Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Now that the early gut reaction to the sale of NB Power to Hydro Quebec has flared up and seems to be burning out in some places and reduced to a slow burn in others, a real discussion is emerging in New Brunswick on the streets and online about the deal. An example of the emerging reasonable discussion can be found on David Campbell’s excellent blog, maybe not so much on the Facebook site that is gathering opposition to the deal. There’s too much name calling and cynicism over there on Facebook to allow for a real discussion of the facts.

My recommendation is that people inform themselves by reading the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Premier Shawn Graham and Premier Jean Charest, and calmly asking questions and listening to all sides of this discussion. Of course the government should be doing the same, because there will be more negotiations as we move from the MOU to a final, legal deal.

Get informed and in the process ask yourself about the alternatives should this deal not proceed. It is not a question of protecting our heritage, or our identity as a province. NB Power has been a financial and political liability during the 20 years or so that I have been writing about New Brunswick politics. There hasn’t been a Liberal or Tory government that has found a solution to NB Power’s many problems, which have resulted in crippling power rates and unmanageable debt. We are not, and have never been, defined as a people or place by owning this troubled utility. Opposition to this deal requires a hard look at what the future will look like with the status quo. Here are some of my notes about the deal after a period of watching and listening:

• First, the obvious: the deal significantly lowers power rates for industry and freezes rates for five years for residential users. The alternative, should the deal not go through, is the continuation of rate increases for all of us. When we are debating the merits of offering most of the savings to big industry, we should consider the impact of industrial power rates on preserving existing jobs and future economic development. Mill owners in New Brunswick have for years been arguing that the future of the forest industry demands that we deal with the power rate issue. The collapse of the forest industry during the past five years is evidence that these mill owners weren’t crying wolf.

This deal could be the salvation of rural New Brunswick communities. For example, the reduction in power rates could save the Fraser Papers mill in Edmundston, which employs 350 people. Fraser is now in creditor protection. If the deal were to save the Edmundston mill, we could argue that the deal is saving the economy in northwestern New Brunswick. It’s one thing to be an opponent of the deal if you have a safe job in Saint John, Moncton, or Fredericton. It’s a different story in mill towns. This deal may transform mills with co-generation capacity into viable operations. As we emerge from the collapse of the forest industry and search for ways to rebuild rural economies in New Brunswick, we need to remember that our current power rates are a show stopper for many industries that might consider setting up shop here.

• The sale removes 40 per cent of the province’s debt. This will be the single largest debt payment in the history of the province. The significance of removing this exposure to debt can’t be overstated. Opponents of the deal, like Tory leader David Alward (who runs a “Shawn Graham” debt clock on the top of his party’s website, and apparently has not seen the irony in this) have not explained how this debt will be managed in the future without significant power rate increases. How can we afford to continue to own this utility? If the Tories are going to lead the opposition to this deal, we need to see a plan, a multi-year projection of where we will be as owners of this debt-ridden utility.

Owning NB Power is like being house poor, living in a big old house that needs an upgrade. Every year the house gets more expensive and we keep taking second and third mortgages just to keep it running. Now we can’t afford to keep the roof from leaking, and we can’t afford our mortgage payments. The deal removes risk of further exposure to debt, for example the inevitable refurbishment of the Mactaquac Hydro dam, which would add billions to the debt of NB Power.

• The deal will lead to the closure of dirty generation plants such as those at Coleson Cove and Belledune. New Brunwick will meet and exceed emission targets when these plants are closed. This will improve our air quality and quality of life. We will be operating off green hydro power, imported from Quebec. We often argue that what defines New Brunswick is our quality of life. We improve that quality of life by protecting the environment.

• The deal will give New Brunswick real incentives to conserve power. This is where the deal gets interesting. The deal allows for a “heritage pool” of power guaranteed by hydro Quebec. That heritage pool is basically the amount of power we are using now. Should we exceed that amount, we will buy the additional power we need on the open market. This creates a tremendous opportunity in the province to conserve energy. The government would be able to run programs to make industry and residences more energy efficient. The more efficient we become, the more we expand the capacity of the heritage pool to meet our needs without creating the need to purchase for more power.

NB Power has been advocating energy conservation, which always appeared to be a contradiction from the utility that is selling power, and it made a kind of perverse sense only in that NB Power wasn’t charging the true cost of electricity and therefore it was losing more money the more it sold. The proposed deal will create a real incentive to conserve and create green industries in the province.

• The deal doesn’t limit opportunities for future power development. For example, we could build another transmission line and sell it to Newfoundland. Or we could develop wind or tidal power.

