guest speaker at this week’s provincial jobs summit. The title of his address is “People Power is the Competitive Advantage: Building a Diverse Workforce in the 21st Century.”

Not surprisingly, perhaps, he’s a former executive vice-president of the Royal Bank who retired after 44 years. Again, he says, coming to grips with what ails us in this region is all about recognizing the importance of diversity.

Let’s not put all our eggs in one industrial basket. Let’s open up our hearts, minds and borders to different perspectives, new entrepreneurial opportunities, new adventures in enterprise.

“Since diversity is an integral part of business success, leveraging diversity has little to do with compliance and legal requirements and more to do with good business – smart business,” Mr. Coffey told the Telegraph-Journal recently. “Sometimes people find it hard to see how diversity and the bottom line are related.”

Of course, that’s only natural when, on any given day, the future of our conjoined economies looks very much like their past.

 

Tagged , , , , ,
May 12 2014
Leave a comment
Democracy, Politics

Quizzing the nation’s happy, ignorant citizens

 

IMAG0672-1

Canada may only rate a “gentleman’s C” for the democratic timber of her governance. In fact, when it comes to fair, just and responsible representation, the Great White North may be slipping up in all sorts of ways. But do we care?

Over the past few years, the tone of discourse on Parliament Hill has fractured into dozens of discordant shards, each cutting away at the comforting conceit that this country is not only a paragon of egalitarian virtue – it’s a courteous one at that.

From bitterly partisan attacks on former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page  – who had the gall to do his job well – to salvos lobbed earlier this month at Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin – who deigned to question the prime minister on a matter of procedure – evidence of the federal government’s disdain for any authority other than its own is mounting. 

And yet, we tell ourselves: Don’t worry, be happy.

Not long ago, the Ottawa-based Centre for the Study of Living Standards – an independent think tank whose projects are financed by a variety of public and private sources – concluded that “Canadians are happy and getting happier.” 

Based on the results of a survey it conducted in 2012, it noted that “more than nine out of 10 Canadians aged 12 and over (92.3 per cent) reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their lives.”

In fact, the Center reported, “According to a Gallup World Poll taken in February 2012, Canada is the second happiest country in the world preceded only by Denmark. Our ranking has increased from fifth place (2007-8 Gallup World Poll), indicating that Canada is becoming happier relative to its international peers.”

The regional variations were also striking. The traditionally poorer provinces – where consistently good governance tends to be diamond-rare – were happier than the wealthier ones. “Based on the 2003-2011 period average, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest average levels of life satisfaction, while British Columbia, Ontario and Nunavut had the lowest,” the Centre observed. “Between 2003 and 2011, life satisfaction increased by a statistically significant amount in Quebec and the Yukon.”

Clearly, it’s not the calibre of our politics that keeps us up at night. 

Last week, the Centre released another report – this one on “sustainable governance indicators” for Germany’s Bertelsmann Foundation. In it, the authors Andrew Sharpe, Anke Kessler and Martin Thunert conclude that “A strong case can be made that the quality of governance provided by the government of Canada deteriorated somewhat from May 2011 to May 2013. While the government has constructed high-quality governance structures and implemented effective policies in many areas over many decades, the actions of the Conservative government since winning a majority of the seats in the House of Commons in May 2011 have jeopardized this situation.”

Indeed, say the authors, “There are numerous examples in which Canada’s government has demonstrated a lack of commitment both to the use of evidence in its decision-making and to the provision of high-quality data.”

There is, for example, the elimination of the once-mandatory long form census, without which economists, educators, actuaries, scientists and my Aunt Mabel are in the dark about practically everything that’s necessary to maintaining a high standard of living.

There’s also the Tory fascination with putting bad guys in jail and throwing away the key, even though what statistics we still collect clearly show that incidents of violent crime in Canada are on a 40-year downslope.

Then, of course, there’s the environment to which our official attitudes have cooled even as the Earth has grown demonstrably warmer. 

“The government’s skeptical attitude toward global warming and apparent unwillingness to offer an effective strategy for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as manifested by its repeal of the Kyoto Accord, are seen by many as inconsistent with sustainable governance,” notes the Center’s report.

Still, why don’t more of us care? We should. 

Sustainable democratic governance is the wellspring of everything we take for granted and on which we, nevertheless, depend. 

We may have a right to pursue that which makes us happy, but not to the extent of deluding ourselves about the condition of the public institutions that make the pursuit possible.

