Activists of the world unite

My column today is likely to annoy environmentalists and community activists but what the hey. I happen to believe every word of it and would be happy to expound in greater detail if you like.

Take Rob Moir, the NBP candidate in the federal election. Somehow I am on his email distribution list and I have received 4-5 emails on the ‘issues’. All of them have been negative slams with no alternatives offered beyond platitudes. I know that kind of stuff is designed to whip up the NDP base and I am sure it will – but if Moir really wanted to get elected wouldn’t he adopt a solutions-oriented more mainstreet approach?

He doesn’t like refineries, nuclear power plants, forestry operations, etc. but what does he like? He should start sending around emails with his five point plan for resuscitating the NB economy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Activists of the world unite

  1. mikel says:

    O Lord are you OLD!!:) Age, of course, is not determined by chronology but by attitudes. You forgot to add at the end of your article…..”and this music young uns are listening to…I don’t get it, whys it gotta be so loud…and their clothes!”

    First, of course the whole premise is silly…shame on you. You are assuming that there is a class of people called “protestors” who travel like nomads protesting ‘stuff’. By that account, we can count Elsie Wayne who went to Fredericton with about a hundred people to protest abortion.

    In Fredericton, Mark Darcy and his wife (both university profs) have been pre-eminent protestors for the University woodlot-they’d never been heard of before, but he’s been active in drawing attention to the NB’s government’s refusal to enforce their own watershed protection laws.

    Thanks to Charles we know more about things going on in Fredericton than other cities, we can add Tim Scammell, a New Maryland councillor who started a blog and is one of the main protestors fighting to save the Fredericton train station.

    We can add the tens of thousands of people who joined the facebook groups to protest the cutting of french immersion..oh those damn anarchists!

    As for those dang unreasonable ‘young uns’, you should be embarrassed that you actually said “they should join the economic real world”. Do people ACTUALLY say stuff like that? Are YOU actually saying join the REAL world- a blogger whose economic recommendations have been singularly, almost seemingly purposely ignored by the New Brunswick government? Did I read that right?

    By all means David, join the real world. Irving investment is going great, highways are getting built up, businesses (most of them) are saying that times are great-they have been for years. Sure, towns are getting smaller, but join the real world, that’s business. Those people go out and find jobs out west.

    It’s always funny to see YOU say things like that. How do you spell hypocrisy?:)

    But of course YOU are a protestor yourself, so have just proved what nonsense it is to lump ‘activists’ together. Who could be more of a pie eyed idealist than a guy who spends time each and every day posting more blogs than just about any blogger out there but Charles Leblanc? You can read the blog daily and almost imagine David staring at the starry night from his window sill and saying “sigh..someday New Brunswick will be wonderful…I just KNOW it”!:)
    And this has gone on for YEARS, even Asaf Rashid gave up on New Brunswick and left for Quebec over a year ago.

    As for those kids in particular, don’t mean to sound like Dan, but virtually EVERYBODY knows this stuff. It’s impossible (or at least hard) to miss the over one TRILLION dollar payout that the US is forking over to investment houses. The REAL world is the activist world, its the latin american countries where democracy is actually thriving and growing.

    But you are right, where ARE those kids? At Spinks blog there was a big discussion on where the heck are even the NDP? Again, its the NDP that has the MOST answers. The CONSERVATIVE committee that met studying insurance recommended making it public. The NDP said “Ok, we’ll make it public”. The LIBERALS said, “we’ll make it public” but of course were lying.

    The difference is, of course, they have solutions YOU don’t like. New Brunswick is a TINY province, with only 350,000 people. It gets quite a bit of sunlight, lots of wind, has lots of rivers for micro hydro, has lots of earth for geothermal, lots of animals for methane, and is an industrial province with lots of conservation measures possible.

    In other words, of COURSE they are opposed to nuclear, oil refineries and pulp mills. Good lord man, you live IN the province, you’re paying the debt that resulted from the first nuclear plant and are still dealing with all the waste, you’ve seen how little tax the IRvings pay and how much pollution comes from an oil refinery (or can easily find out). ANd you KNOW how much damage the pulp mills have done to the province until they take taxpayers money and then leave anyway.

    And you are telling youngsters to join the real world? That the NDP is ‘not practical’? That, of course has been a fairly prominent view, and probably a good reason why young people DO go to Africa where at least when they look at a problem they RECOGNIZE that its a problem. They don’t show up in a dirt poor province of africa and say “OK, now, how can we get coca cola to set up a plant here”.

