This is where it all went wrong.

So .... how about that weather?

Something went terribly wrong this spring. That is clear. But what?

I've looked up the numbers and pin-pointed exactly where it went wrong: Saturday, March 9.

The following is a graph that shows the daily high temps this year, the same from last year, and the historical mean high temp for the day:

As you can see, beginning March 9 there is not a single day where this year was warmer than last year, or where we exceeded the normal historical high for that day. In fact for the most part we were a good 5-10 degrees below the normal temperature for that time of year.

That's a pretty spectacular run of below-normal temps!

The tricky question is: why did it happen? What happened on March 9 to cause our thermometers to plummet?

Well, I looked into that too and I've found the answer: On March 9 an asteroid the size of a city block buzzed by earth. It is apparent that the gravitational pull or cosmic wake from this asteroid caused a short term alteration in Earth's weather patterns such that winter was extended by a month and a half on the prairies.

That is your explanation folks. If you are skeptical then that means you don't trust science.

MB Budget 2013: Five Lies

Lies ... So many lies ... It makes me sad.

I am not happy about the PST hike -- few people are -- but for me the worst aspect of this week's budget announcement wasn't the tax increase itself but all of the lies that accompanied it. I appreciate honesty. I may not like what you're doing, but if you're honest about why you're doing it and have a good reason for doing so, I will not resent your actions.

But that is not the case here. There is a tremendous arrogance in how the government delivered this budget that I'm finding hard to articulate, so let's just get on with the show ... here some of the more grievous lies from this week's budget announcement:

LIE: The tax hike is required for flood infrastructure. Direct quote: "this revenue will help protect Manitobans against flooding." There are 13 consecutive paragraphs in the budget speech about flooding, leading up to the tax increase announcement.
FACT: Spending on water-related infrastructure is actually decreasing $11 million from last year -- from $59m to $48m. This amount also represents a very small fraction of the revenue that will be generated from the tax increase.

LIE. Holding a referendum on the tax increase would make us miss construction season. Direct quote: "We have to get on with it now. The construction season is in front of us."
FACT: This has got to be one of the worst excuses I have ever heard from a politician. I don't even know where to start. How exactly is this supposed to make sense?  You see .. much like pizza at New York's famed Grimaldi's Pizzaria, you can only pay for flood infrastructure in cash, and we ... um ... don't seem to have any cash on us. Do you have any cash Greg? No? Ya, neither do I. Gosh, where are we going to find all that money so we can protect Manitoba families from flooding? This really is quite the conundrum. I think the only solution is to instantaneously raise $48 million on July 1 with a PST hike so that we can get those construction crews working!
As already mentioned, flood infrastructure spending is going down from last year, and in any case these projects can be financed. A referendum has absolutely no bearing on whether a dike gets built this summer.

LIE: Our sales tax rate is still 3rd lowest in Canada. Direct quote: "Our PST will remain third lowest in the country."
FACT: We aren't even the 3rd lowest in Western Canada.
Alberta: 0%
Saskatchewan: 5%
BC: 7%
Manitoba: 8%  ← 4th lowest
Or .. you could look at it this way: we are 4th highest in Canada, lower than only Quebec, PEI and Nova Scotia.
FUN FACT: Two other provinces are decreasing their sales tax, including Nova Scotia. By July 2015 we will be tied for the 3rd highest sales tax rate in Canada.

LIE: The global economy is to blame. Direct quote: "But the economic outlook remains uncertain. The source of that uncertainty lies outside our borders."
FACT: As I've progressed through life I have learned that there are certain phrases that you never want to hear. Phrases like:
"We regret to inform you.."
"I just got my results back.."
and 
"While we have weathered the recession better than most provinces, the global economy remains uncertain.."
If you have the opportunity to pour yourself a scotch before hearing the remainder of any of those sentences I highly recommend it. Anyhow, on with the facts .... revenues for the year that just passed came in at only $200k less than what was budgeted for 2012/13, and those revenues were 3% more than the year before. In other words, the government's revenues are pretty much exactly as anticipated when the Premier said "Ridiculous idea that we're going to raise the sales tax. That's total nonsense, everybody knows that."


LIE. We are on track to balance the budget by 2016. Direct quote: "It will allow us to deliver a balanced budget by 2016."
FACT: The budget does indeed show Manitoba achieving a balanced budget in 2016/17. How? Through spending restraint unlike any we have seen from this government in the past. Spending growth projections are:
2014/15: 1.3%
2015/16: 2.1%
2016/17: 2.1%
For reference, the smallest increase the NDP has budgeted since it came into power in 1999 is 2.5%, and they have averaged spending increases of 4.6%. While it is technically possible for the government to keep this promise, they know very well that they will not.