 

Tagged , ,
May 09 2014
Leave a comment
Economy, Government, Politics

Setting the fiscal stage for a political melodrama

 

cropped-img-20120922-000031.jpg

It is organizationally awkward, bureaucratically regressive and probably unworkable. 

But say this for the drafters of New Brunswick’s newest law designed to reign in public spending: When it comes to crafting high, political theatre, they hold a candle to no one; certainly, no other Canadian legislator of similarly hawkish mien.

With one merry swoop in deference to the provincial election, coming soon to a voting station near you, Finance Minister Blaine Higgs has tabled the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, which he says will render New Brunswick “one of the most accountable provinces in Canada.” 

It will do this, apparently, by requiring government to reduce the deficit by at least $125 million – or, as the case may be, preserve a budgetary surplus – in any given year. The consequences of failure would, for the first time, directly hit each cabinet minister where he or she lives: in the pocketbook, and in the form of a $2,500 penalty.

The Act, its proponents claim, will also restore common sense to the administration of the province’s finances – which currently labour under a $500-million deficit and a long-term debt of almost $12 billion – by compelling political parties to put a dollar figure beside each of their election promises at the risk of losing their annual operating allowances.

In his official statement in the Assembly, Mr. Higgs struck a triumphant tone.  “New Brunswick will be the only province with this level of transparency required for election promises,” he said. “Elected representatives must be accountable for taxpayers’ dollars, not only when making commitments to voters, but also when making decisions at the cabinet table. Just as New Brunswickers must face personal consequences for not keeping up with household bills, Mr. Speaker, so must elected representatives see personal consequences for not keeping up with our province’s bills. That. . .is true accountability.”

Perhaps; still, it’s odd that the only way this government seems able to deliver “true accountability” to taxpayers is by functioning as if it were its own trustee in bankruptcy

In effect, these new schedules of penalties for non-performance and injunctions against empty promises all but concede that government is a wastrel. It’s a deadbeat dad whose awful track record with the family’s nest egg has landed the whole clan in the chicken coop. It can’t be counted upon to do the right thing on its own. 

Clearly, then, the solution should be obvious: The Tory government will regulate itself, just like before; only. . .well, better.

Astonishingly, the province’s other main parties seem all too willing to oblige Mr. Alward and company in legitimizing this fiction.

Liberal finance critic Roger Melanson made a good show of his faux opposition on Wednesday when he intoned, “To have the minister of finance present this piece of legislation and make a statement like this, it’s quite ironic in the fact that if you look at the specific results from this government and this minister of finance for the last three-and-a-half years, he has missed his financial targets over and over and over.”

A New York minute later he had this to say: “It (the Act) makes sense and I think taxpayers, New Brunswickers, are expecting any political party or any government to be accountable, to be transparent and to be financially responsible.”

But how valid is that commitment when it’s delivered under threat of self-imposed reprisals in the event that the government falls off the spending wagon once again?

Moreover, what are the new costs associated with administering a law that must involve third parties to mete out its complex brand of justice? Are there mitigating circumstances that might waive the various fines and levies? If so, when and how do they kick in?

According to the legislation, cabinet ministers are off the hook if certain “extraordinary events” such as recessions, natural calamities and other so-called acts of God cost the budget $20 million or more. Again, though, who decides what fits the definitions, and what are the mechanisms? 

One element does seem clear, much to the expected chagrin of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. In a nicely sneaky and utilitarian way, the new legislation essentially guts the archly populist (and retrograde) Taxpayer Protection Act. 

Now, a government that faces a $400-million annual deficit in New Brunswick no longer needs to hold a referendum to obtain the public’s expressed permission to raise new taxes or hike the HST.

Here, then, witness one piece of political theatre stooping to conquer another in high style, indeed.

 

Tagged , ,
May 08 2014
Leave a comment
Media, Wealth

When our knowledge is unequal to our opinion

 

IMG-20120908-00198

Whenever a columnist, book reviewer or any other species of gum-flapper, who’s paid to pontificate windily about the world’s state of affairs, writes something like, “I don’t know much about this subject, but that’s never stopped me before,” I usually take that as a helpful invitation to stop reading.

Occasionally, though, curiosity gets the better of me. 

So it was the other morning when I stumbled across a line in Margaret Wente’s latest attempt to speak for the common man from her lofty perch, at the Globe and Mail,  as one of Canada’s best-known columnists.

In her diatribe against “liberal policy elites” who are snapping up copies of French economist Thomas Piketty’s new book about the growing divide between those who have and those who have not in western societies, Mrs. Wente declared, “I’m not qualified to analyze Mr. Piketty’s work (Capital in the Twenty-First Century), which even critics have described as ‘brilliant’. My question is why now?”