• There is a lot being made about the fact that Shawn Graham broke an election campaign promise not to sell NB Power. This is true. What are we to make of that? For one thing, we need to consider that the world shifted under our feet in 2008. It would be irresponsible for our elected representatives not to respond to the world financial collapse. I have argued in the past that breaking election promises, knowing that there is a political cost in this, is a sign of courage. Years ago, I urged Tory Premier Bernard Lord to break his election promise and keep the tolls on the Fredericton to Moncton highway. Instead, Mr. Lord kept his promise and saddled taxpayers with about a billion dollars in debt to pay shadow tolls. We took off the tolls that would have been paid by those who use the highway and transferred the cost to our children and their children. Premier Shawn Graham could have walked away from this deal because it represented a broken election promise. Instead, he has proceeded with this deal and taken on the huge political risk associated with it. There are times when a broken promise is politically courageous, whether we agree or disagree.

These are some of my thoughts to date. What’s interesting is that out of this debate a picture of the province of the future is emerging: a place that has low taxes, green energy, clean air, reasonable power rates, bilingual workforce, universal high speed internet, incentives for energy conservation, real management of our debt. If you were cynical, you might say this is spin, or overly optimistic. I say it’s something worth striving for. David Alward and his followers who are opposing this deal may yet convince me that we are on the wrong track, but I am going to need to see a vision of my province of the future and a plan to get there, not just angry words, general cyncism and sophistry.

A note on the CBC-generated controversy surrounding the vaccination of hockey players (so I stop talking to the radio): The fact that hockey team managers have taken the initiative to vaccinate their players against H1N1 flu is not a scandal, or even a news story, despite the fact that CBC has been running this story for days. The coverage began with a story about the Moncton Wildcats Major Junior team. Team management made arrangements that all of the players receive the vaccine. This is exactly what public health officials have been recommending, that we all be vaccinated, especially target groups. The majority of the Wildcats teen-aged players would be in a target group. The shortage in vaccine supply was announced after the players received their shots. This morning I heard on my radio that the CBC is working its way through other hockey teams, one non-scandal after another. Someone needs to tell the news directors at the corp that this isn’t, and never was a story. The real scandal might be what happened to the supply of vaccine, and why Canada has this single source contract and so on. Maybe reporters could try getting on that story, and off the backs of people who have followed the recommendations of public health officials.

This morning, my wife was talking about the art of Joan Didion’s essays and how she dislikes Twitter and the little bits of information we pass around in the absence of real content and context. Then I read Peggy Orenstein, a New York Times writer we love, expressing similar concerns in a funny and profound essay in the latest edition of the newspaper’s weekend magazine. I read her in hard copy this morning. Both Deb and Peggy Orenstein expressed it better than I did when I wrote about my problem with Twitter and the endless flow of little bits of information, all of which is distracting in a way that is real and damaging to how we think. So in response to this sage advice I’m going offline, not permanently, but for fixed periods of time each day. I’ve downloaded the Freedom App for Mac, which will help me with the project. I’m excited and ready to go. See you later.

MacleodAlistair MacLeod’s wonderful novel No Great Mischief has been placed at the top of the list in the new book Atlantic Canada’s 100 Greatest Books, compiled and written by Halifax writers Stephen Patrick Clare and Trevor Adams. MacLeod’s novel edged out Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables. Excellent choice, we say. Looking forward to the release of the book, which will take place at Stayner’s Wharf in Halifax on Thursday, November 5 at 5:30 p.m.

Conservation groups weigh in on the St. John River dams. This discussion is long overdue.

My old friend Michael Harris, who is the visiting chair in journalism at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, noted in passing during a recent CBC interview that reporters can’t do meaningful journalism on Twitter. He said that journalism involves detailed story telling and nuance, and there is no detail or nuance on Twitter. I agree. I think Twitter can be fun and useful at times, especially as a tool for transmitting little bits of information or pointing us to information elsewhere. However, journalists who Twitter shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that Twittering has very much to do with the work we do.

Twitter is essentially a headline service. The word count of a Tweet – 140 characters or less – is about the word count of a headline and subhead in a newspaper. Headline writing is a art, and one that often falls short, causing misinterpretation of stories. Most of the complaints that come into newsrooms are about headlines that do not reflect the content of a story. Tweet all day and you’ve just published a newspaper without the content.

Twittering falls into the category of great distraction for reporters who are hard pressed for time to do real work. Reporting is hard work. In my experience, reporters will do anything to avoid it. Pretending that Twittering is work is a classic distraction for reporters who need to get at the real job at hand.