The Manitoba Government subsidizes strippers

It's true. Just ask Finance Minister Stan Struthers.

Struthers has been the Government's point man in a very public battle with the Manitoba Jockey Club over the future of the Assiniboia Downs race track. The government intends to cut what it calls "subsidies" to the Jockey Club by "at least $5 million". To the jockey club, this could mean the end of horse-racing in Manitoba. To the government, this is just cost-cutting:

"We understand that the MJC is disappointed with the government's intentions, but we have a duty to spend public funds responsibly."

You see? The government is just being responsible in this time of austerity.

Except ... hang on to your seat ... that's not exactly true! I know .. I am sorry to have shattered your faith in our elected officials. I will make it up to you somehow.

More than one person has pointed out that what the government is calling "subsidies" or "funding" is actually the venue's share of VLT and other gaming revenue collected on-site. One of those people is Wayne Anderson:

"If these funds are grants, then so are the funds flowing to the hotels, legions, aboriginal casinos and the Jets from VLTs, slots, etc."

The places receiving this so-called funding includes strip clubs like Teasers, which in addition to featuring "Sleek & Sheek, Sexy, Exotic & Erotic, Applebottom babes, Big bang bootys, MilkJugs, Curvy, Mind Melting Hourglass figures, Long Legged Ladies, Big Bouncing boobs, Shocker Knockers & fun all the way around" also offers VLTs for your gaming pleasure. Each VLT could net Teasers up to $50,000 per year in revenue, thus the government is likely funding "nipple popping snow shows" to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Thank you, Stan!

The government's decision to cut revenues to the Manitoba Jockey Club is peculiar, given that the government had only just negotiated a new agreement with them less than two years ago. This agreement allows the MJC to retain a much larger share of their VLT revenues than most institutions. The actual percentage is hard to know without more information, but it's greater than 75% -- probably in the 85-90% range*

It is fair to question whether the MJC should get such a large cut of the revenues. The rationale (in the government's words) was to "strengthen the Assiniobia Downs as a key component of the Manitoba’s diverse tourism, agricultural and thoroughbred industries". The $5 million drop in revenue would essentially put Assiniboia Downs on the same footing as hotels and bars, which get to keep only 20% of the revenue that they generate from VLTs.

Why should the jockey club get a more generous deal? Well for one thing, they may not be able to survive without it. Indeed, the Jockey Club accuses the government of trying to bankrupt it with this move, paving the way for the Red River Exhibition to take over the property. I haven't figured out what vested interest the provincial government has in seeing the Ex control the Assiniboia Downs property, but that appears to be the goal.

Also, horse racing is a small but unique part of the entertainment fabric of this province, and as such it would be hypocritical of the province to not give them a special deal. After all, Manitoba Lotteries is building a dedicated casino, er ... gaming centre, to provide financial support to the Jets.

As an aside, Manitoba First Nations get to keep 90% of their gaming revenue -- everything less a 10% fee to cover administration costs. This increased amount is "provided as a contribution to promote sustainable social and economic benefits and opportunities with the First Nations communities" ... like a vacation to Rome for the Chief, the Chief's wife, and 5 friends. (The government's position in that particular case was that the band can spend the revenue however they wish, but I think most people would prefer that VLT revenues stay within the province to support local communities and institutions, like for example Teasers, where you can see "one of the wettest shows on stage, where the girls take hot steamy wet showers, bathe and washing every succulent curvy part of their sexy moist soft bodes.")

Where was I? Oh yes ... the Mantitoba Jockey Club.

If the government wanted to reduce the Club's share of the revenue for what appeared to be legitimate reasons, I wouldn't be writing this post. If, for example, the government felt that gambling at the Downs was cannibalizing gambling at venues where the government gets a bigger slice of the pie, and could therefore generate more revenue through this action. If that's what they have in mind they've done a poor job articulating it.

In actuality, the government has an interest in supporting gaming activity at Assiniboia Downs because there is money to be made there. Common sense tells you that VLTs are likely to do particularly well at a horse race track where the primary activity is synonymous with gambling.

The numbers support this: VLT revenues at hotels and bars, both inside the city and in small towns, has been on the decline since 2009; while gambling at the Downs has been increasing...