    But I don’t suspect you’ll take those remarks seriously, fortunately, those youngsters don’t take adults seriously when they’re told to ‘join the real world’ (sadly though, far too many of them do).

  2. mikel says:

    Sorry for the typo, I meant to say there are only 350,000 customers of NB Power, not the population (I am at least aware of that).

  3. Rob says:

    Mikel, I don’t think David’s point is to slam the NDP for protesting society’s ills. His point is that they present no alternative.

    Is there an alternative to Point Lepreau 2 on the table? Can we generate jobs on the scale of a second refinery using greener technology? If so, put those in the pamphlet or e-mails.

    It’s one thing to complain, it’s another to provide a viable option.

  4. David Campbell says:

    Exactly.

  5. mikel says:

    I covered that twice in my little rant, maybe it was too long. My point is that the NDP DO offer alternatives, but David or critics in general just don’t like them. The odd thing is no matter how many times that’s said, the same criticism keeps coming out.

    Lepreau 2 certainly isn’t designed for ‘jobs’, if that was the case they would have built another one years ago.

    First off, David said FEDERAL NDP, NOT provincial. NO federal party has anything to say about Lepreau 2, so it seems a little unfair to chastise the NDP for not having a provincial policy.

    Federally, that’s where the Research and Technology funding comes in, and the NDP talks about Green funding even more than the liberals.

    Here its a bit tricky, NB is once again at a disadvantage because by picking AECL’s Candu and picking an energy production model virtually identical to ontario’s, once again that guarantees that most of the research will get done in Ontario, NOT New Brunswick.

    Energy is provincial, and this isn’t a provincial election so we don’t know what the NDP platform is, however, the NDP always DOES have a platform, they do always have alternatives, but again, people just don’t like and sometimes even go so far as to say ‘join the real world’.

    Like I said, in a tiny province like NB there is simply no NEED for a Lepreau 2. So the alternative is quite simple-don’t build it. The oil refinery is pretty contentious, take a look at any CBC website coverage of ANYTHING Irving and you will read an eyeful of complaints. It certainly is no given that the people of St. John can’t wait for another massively polluting oil refinery.

    So the alternative is of course NOT to build another refinery. For many people that’s ‘just not reasonable’, that ANYTHING has to be welcomed because it will provide jobs.

    This is where the problem comes in because people ‘in the real world’ are saying that ANY jobs have to be welcomed because they are jobs. But what if the jobs that are chosen now result in fewer jobs in the future? This is where government policy comes in, this is where education and research and development and again POLICY. Like I mentioned, in the US right now they are spending over a trillion to bail out investors, this pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of NBT’s deregulation claims (although I’m sure he’ll just ignore it and carry on).

    Without government nothing gets done. Although nobody talks about it, there is a direct link between PEI’s wind power and aerospace industry-both benefit from the same type of research.

    Green power EASILY has more research, development and engineering possibilities than nuclear. Nuclear has been researched for over fifty years but still can’t even find ways to deal with the waste. Wind, solar, geo thermal, methane, etc., are advancing in leaps and bounds and thats with almost NO funding whatsoever.

    Just a note on policy, when the cap and trade system came in during the eighties to deal with acid rain, US states put EXTREMELY tough limits on emissions from wood stoves, practically making them illegal. The result was massive research and development. In the twenty years since, wood stoves have cut emissions and become more efficient by over 800%.

    Those are the signals that researchers need from government-without them, nothing happens. So, yes, NB may get a few more engineering jobs at Lepreau 2, and as long as people ignore the ‘real world’ and pretend there are no terrorist dangers or environmental problems from the waste then everything is peachy.

    Sorry that’s long, but that’s a long standing complaint that has ZERO factual basis-the NDP has TONS of alternatives, just because you don’t LIKE them don’t say they don’t exist. It’s becoming more and more clear when looking at europe and even most US states that by focusing on nuclear and oil its New Brunswick that refuses to join the ‘real world’ of alternatives. Not only will David be writing daily blogs about why there are no new industry jobs and why towns are disappearing, he can add a cancer list to it as well.

  6. M Tremblay says:

    Hello Mr. Campbell,

    I find your characterization of Rob Moir completely uninformed and very much off base. Of any candidate, he is one that has been able to offer solutions which will result in growth and development here at home.