Twitter is low impact. Ask yourself how many people are you reaching with your Tweets? How memorable are they? Are you talking to the public at large, or to your friends. If I write a newspaper story, I want it to be read and remembered by tens of thousands of people. I want people to clip it and put it on their desks, to paste it in scrapbooks, to call me and tell me I’m brilliant, or a complete jerk. I’m not sure this is the case for Tweets. No one is being moved by a Tweet, except maybe to marvel at how clever you are. Your Tweets are relevant to the small group of people who read your notes. When I told my 19 year old son the other day about a contest on Twitter that he might be interested in, he replied, “what’s Twitter?” He is a musician and a full-time cook and has a very full life by the way.

You might say I’m just old school, that I need to get with it. No doubt this is true. But my concerns about Twitter journalism reflect my concerns about the future of professional story tellers. Writing is a serious business. Tweets are trivial. We need writers, and journalists to be applying all their energy and brains to what we do, which is to tell stories. The stories will be the salvation of the journalism business.

Last night a friend lent me a book of essays by the great essayist Joan Didion. She begins the opening essay in the book in this way: “We tell ourselves stories in order to live. . . . We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the ‘ideas’ with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual expreience.”

We can’t Tweet stories, and it is the stories that we need in order to live. The Tweets we can live without.

MactaquacThe World Wildlife Fund has released a report on the state of rivers in Canada in which it raises the obvious question about the St. John River that no one seems to want to talk about. The report finds that “dams and impoundments
have so severely disturbed the river – the longest in Atlantic Canada – that its once thriving Atlantic salmon population is now endangered.”

“Three major hydropower dams on the mainstem of the Saint John – the Grand Falls, Beechwood, and Maqtaquac dams – have significantly altered its natural flow regime. . . . Salmon in the Saint John are particularly threatened. In parts of the river the number of adult fish needed to maintain a viable, self-
sustaining population is well below minimum requirements. Currently, no plan exists to manage or restore environmental flows in the Saint John. Until one is established, the health of the river, its important habitats, and its salmon populations are likely to continue to decline. Restoration of environmental flows in the Saint John and the salmon that depend on them will require a coordinated, basin-wide plan to re-establish a more natural flow regime that better balances nature’s water needs with those of hydropower generation and other uses.”

The current trap and truck process to move fish past the Mactaquac dam, combined with the hatchery at the base of the dam has been an abject failure. The decline of the St. John River salmon has spread to the tributaries of the river, including the Tobique, the Nashwaak, the Kennebecasis, all of which were once productive salmon rivers. Governments have a responsibility to address how their dams have destroyed the fish populations in the river.

By contrast, in Maine, where dam removal and fish passage has become a government priority, salmon are beginning to show signs of recovery with 2,000 salmon returning to the Penobscot this season, a miraculous increase from the handful that had been returning in recent years.

Meanwhile, governments and conservations groups in Canada spend their time discussing side issues such as salmon mortality at sea, and the impacts of fish farming, and ignoring the obvious barriers to recovery right in front of our eyes. The two great salmon rivers in New Brunswick, the Miramichi and Restigouche, are both sustaining relatively healthy salmon populations. Why the great difference? Neither the Restigouche or the Miramichi have been dammed. We forget that among New Brunswick salmon rivers, the St. John, with its tributary the Tobique, was the greatest salmon river of them all.

It’s time we pulled our heads out of the sand and started talking about the environmental disaster that these dams have created and begin searching for real solutions.

Empty response

This morning, the New Brunswick College of Psychologists panned the provincial government’s response to its task force report on the mental health system in the province. Dr. Jane Walsh said she was “disappointed.” I think she showed considerable restraint. I will add to her disappointment my outrage. This response is a disgrace and is itself an illustration that the stigmas that plague those suffering from mental illness (the primary one being that it is not a real sickness and that those who are sick should somehow will themselves back to health) are within the health care bureaucracy itself.

The background: Last February we reported here on Judge Michael McKee’s study of the sorry state of the New Brunswick Mental Health system. Among other things, Judge McKee found that young people are dying while they wait in vain for treatment in this province. People with mental illness are forced to live in substandard housing, they receive inadequate financial assistance when they are ill, and have poor coverage for their medications when they are discharged from hospital. There is a shortage of mental health professionals, a shortage of beds in treatment facilities, no mental health courts and so on.

After sitting on this report for seven months, Health Minister Mary Shryer released her government’s response. There is no vision or sense of urgency in the document.

For example, the response to McKee’s recommendation that health care service providers work together across various disciplines to provide a comprehensive treatment program for patients: “Subject to available resources, the department will develop guidelines, strategies and information sharing tools to promote implementation of these recommendations by 2014.” Words fail me.