Whatever the government's intentions, it is not going to go as smoothly as they planned. If the Jockey Club is going down, they're going down swinging. This past weekend they printed a half page ad in the Winnipeg Free Press and have launched a lawsuit against the government. Never mess with a Jockey, my mother always told me.

Whether horse racing will survive when all is said and done, I don't know. I suspect it will, even if the Red River Exhibition takes over the race track. The government will ensure that there is some sort of funding through some means.

If not, we have other things in these parts to entertain us. Like strippers.

*MJC's take of VLT revenues in 2010 was $5.5m or 75% of $7.3m total revenues. The current agreement provides the MJC with up to $6.5m, which would be 89% of total revenues if total revenues were to remain steady. source.

Maggie's War

I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other on Margaret Thatcher or her legacy. You probably know as much or more about her than I do, especially if you've seen the movie.

If I were playing word association, the first thing that would come to my mind when you say "Margaret Thatcher" is "Falkland Islands". I remember nothing of how Thatcher governed her nation but the Falklands War made a big impression on me.

It was the first war I remember, and it was very exciting. Every evening Knowlton Nash would host a special edition of The National on CBC and give an update on the progress of the war, with maps and footage and stats. I was allowed to stay up and watch this because, I guess, it was a unique opportunity.

It ended up being more unique than one might have predicted at the time. I cannot think of a war since that was fought with the same honour, if you will, or gamesmanship. Every war since, that I recall at least, has involved dirty tactics or massive civilian casualties -- snipers shooting people in the streets, terrorists planting mines and IEDs, car bombs, unmanned drones, mortars fired recklessly into a city or neighboring country, combatants disguised as civilians, genocidal slaughters, etc.

War is always a terrible thing, but modern war is absolutely appalling

I guess this is why I look back almost fondly at the Falklands war. I don't wish to glamourize it or romanticize it, but it was a classic war. A traditional battle between two countries duking it out over a hunk of land. No other countries got involved. Nobody else got hurt. There was Country A (Argentina) claiming a group of islands as its own, and Country B (the UK) defending it's claim of those islands. And ... there was a clear winner.

Britain, with its sizable navy, had a smaller but crafty opponent to contend with. Argentina had fighters armed with French-made Exocet missiles that, when dropped from a jet, would race just above the surface of the water and blast a hole in the hull of the ship, if the ship's defenses failed to blow it out of the air first. The Brits lost the HMS Sheffield in this way. I can't imagine the stress of being on a ship with one of those missiles heading towards me.

In all there were 907 casualties, of which only 3 were civilian. That is 3 too many, but that ratio beats the hell out of any recent war you've seen or read about.

Watching the war on TV, I was certainly aware that people were dying and understood what that meant, but the sacrifice and suffering didn't really register. That's certainly part of it too. For me it was more like a game or my evening entertainment. I am now much more cognizant of the impacts that war can have because I'm older, I know people who have been there, but also because technology has brought the impacts in front of my face in high definition. Any given day you can turn on BBC or Al Jezeera or even The National and see video of dead bodies and devastated families in Syria or elsewhere.

Margaret Thatcher spoke later of the wrenching decision to go to war with Argentina. It was a difficult decision for her, but if you're unwilling to defend your land, even small islands populated mostly by sheep, then you've lost much of your legitimacy as a nation. It's as good a reason to go to war as I can think.

But the world has changed and I don't think we'll see another war like that again. There will be plenty of wars .. just none as simple and noble. Unless .. perhaps .. Denmark decides to lay claim to Hans Island.

Lakes and deserts

Related to my last post, I received this this in my inbox yesterday:

Media Advisory
March 28, 2013

Council of Canadians plans on-site protest at the Experimental Lakes Area this weekend

The Council of Canadians will stage a protest this weekend at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in a last-ditch effort to save the institution.

Mark Calzavara, the Council of Canadians’ Ontario organizer, will be on-site at the protest and available for interviews via satellite phone.

“Canada needs the ELA’s scientific research to develop sound and long term policies on water, climate and public safety,” says Emma Lui, Council of Canadians water campaigner. “Despite the Harper government’s reckless water policies, we’re not giving up yet.”

The ELA – a world-renowned water research facility – costs as little as $400,000 per year to keep open.

If a protest takes place in a forest and nobody is there to film it, are people still angry?

I hope that the media does turn out because I think it's an issue worth attention. Given the remoteness of the location and the Easter weekend timing I'm not sure how it will work out. In any case, I wish them well and hope people take notice.