    I in fact find his views to be the total opposite of those you attribute to him.

    One area in particular involves the Natural Gas issue. I’m sure you know that we have huge reserves of Natural Gas near Sussex. In the 2006 campaign, he proposed the Sussex Energy Park, a concept that would use our own natural resources to create industry right here at home – as well as a way to produce electricity much more cleanly than some of the methods currently in use. This idea had so much traction and resonance, the current MP ran with it by the end of the campaign (and of course did nothing about it).

    In addition, he speaks of taking advantage of global opportunities and developing more environmentally sustainable ways of generating energy, and becoming a leader in these new technologies (we have wind and tidal resources here).

    Finally, in regards to forestry, in an article in the TJ (the same paper you write in, so you probably saw it) he mentioned that the government could put our foresters to work if we used our wood resources for high-efficiency, low emissions home heating. Think of how many of these top of the line furnaces Point Lepreau 2 could pay for! And the best part of it is, with proper forestry management, it can be sustainable!

    Please, Mr. Campbell, do your research before writing things about people that are just not true.

    Thank you.

  7. David Campbell says:

    I appreciate your defense of your candidate but I ask you to read my stuff more closely next time. I have not completed a thorough analysis of Rob Moir’s view on the world. I said, and I say again, that I receive the emails from Mr. Moir and they – so far – have all been criticism with virtually no alternatives provided. But I like to stay mostly away from politics during political campaigns because people get cranky.

  8. Rob Moir says:

    Hi David;

    This is Rob Moir who is proud to run as a New Democrat in Fundy Royal.

    First, I will ask two questions of you.

    (1) Which of the other candidate has you on his mailing list? Which of the other candidates really talks about the economy other than through their “leader”?

    (2) Which of the other candidates is in fairly regular contact with Enterprise Fundy – not just as election campaigns start, but in between elections?

    I don’t know of the answer to (1), but the answer to (2) is none.

    I agree with providing solutions – it is a mantra I tell the entire group of people who support me. Go back to the last election campaign – there was only one candidate that had a credible solution for local jobs. We promoted and promoted and promoted the Sussex Energy Park. Unfortunately, provincial newspapers did not see fit to mention that part of my campaign. After the campaign, our current MP, Mr. Moore, did absolutely nothing about it.

    Let me address each of your points in turn, and then provide solutions that work for working people.

    (1) Refineries: I don’t like them but I agree they create jobs. A new refinery will export 100% of product to the US (the existing one already ships out over 50% of product). So, we get much needed jobs, but we also get pollution and we send product to the US (which earns profits for the Irvings). As I recall, I have asked repeatedly for a full federal panel review of the environmental impacts of the entire operations (I have not said shut down the project – we don’t have all the facts to draw that conclusion). As far as I can tell, there is a legal federal requirement for a full assessment because some of the emissions are on Environment Canada’s priority substance list number 1 (PSL1) – listing toxins and carcinogens. What, does Federal Law not apply in NB? Now suppose we get the assessment and as a result we are required to build a refinery with the world’s best emissions controls and carbon offsetting projects – is that a bad thing?

    (2) Nuclear power: I have good friends that work in the industry and see the importance of it as part of a system. Why does NB need another plant if just to export to the US? The “green-ness” of nuclear power is much-touted, but the provincial government has never once said we’d use Lepreau 2 to replace our fossil-fuel plants. What exactly is our storage solution for spent fuel? Who pays (given we own NB power) for heightened security post 9/11? [The taxpayers by the way!] And here’s an interesting tidbit – why did Liberals and Conservatives in the last Parliament vote to cap liability from a nuclear event at $680 million [Bill C-5, check out http://www.howdtheyvote.ca. Even the Three Mile Incident, which wasn’t a full melt-down, cost well into the billion dollar range. Moreover, every homeowner’s insurance has a clause nullifying the contract in the even of a nuclear incident.