Her answer was transparently deflective: “The progressive elites have been completely captured by the declinist narrative. . .There’s just one problem with this. Although highly educated social progressives are alarmed by the scenario, hardly anybody else is.”

She then “proves” her point by quoting surveys that show that regular folk – you know, “real” people – couldn’t give a toss about so-called income inequality. In fact, what Joe and Jane Public care most about is government incompetence and waste.

Now, there’s a straw man if ever one came tumbling out of the opinion pages of Canada’s national newspaper. 

Ms. Wente may not like “policy elites”. She may have reasons to distrust them. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the deleterious socio-economic effects of the ever-widening gulf between the rich and rest. 

Equally, the apparent sanguinity of the general public doesn’t automatically denote that the average man and woman on the street is right. In fact, it doesn’t even go to the root of the problem.

Has it occurred to Ms. Wente that one reason why middle earners are more ticked off with governments than rich people is that they recognize how tax policies,  which were supposed to protect the common interest, have effectively accelerated the concentration of wealth among the one per cent?   

Besides, asking someone directly whether he’s worried about income and wealth inequities is like asking a farmer whether he’s concerned about crop failure. Sure, in a general sort of way. But it’s not real until it happens, up close and personal. And in this regard, data trumps anecdote every time. 

Earlier this year, a formerly confidential government report (made public through an Access to Information request by Canadian Press) declared that “the Canadian dream is a myth more than a reality.”

In fact, its findings pointed to “a middle class that isn’t growing in the marketplace, is increasingly indebted though it has a relatively modest standard of living, and is less likely to move to higher income (i.e., the middle class is no springboard to higher incomes).”

Other findings included:

“Over 1993-2007, there has been a slight hollowing out of the middle class, and the face of the middle class has changed considerably. Couples without young children and unattached individuals now account for most middle-class families.”

Meanwhile, “although middle-income families experienced a good progression in after-tax income, the same cannot be said of their earnings. In particular, the wages of middle-income workers have stagnate. . .Although the middle class holds a relatively fair share of the ‘wealth pie’, higher-income families have far greater nest eggs. Furthermore, wealth is not equally divided among middle-income families, with those headed by younger individuals being at a disadvantage.”

Compared with other western nations, Canada actually fares pretty well. But for how long? 

The economics of rampant income inequality is not an issue of pocketbook envy. Disparities in the currency that makes everyone’s world go round generate disparities in every avenue of life, from education to health care and, eventually, to the consumer sectors that sustain all goods and service-producing industries.

Although I am one of those gum-flappers who gets paid to pontificate windily, this time you can trust me.

I actually do know a little something about these things.

 

Tagged , , , , ,
May 07 2014
Leave a comment
Energy, Environment, Oil and Gas

Slow-dancing with shale gas in New Brunswick

 

DSC_0034

Government and industry types, desperate to envision a way out of New Brunswick’s straightened economic and fiscal circumstances, routinely point their fingers to the future and declare it full of shale gas. 

Now, a new report by a group of people that actually knows something about science, evidence and the perils of jumping to conclusions advises us to cool our jets. The future isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.    

The multidisciplinary (and excessively named) Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction, convened by the Council of Canadian Academics at the behest of Environment Canada, warns that not only do we lack adequate information about the effects of tight-play, onshore petroleum production in Canada, most of us are even too ignorant to ask the right questions.

In essence, to paraphrase former U.S, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, we don’t know what we don’t know.

“Society’s understanding of the potential environmental impacts has not kept pace with development, resulting in gaps in scientific knowledge about these impacts,” the report says. “In most instances, shale gas extraction has proceeded without sufficient environmental baseline data being collected (e.g., nearby groundwater quality, 

critical wildlife habitat). This makes it difficult to identify and characterize environmental impacts that may be associated with or inappropriately blamed on this development.”

The solution, it appears, is to adopt a go-slow approach, the advantage of which “allow for additional data collection, to permit adaptation to the implications of new information, and to encourage integration of multidisciplinary expertise. . .There may also be some negative impacts of development that cannot be eliminated, and the scientific basis for identifying areas that are particularly vulnerable has not been established.”

None of which is especially good news for the likes of Premier David Alward or his energy czar, Minister Craig Leonard.

For at least three years, they, like most members of provincial cabinet, have been crowing as loudly as they can muster about the extraordinary economic benefits that will accrue from a safe, reliable, environmentally responsible shale gas industry. On this point, they have assembled, drafted, edited, amended and finally released what they claim are the toughest standards and guidelines for shale gas development anywhere in North America.