 *****

Something else that came out recently -- the Canadian Government's decision to back out of the UN droughts and deserts convention -- is not unlike their move to cut the ELA.

The move was ostensibly to save money. "It’s not an effective way to spend taxpayers’ money" says PM Stephen Harper, but the amount of money being saved is negligible. The government has spent $283,000 over the past two years on this program according to the Maclean's article, although our commitment is for $350,000.

Harper claims that only 18% of the funds are being spent on anything useful. My question is: how is this different than any other UN program? In fact, with 18% of the funds surviving the UN bureaucracy and getting applied in a productive way, I would consider this astonishingly successful.

The point, of course, is not the money. The real story here is how this reflects the priorities of the current administration, the optics that a move like this generates among the public, and the impression it leaves on the other 193 countries (every other country in the UN, in case you're wondering) that are signatories to the convention.

The damage done to Canada's goodwill among other nations as a result of not being a team player on this matter, whatever that damage may be, must certainly exceed the $350k that we're saving, if one were able to quantify it.

I also find it bizarre that a government that spends $21 million per year on Economic Action Plan advertising would risk the negative publicity that a move like this generates to save a paltry $350k.

*****

The government might argue that these small and supposedly wasteful expenses add up to a significant amount, and at a time when the government is struggling to return to a balanced budget every expense needs to be carefully vetted (except Action Plan advertising apparently).

I agree that small things add up. Small polarizing decisions such as the two mentioned above, as well as others like the Conservative's reluctance to stop the importation of shark fins, combine to create a growing distaste of the government and it's intransigent approach to the environment and social issues.

This may be a miscalculation on the part of Harper. The negative impressions that these actions leave could accumulate to the point where they threaten to overcome people's fear of what Justin Trudeau might do to the country, and could spell the end of the conservative majority next election.

Experimental Lakes Area Travesty

In spite of my somewhat conservative leanings, I gotta say that I've been disappointed with a great many things that Stephen Harper and the Federal Conservative government has done. There have been a whole slew of things from wasting money on misguided "stimulus" programs to their embarrassing response to Palestine's promotion to non-member observer state at the UN.

Some things are big. Some things are small. The closure of the Experimental Lakes Area in western Ontario near Kenora could be considered small. A below-the-radar operation that survived on a budget of less than a million dollars for most of it's existence, the ELA is a modest operation but has had a tremendous impact.

Some people will cite research done at the ELA as being a fundamental part of the effort to reduce acid rain in the 1980's. (Interestingly, this effort was led by another conservative PM, Brian Mulroney, proving that being environmentally friendly and right-of-center are not mutually exclusive concepts.) This is a notable example, but at any given time dozens of research projects might be on the go, impacting many industries or aspects of life in some small way.

Source: http://www.experimentallakesarea.ca

The closure of the ELA strikes me as a particularly harsh move, simply because it costs so little and it does so much. Of all the things that the government spends money on, this operation must be near the top in terms of bang for the buck.

Money is not wasted at the ELA. That, at least, is my experience. As a summer student one year I spent some time there assisting with experiments and collecting lake-dwelling bugs for further study back at the lab. There was a communal eating area, small buildings with bunk beds, a sand volleyball court on the compound, and not a whole lot more. Our showers in the morning were limited to 5 minutes. There was a schedule, so if your shower lasted much longer than 5 minutes you risked having a naked biologist walking in on you.

The place was nerd central. Scientists from all over the place, dressed in cargo pants, would gather and chat about their respective projects over dinner, go to bed early, and wake up at ungodly hours to continue their research.

Most governments brag about supporting research. Besides directly providing science and technology-related jobs, research often leads to development and the additional jobs that go with that. Some research also leads to a better understanding of the world we live in, which in turn can lead to policy enhancements.

This is the primary objective of the ELA: a better understanding of how human activity impacts our environment, and this is why some people think the Conservative government has pulled the center's funding. They portray this as a "war on science":

“The Harper government is gutting all and any tools, rules, and science projects that stand in the way of corporate abuse of our freshwater heritage,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “No ELA means that the damage done to water from extractive industries will forever be hidden.”

The language I would use would be less inflamatory, but it's hard to argue against the notion that this is an ideological move by the government, because there are few other plausible explanations. The government's purported reason, saving money, doesn't wash when you consider how little money is being saved in relation to the value of the research being done and the uniqueness of the operation. At the very least, this speaks to how little the government values environmental research.