    (3) Forestry: Anyone who owns a woodlot, as do I, knows we are in dire straits. One corporation in the province runs virtually everything in the forestry sector. ECON 101 and Adam Smith warn us that this leads to problems. Let's get to solutions. Federally, work to limit raw-log exports; Canadian wood is in high demand, why aren't we adding value? Provincially, reinstate the "buy from private owners first" rule instead of selling off our crown wood at cut-rate (and lower) prices. Promote wood heat in the province. The cost of installing high efficiency wood-burning units in the 150,000 residences heated by electricity in NB is about $450 million – a far cry from the $8+ billion for Lepreau 2. $450 million is likely much smaller than the provincial liability on loans and incentive packages for Lepreau 2. Better yet, with wood heat we put people back to work in the forests. [By the way, I sent this idea to the Telegraph Journal over 4 months ago as part of an Opinion Piece, but they chose not to publish it – it isn't that we don't have solutions, we just aren't allowed to publicize them in the traditional way]. We can look at compressed wood fuel (briquettes/pellets). We can look at wood as potential for non-food cellulosic bio-fuel. The Dutch, I believe, have worked out a way to refine bio-fuel from wood using existing in-place oil refineries. I've been chatting about these ideas for years in my Economics classes – the problem is it is very difficult to publish them in our newspapers.

    Do I have a 5-point plan? Not exactly (these are limiting and generally feel-good jargon – see "Self-Sufficiency" for example). Elsewhere in one of your columns, you listed 10 questions (I have been working out answers to all of them). Instead I have a few (these are not all) ideas, and then a 3-pillared platform (which will finish my reply).

    (1) We have another pocket of stranded natural gas. Luckily for us, it is off of most people's radar. Once again, I will promote an energy park.

    (2) I see the growing importance of rail as worthy of investment. Rail is a cheaper as a method of shipping, and, with the right federal-provincial cooperation, can be a very viable alternative for commuter traffic. I would like to see some form of passenger service (e.g. light rail) from Moncton to Saint John, hubbing near Sussex, with the option of a new spur up to Fredericton if it is feasible. I could easily see the area outside of Sussex as a travel hub in the future given its proximity to the 3 major urban centres. Of course, I would work with people in Sussex to see if this is a plan they like.

    (3) I would like to work on a federal government project that sees New Brunswick become a testing ground for energy production alternatives. We have many of the traditional sources (refining, fossil-fuel generation, nuclear, hydro). We could look to expand some semi-traditional sources (wood heat, natural gas, and perhaps oil shale). We could invest in alternatives (wood bio-fuel, cellulosic (non-food crop) bio-fuel, solar-bio hydrogen, wind, tidal, HVDC transmission, geo-thermal, etc.). Finally, we should find money to invest in Efficiency NB (McKinsey Global Institute points out that this form of energy investment has the highest rate of return). A federal investment package of this type would increase employment, put NB at the forefront of energy technology and R&D, and potentially build an export industry. We are likely the only province in which we could run all these comparisons at the same time, thus ensuring a degree of scientific validity.

    One can never tell what specific issues will arise during a session of parliament. As such, I think it is important to put together a vision that shows people how I will adapt to new information and new issues. That said, my 3-pillared platform:

    (1) As an MP, I will work COOPERATIVELY to get good things done for Fundy Royal, New Brunswick, and Canada. I am sick of party flag waving and "opposing because we're in Opposition."

    (2) I will actively promote investment in COMMUNITY – investment of time on issues that matter to people, and work on local investment that promotes sustainable community economic development. We need to invest in hardworking families, small businesses, farmers, fishermen, and foresters.

    (3) I am sick of accountability – it hasn't really pulled us ahead. It is time for HONESTY, and the honesty I expect from myself I will expect from others, no matter the political stripe.

    David – I have replied to your blog entry in detail. I most certainly am not just an activist – I am a pro-active activist with ideas and workable plans. I see a province and a riding worth investing in – and I have invested a lot of my time working on projects that will help us all.

    The question is where do you stand? I've seen nothing from the other candidates, indeed from most federal politicians across the province (with perhaps the exception of Yvon Godin), that
    gets to the nuts and bolts of building a sustainable economy that works for us all. Believe me, I have been looking.

    This province needs positive change with a solid environmental economics focus. I have a huge challenge ahead because of voting tradition. I have a huge challenge ahead because the simple rules of the benefits of competition identified in ECON 101 pit me against some powerful business interests. Can you help? Will you help?

    Please let me know if you'd like to be off of the mailing list. We can do it, but I would like to think of you as a valuable ally and source of constructive criticism.

    Cheers,
    Rob

  9. mikel says:

    Well, both of those are quite fair criticisms then. However, its a bit unfair to make a characterization of a candidate based on emails one gets. Especially from a blogger whose main theme is that people shouldn’t believe that the governments ‘talking points’ in the media are the whole story-or even the most important part. So a little more digging should have been done before that criticism was made.

    It’s especially troubling in this case, because once again David is making a blanket criticism (in a newspaper no less, which would likely result in a loss of votes) of somebody who has said the SAME THING as David as far as policy goes. A year or two ago David made numerous blogs about the Sussex natural gas park saying EXACTLY the same thing as the NDP candidate.

    Perhaps its true that that NDP candidate should design his mailing list comments more carefully, however, we should add that in a nominal democracy people DO have the responsibility (especially nowadays when it is so easy) of actually finding out the policies of those they are going to support or not-and why. Otherwise, a vote is no better than Charles blog where he states that he’s not going to vote for parties where local members haven’t been ‘nice enough’ to him.

    So when EDUCATED people make blanket criticisms like that, who are supposed to know better, its no surprise when the mainstream population blankets the NDP with the same criticism. In other words, Mr. Campbell may like to stay out of politics, but his article in the mainstream press now makes him part of the problem-even against his own policies. Maybe there’s a better reason to stay out of politics than other people getting cranky:)

  10. David Campbell says:

    Mikel, you need to relax. Many of my posts are just musings – I get an email or two and then I throw up a few ideas. You don’t need to get so bent out of shape and RAISE YOUR VOICE ALL THE TIME. You points are well taken and mostly a good counterpoint to my point. But calling me names ‘silly’, etc and ‘shame on you’ and all this stuff is just noise and probably either turns readers off or if they agree with you they will ignore the merit of the substance and just be angry.

  11. richard says:

    Dr Moir

    Since you are following these posts, perhaps you could answer a somewhat unrelated question.

    The website for the UNBSJ Economics Faculty does not appear to list (for any of its staff) the peer-reviewed research publications produced by its faculty members. Such lists reflect the productivity of the professor in his chosen field. Could you provide such a list? In fact, could you work with the UNB community to see that the UNB websites provide such publication lists for all tenure-track staff? Enquiring taxpayers want to know.

  12. mikel says:

    The caps speak for themselves, they are used only rarely and for enunciation since we aren’t speaking but writing. It’s not like there are whole sentences.

    Those were HARDLY ‘insults’ or slander, and were mostly meant sarcastically, I’ve posted here enough that I didn’t think I needed to put smiley faces after every one.

    But like you say, your blog may be seen by thousands of eyes, and the article in the paper by even more, so that opens you to criticism-and there is an election going on, which makes views at least nominally important.

    I pointed out where your arguments were wrong, with numerous examples, whether people take that in hand I don’t know and can’t do anything about, but Mr.Moir pretty much repeated everything I just said.

    So it was actually pretty mild, imagine what Dan would have to say!

  13. Rob Moir says:

    Hello Richard;

    Thanks for checking the UNBSJ website. I know it is out of date; it has all been held up while we await a new University-mandated web design which I have been assured is forthcoming. As an economist, I will strive to get up what we as economists do (I can’t promise about others as I don’t make the rules for the university). As Chair of Social Science, I will try and get the same done for the disciplines under my ‘supervision.’

    Right now, the faculty in the ECON department is rather thin; we went from 5 full-time tenured faculty to 2 + 2.5 term contract individuals because of budget cutbacks. Hopefully they see fit to hire more soon.

    In terms of my own research, I am an experimental economist, meaning that I study how people behave in economic environments (as opposed to how theory postulates they will behave). A few years back, Vernon Smith shared the Nobel Prize in Economics (I know that is technically not its name) for his work in pioneering experimental economics as a field. I was fortunate to have studied under Professor Smith while he was at Tucson. While I have published some statistical stuff, much of my work falls under the category of public good provision and management of common-pool resources. The environmental link is thus not difficult to make.

    I will do everything I can to get us back up to date, but it will have to be after this pesky election. 😉 Again, thanks for the interest.

    cheers,
    rob

  14. richard says:

    Dr Moir

    Thanks for your reply.

    With respect to the comments on you platform posted here, I find myself largely in agreement with Mr. Campbell. On the other hand, its good to hear a political candidate who actually discusses policy rather than sticking with the sound bites.

    It is certainly true that NB does not get good value from its natural resources. Incentives to encourage wood heating, biomass added-value product development, and utilization of various energy resources to stimulate economic growth are required. Some of these areas will require some long-term R&D investments to progress. In fact, my reason for asking about your peer-reviewed publication record was based on my concern that UNB is poorly-equipped to address these research needs.