But, as the report points out, they’re getting woefully ahead of themselves.

Although the panel goes out of its way to acknowledge that the industry in Canada has cleaned up its act in recent years through “recycling (and) reducing land disruption by concentrating more wells at each drilling site, reducing the volumes of the toxic chemicals it uses, and reducing methane emissions during well completions,” it also stipulates that “other impacts, such as cumulative effects on land, fugitive GHG emissions, and groundwater contamination, are more problematic. 

“This is the case because available mitigation technologies are untested and may not be sufficient; scientific understanding is incomplete; and the design of an adequate regulatory framework is hampered by limited information.”

A proper rules system, the experts insist, “must be based on appropriate science-driven, outcome-based regulations with strong performance monitoring, inspection, and enforcement.”

For his part, Mr. Leonard is playing it cool. The report, he says, does nothing to dissuade him from pursuing the current course in the manner he has chosen. Slow down? But, of course, he declares. 

“When people say ‘Slow the process down,’ the fact is we haven’t done anything except for seismic testing over the last three years,” he noted last Thursday, following the report’s release.

“We aren’t going to have any new drilling taking place at least until next year and we probably won’t even have any actual hydraulically fracked wells being drilled in shale formations for a couple of years. So there is time to be building this information.”

And, perhaps, a better consensus across the province. 

Lack of information breeds systemic ignorance, which, in turn, fuels unproductive rancor and fear (as opposes to useful and constructive debate). 

The time this report suggests we purchase for ourselves should be spent educating ourselves about the true and likely impact of shale gas development in the specific geological and geographical conditions that are native to New Brunswick.

Only then will any of us possess the knowledge to accurately foresee the shape of things to come.

 

Tagged , , , , ,
May 06 2014
Leave a comment
Idiocracy, Municipal Affairs

A year in the life of a Hog Town mayor

 

DSC_0152

For reasons known only to the furies, each time I travel to Toronto, I bring with me atrocious luck for its hapless, erstwhile chief magistrate.

To be honest, I had no inkling I had such compelling cosmic connections. But the evidence is now irrefutable.

First, last spring, I deplaned into a waiting limo at Pearson airport, there to tuck into copies of the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail dutifully reporting sorry, scandalous allegations about Rob Ford’s extracurricular activities involving known drug dealers, a crack pipe and cell phone video clip.

“Absolutely not true,” the wounded mayor bellowed when scrummed by members of the media. “It’s ridiculous. It’s another Toronto Star whatever. . .I do not use crack cocaine, nor am I addicted to crack cocaine. As for a video, I cannot comment on a video that I have never seen or does not exist. It is most unfortunate, very unfortunate, that my colleagues and the great people of this city have been exposed to the fact that I have been judged by the media without evidence.”

In August, I was back and so was Mr. Ford in Hog Town’s increasingly funny papers. Having raised a ruckus in the city’s east end, the visibly inebriated public official  later insisted on his radio call-in show: “I drove myself down there, I was not drinking. I went out, had a few beers and I did not drive home. My people met me.”

Some after that, however, he admitted that what had occurred “was pure stupidity I shouldn’t have got hammered down at the Danforth. If you’re going to have a couple drinks you stay home, and that’s it. You don’t make a public spectacle of yourself.”

Summer faded as Mr. Ford’s troubles escalated, and by my November trip to TO, the mayor was sullenly singing a different tune. 

“I am not perfect,” he said. “I have made mistakes. I have made mistakes, and all I can do right now is apologize for the mistakes. . .Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine. But, no – do I? Am I an addict? No. Have I tried it? Um, probably in one of my drunken stupors, probably approximately about a year ago.”

Now, courtesy of a Globe and Mail “exclusive” last Thursday (just in time for my first visit with my second Toronto grandkiddy), we are proud to witness this:  

“A second video of. . .Rob Ford smoking what has been described as crack cocaine by a self-professed drug dealer was secretly filmed in his sister’s basement early Saturday morning. The clip, which was viewed by two Globe and Mail reporters , shows Mr. Ford taking a drag from a long copper-coloured pipe, exhaling a cloud of smoke and then frantically shaking his right hand.”

On Friday, shortly before midnight, the frequently dazed and confused mayor issued the following statement:

“Tonight, I want to take some time to speak from my heart to the people of Toronto.  It’s not easy to be vulnerable, and this is one of the most difficult times in my life. I have a problem with alcohol and the choices I have made while under the influence. I have struggled with this for some time. Today, after taking some time to think about my own well-being, how to best serve the people of Toronto and what is in the best interests of my family, I have decided to take a leave from campaigning and from my duties as mayor to seek immediate help.”