The ELA may live on. The government is not locking the doors and throwing away the key -- they are just locking the doors. There is a chance that the Ontario government (yeah, they have money to spend ...) or some other party may take over the funding of the facility, but until that happens there is to be no research done there ... even if the federal funding agreement is still in effect and research grants are in place.

This may not seem like an tremendously important issue for many people, but to me the closure of the ELA and the government's handling of it has a spiteful tone. This is not an isolated thing either: the end of the mandatory long form census is another similar issue. As somebody who had to merge longitudinal data sets for quantitative studies in university, I can appreciate the value of having consistent information, and the census change will cause more problems than you might imagine.

While individually these issues may be small and you may not care a great deal about them, they reflect poorly on the character of the government, and you should at least care about that.

*****
Fun fact: if you fry these guys in pure acetic acid they become transparent.

Source: http://www.aquamerik.com/

Another fun fact: frying chironomus larvae in acetic acid does not smell good.


*** UPDATE ***

Also published in Winnipeg Free Press: Sorry, Harper, it just doesn't wash Blog of the week: Anybody Want a Peanut?

Another interesting link: As dismantling begins, shuttering of research station called a 'travesty'

"The doors of the old sleeping cabins at the 45-year-old Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) are being ripped off, the appliances are being taken away, and the personal belongings of researchers are being removed.
...
this brings into serious doubt the government’s sincerity to actually transfer the facility over to another operator."

Exchange Brew Pub

A column in the Free Press this weekend - Exchange brew pub might make Irish eyes smile - correctly points out that Winnipeg does not have a brew pub. I am not quite sure why this is, but it is shameful.

The author, a Benjamin Gillies, also reminded us of the complete lack of foresight that our civic government had when it rejected a proposal to sell an abandoned pump house in the exchange district to an entrepreneur to create a unique brew pub: the Pump House Restaurant and Brewing Co. This, and the nonesense that followed whereby the city lost $600,000 in a failed attempt to do something with the building, is also shameful.

Benji (can I call you Benji? Good... thanks) goes on to propose a reviving that old brewpub idea:

"Should another developer approach the city with a solid business plan for establishing a microbrew restaurant, the government should seriously consider donating the pumping station to the project (as it did for the Red River College's downtown campus).
Instead of holding onto an empty building as it slowly succumbs to demolition by neglect, the city would be putting the heritage structure to productive use and earning tax revenue in the process. It would also be contributing to the growing list of unique attractions that make Winnipeg a more dynamic place to live in and visit. And that is definitely something worth raising a glass to."

The location is great. It's an area that growing in popularity with condo developments springing up, and an interesting development directly across the street where Sunstone Group is developing a boutique hotel and outdoor plaza area on the waterfront.

The concept includes a restaurant and wine bar to be built in another old building: the Harbour Master building that juts directly out onto the Red River.

If the James Avenue Pumping Station doesn't work out, that doesn't mean that we should give up on a brew pub in the exchange district. It's a great idea, and a natural fit in my opinion. There are lots of heritage buildings with wood beams and rustic brick walls -- not to mention space for vats and equipment -- that could make a great brew pub location.

ahem...

Source: www.winnipeglovehate.com/

There is certainly more to this absence of brew pubs than a shortage of appropriate spaces, and I suspect part of the answer lies in mounds of red tape. I haven't had an opportunity to compare the Manitoba brew pub application process to those of other provinces, but given that the MLCC has 12 different types of liquor licenses, one could guess that anything having to do with booze in this province is probably unnecessarily complicated.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that our local beer diversity may increase. One reason: The Government of Manitoba is slowly relaxing some of it's liquor laws. Some initial changes were made in 2011 and 2012, and you can view some more proposed changes here. (Thanks Ben). Though the changes are mostly incremental, the general tendency is to make liquor regulations less restrictive, which is a good thing for consumers. For brew pubs, one of the most important changes I think is this one:

"Brew pubs will be able to sell their product on an off-sale basis and through other retailers such as Liquor Marts."

There is also a brew pub concept brewing in Brandon MB. The Brewtinerie, to be established in an old fire hall, is not yet a sure thing but it's an exciting proposal for beeries, especially those in Brandon, and I see it as a good omen for Winnipeg.

Another local beer development that is worth mentioning is Farmery Brewing: a true made-in-Manitoba beer. Read more about it here.

While the old Waterfront pump house might have missed it's opportunity to become a brew pub, I am optimistic about the beer landscape expanding beyond our existing local beer heroes Half Pints Brewing Co. and Fort Garry Brewing Co. because of the developments mentioned above.