    NB is not wealthy and we need to husband our resources carefully. At the same time, we need to be realistic: politicians are going to continue to use short term measures (such as the focus on highway construction, construction jobs from the proposed refinery and Lepreau 2) because they are viewed as vote-getters. That's not going to change, so R&D funds will have to come from elsewhere. Provincial governments in recent years have not been nearly aggressive enough in helping get R&D funds and demanding that our universities excel in these areas.

    Its my view that we should be demanding more from UNB, a largely untapped resource that currently is not producing nearly enough quality research in natural resource utilization. UNBSJ, which seems to have a faculty largely disinterested in scientific research,and which has more of the characteristics of a community college than a university, should perhaps be closed, with the freed-up resources used to support science research elsewhere in the province.

    At a minimum, we need to demand that UNB faculty be accountable; they all profess to have areas of expertise, areas of research. If that's the case, then they should be producing peer-reviewed research publications in their chosen field. If they are not doing that, why are we paying them?

  15. mikel says:

    Everybody has a pet theory, however, people should realize that politics goes in certain ways because of voters and media. There is no political ‘necessity’ that funds in NB go in one direction. NBers are not a seperate species. When everybody only stands on the sidelines then that makes policy go in one direction or another.

    However, I don’t have time but often thought of doing an NB podcast just about scientific research in NB, because there IS lots there, and in all kinds of fields-people just don’t hear about them because there is no place to hear about them, and of course most people don’t care.

    That’s true of here in Waterloo as well, the population doesn’t hear about research, but its certainly not true that it doesn’t go on.

    And a lot of that research is environmental, and unfortunately much is done from outside the province. WHen I first walked into the buildings here at the University of Waterloo the first thing I found in the geology department was a huge map on the wall with the various rock formations throughout New Brunswick-and ONLY NB (it wasn’t a map of the whole country or anything).

    WHen I walked into the biology building, on of the few posters on the wall was a PHD student who had pictures and research that he’d done on seals in Kouchibouguac National Park.

    There is TONS of research out there, especially at universities. In checking out a link of David’s I hit a study on voter participation which was done by a prominent group of social scientists, one of them from UNB SJ. Of course social sciences don’t exactly burn through the patents. I took some arts courses at STU years ago and most faculties were old guys who virtually never published ANYTHING. Those days are gone, if young profs want another position they know they have to publish. Its out there, you just have to look. Its a shame the CBC doesn’t have shows about this sort of stuff, they prefer to talk about Jane Doe and her pickling recipe. There is very little critical analysis of ANYTHING in NB, at least that I can find (which is why this website is so valuable). If EVERY prof was forced to have a blog, we’d probably see some real interesting stuff going on.

  16. richard says:

    "There is TONS of research out there, especially at universities"

    There may be "TONS" of research but the point is that NB does not have a strong research university. Without that, we just aren't competitive in R&D; that means fewer patents, fewer opportunities for business. You can't judge these things by walking the halls and looking at posters about Kouchibouguac, you have to look at research productivity and funding success.

    " I took some arts courses at STU years ago and most faculties were old guys who virtually never published ANYTHING. Those days are gone, "

    That is just wrong. There are plenty of profs in NB who rarely if ever publish in peer-reviewed journals. Go look at the UNBSJ website, and you will find plenty of youngsters who are not publishing in any quantity. In fact, if anything, UNB was stronger in research 40 years ago than it is now. UNB is falling behind in comparison to other universities.

  17. Rob Moir says:

    Hi richard and mikel (recognizing, mikel, you are out-of-province, but attached to the place);

    Thanks for the input about in Universities across the province (and UNB Saint John in particular). I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. We really have failed to grasp how a university can contribute – as a university – to the sustainable economic development of this province. Universities are not just training schools, they are, and should be expected to be, centres of reasoned critical thought and cutting edge research.

    We need people like you to participate as we navigate through the very choppy (if not debris strewn) waters of this new PSE Action Plan.

    After the election, no matter the outcome, contact me at UNB Saint John if you will, and we’ll see if we can’t get a good public dialogue going. Believe me, there are a lot of profs that would love to (a) hear your comments, and (b) work toward a constructive solution.

    Gotta run and prepare speeches.