The response to a recommendation to develop a plan to ensure access to the mental-health-court process for every youth and adult in each region of the province: “The Department of Health wants to prevent persons with mental illness from becoming involved in the justice system. An improved model of forensic-based service delivery will provide improved assessment and intervention for those who come into conflict with the law. While the departments of Health, Justice and Consumer Affairs and Public Safety recognize the unique focus and the rehabilitative potential of mental-health courts, a provincewide initiative is not feasible until additional resources become available.” Translation: we’re just ignoring that one.

And this: “The Department of Health will emphasize a recovery-based approach to assessment and treatment. The essential features will include communicating optimism to persons with mental illness, developing skills and knowledge so they may take personal responsibility for their health, and supporting their efforts to regain control over their lives.” Communicating optimism? Don’t worry, be happy? The fact that this meaningless paragraph was even published is shameful.

The Department of Health promises a comprehensive action plan sometime next year. This is a time when Premier Shawn Graham needs to step in and send this response back to Minister Shryer with orders to come up with a plan that is more than empty promises and fuzzy words.

For those who missed it, I recommend a reading of Maureen Dowd’s lovely tribute to William Safire.

William Safire-706199My copy of the New York Times Magazine arrived this this morning with an editor’s note at the end of the “On Language” column, letting us know that Jack Rosenthal, president of the Times Company Foundation, was pinch-hitting for William Safire, “who is on hiatus for a few weeks.” In fact, Safire had for some time been in a hospice and died this weekend from pancreatic cancer. He was 79. The Times reported his passing, and told the story of his career as a speech writer for Richard Nixon and his longer career as an award-winning political columnist and author of the famous “On Language” column that has long fascinated readers and inspired journalists. Robert D. McFadden described Safire in this way: “He was hardly the image of a button-down Times man: The shoes needed a shine, the gray hair a trim. Back in the days of suits, his jacket was rumpled, the shirt collar open, the tie askew. He was tall but bent — a man walking into the wind. He slouched and banged a keyboard, talked as fast as any newyawka and looked a bit gloomy, like a man with a toothache coming on.” That is a lovely paragraph.

Safire was a student of the English language. He loved words and word play, and reminded us every time he banged the keyboard that journalism is a business that we learn over a lifetime. He was the consummate professional writer, and his passing comes at a time when newspapers are in decline (even the great New York Times is struggling) and many of us are worried about what the future holds for those who wish to pursue Safire’s profession.

There is a school of thought, popular on university campuses, that the demise of newspapers presents an opportunity to reform a flawed profession. Former newspaperman turned new media guru Dan Gillmor recently posted a list he called “Eleven Things I’d do if I Ran a News Organization.” For the past few years, Gillmor has been travelling the world, speaking about the future of the business and something he calls “grassroots journalism.” His eleven-step plan is a reflection of this “we the people can be journalists” vision. Gillmor makes good points: He writes of the need for journalists to be more than stenographers and to strive for precision in the use of language (although his argument that writing “hotel guests” is poor usage is a question that I wish I could forward to Safire). My problem with Gillmor’s vision is that the mission of his newsroom would not be focussed on what journalists are supposed to, which is to tell stories that are true.

For example, consider number 2 on his list: “We would invite our audience to participate in the journalism process, in a variety of ways that included crowdsourcing, audience blogging, wikis and many other techniques. We’d make it clear that we’re not looking for free labor — and will work to create a system that rewards contributors beyond a pat on the back — but want above all to promote a multi-directional flow of news and information in which the audience plays a vital role.” I think Gillmor is missing the real crisis facing the profession: How do we find an economic model that will pay professional journalists, to allow them to become writers, and have long careers during which time they develop into artists? I don’t think we have a problem with encouraging the public to talk to each other online, or to be engaged with media and pop culture. Just take a look at your morning Facebook newsfeed. In my experience, good newspapers never had a problem with public engagement. A vibrant newspaper always has more letters to the editor than it has space to print.

Why is it that we so willingly dismiss the art of journalism and the value of professional writers? I doubt that there would be much public support for “grassroots dentistry?” Or “grassroots law?” Or how about “grassroots university professors?” Who cares about all these advanced degrees. We’ll just pull some people in off the streets and let them run our classrooms or attend conferences and deliver papers.

There is a future for journalism. I think the remaking of journalism will demand that journalists aspire to become a William Safire, to write well, and produce stories and columns that people will pay to read. We need to stop giving away our content and use circulation revenue (physical or electronic) to pay professionals to do their jobs.

It’s all about the words, Safire reminded us again and again: “Remember to never split an infinitive. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. Avoid clichés like the plague. And don’t overuse exclamation marks!!”

Older Posts »