Of course, had he faced his responsibilities earlier, he might have saved the city and the people he claims he loves a whole lot of embarrassment and heartache. I doubt that a “leave of absence” to clean himself up will do much to restore confidence in Toronto’s municipal culture or civic leadership, both of which Mr. Ford and his cadre of “loyalists” have thoroughly fouled in recent months.

Through it all, it’s impossible to dismiss the conviction that Mr. Ford still doesn’t get it. He still thinks, at some infantile level, that the world is out to get him – that he is not the author of his own misfortunes.

When a man proves that he can’t run his own life, it’s tragic. 

When that man also happens to be the mayor of one of North America’s largest cities, it’s actually terrifying.

 

Tagged
May 02 2014
Leave a comment
Economy, Energy, Oil and Gas, Politics

Lessons for New Brunswick from The Lone Star State

 

DSC_0003

In Texas, to quote a phrase, they do things big.

Big sky, big country, big portions, big ambitions all frame the tableau that is The Lone Star State.  So does “big energy”, but not always in a fashion that seems familiar to New Brunswickers embroiled in their own existential debate about natural resources development.

Yes, Texas is synonymous with the oil industry and is home to the famous (or, depending on one’s perspective, infamous) Barnett field, which in one recent year produced 1.11 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. But it is also home to the largest and most successful wind energy industry in the United States.

According to a Wikipedia entry, “wind power in Texas consists of many. . .farms with a total installed nameplate capacity of 12,212 MW from over 40 different projects.” In fact the state “produces the most wind power of any” in the U.S. 

Just as impressive, perhaps, is the speed at which the energy resource has developed there. In a scant 13 years, the state’s annual hours of wind generation by megawatts has skyrocketed from 492,000 to 36 million. How?

Again, the Wiki item is instructive: “The wind boom in Texas was assisted by expansion of the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, use of designated Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, expedited transmission construction, and the necessary Public Utility Commission rule-making. Wind power accounted for 8.3 per cent of the electricity generated in (the state) during 2013.”

So, the take-away from all of this is that a happy, productive collaboration between business and government has literally invented a clean, renewable and commercially viable alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation where none existed at the dawn of the 21st century.

Now, not coincidentally, power rates from wind are among the lowest of any energy source in the state (only those from shale gas are cheaper). 

Even better, the billions of dollars the private sector has invested in the industry to become competitive and profitable has spurred economic development in rural areas, where thousands of people are gainfully employed. This has, in turn, attracted innovators and entrepreneurs chasing the main chances implicit in improving existing energy storage (battery) and smart-grid technologies. 

All of which raises a question: What does Texas know that New Brunswick doesn’t?

For years, we in The Purple Violet Province have known that we are home to enviably strong and steady coastal breezes. Back in 2007, a “wind energy map” of our environs conclusively proved that, with foresight and commitment, the resource was rich enough to support 5,000 megawatts of installed capacity. Currently, we have 500, which isn’t bad; but it’s still far below our potential. 

Last week, Liberal Leader Brian Gallant renewed his party’s commitment to installing a moratorium on further shale gas development in the province should he and his crew be lucky enough to form the next government in September. Citing public opprobrium and lingering doubts among various health experts, he wants more studies. Fair enough.

But a moratorium only delays the inevitable day of reckoning. It won’t convince those who adamantly oppose shale gas on principled (concern for planetary climate change) or practical (concern for local air, soil and water quality) grounds. 

It certainly won’t mollify the petroleum industry. It may buy Mr. Gallant a bit more time. Still, at what cost?

The clock is ticking in New Brunswick, where we have become absolute masters at telling private and public-sector authorities to pound sand whenever they have, on rare occasions, mustered the temerity to suggest that true economic development means taking chances. But if we are not prepared to risk what we cherish on shale gas, then what? What will we risk to build a better future for ourselves and our children?

The “aesthetes” of this province display an exasperating tendency to despise fossil fuel and wind power in equal measure. The former, they say, is smelly; the latter is ugly. These people revile change. They wonder why things can’t just go along they way they always have. This has produced, in government, a pathetic, if typical, response: ossification. Do nothing. Maybe, it will all work itself out, after all.

It won’t.

Texas knows this. Say what you like about that red-necked, killer-executing home of George “Wacko” Bush. 

At least, they do things big there.

 

Tagged , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →