It’s now or never for our Crown forest

Premier Alward will soon make a decision about the New Brunswick public forest that will set its fate for rest of the century. If the media coverage of the issues at hand is any indication, I believe the public lacks a clear idea of what the real issues are. It has been pitched as a fight between the corporate forestry industry and environmentalists over ever-growing demands for conservation. The reality is quite different.

Staff at the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which is responsible for managing our public forest sustainably, has informed the industry that for the past two decades they have been cutting Crown forest faster than it is regenerating – in short, current logging rates are unsustainable. To bring logging in line with regeneration, the volume of wood cut from Crown land must be reduced by 10 percent. After 10-15 years the current stock of immature softwood should be harvestable, allowing for logging rates to increase.

The Minister of DNR has a dual mandate to ensure that logging is sustainable (the forest can renew itself) and that other public goals like biodiversity and watershed protection, recreation, and the like, are met. It is within this context that his staff is recommending the 10 percent decrease in harvest rates in the next management cycle (2012 – 2017).

This advice needs to be understood in context. The Acadian Forest, the name given to the complex mix of long-lived hardwoods and softwoods that forms the forest in our region, has been classified as endangered. In 1970, 70 percent of Crown land was considered mature Acadian Forest. This is now down to 45 percent, with all the attendant reductions in dependent species. Current cutting rates would reduce this to 12 percent over the next 20 years. In 50 years, it will be gone. There will be trees, but there will be no Acadian forest as we and earlier generations knew it. There will be no more fall colours.

Trees can be harvested without destroying the forest itself, but not with large-scale clearcutting. InNew Brunswick, 70 percent of our Crown forest is open for clearcut logging. Plantations (intensively managed single species tree farms) are established on 10 percent. Another 26 percent can be logged selectively (no clearcutting) in order to provide particular habitats and watercourse protection. Only 4 percent is set aside as areas where no logging at all can take place.

So what are the issues? Jim Irving, president of J. D. Irving Ltd., wants more areas of Crown land opened for clearcutting and plantations in order to increase, not decrease, the amount of wood taken from Crown land. When he complains that 30 percent of the Crown forest is off-limits because of conservation goals, he means that they can’t clearcut in 26 percent of the forest. They largely avoid these areas because selective harvesting is not economically “efficient.” That’s just business.

He also says that Crown land timber supply is insecure, making it difficult for the industry to invest for growth, because government is catering too much to “environmental” demands. In fact, the annual allowable cut on Crown land has been stable for 15 years. As other forest companies have folded, J. D. Irving’s share of that total has been increasing. The real supply of harvestable softwood has been declining because the industry has been overcutting. The decrease proposed by DNR staff would be a one-time correction to stop the overcutting and get harvesting onto a sustainable footing.

A 10 percent reduction in AAC, according to Mr. Irving, would result in hundreds of job losses. In truth, the issue is not wood supply but price. Private woodlots, making up 30 percent of all woodland, are more than able to make up the difference, but they cannot compete with Crown wood on price. As long as the companies can get a cheaper supply from Crown land, they have no intention of paying more. That’s just business.

Premier Alward has two options. He can choose to uphold his legal mandate to ensure the long term sustainability of the Acadian forest and its multiple values, including long term commercial harvesting, by following the advice of DNR forest scientists.

Or he can follow the advice of Norm Betts and the Crown lands task force and hand our public forest over to industrial management to maximize financial returns. The result will be the ongoing decline and ultimately the demise of the Acadian forest in our province.

These are mutually exclusive goals. The Premier must choose between them. His choice will speak volumes about who really controls the public forest.

— Janice

Originally published February 15, 2012


Get the Tax System Right

ImageAs public services brace for a hit in the upcoming provincial government, the government has to realize that cutting to the bone is going to erode not just quality of life but certain essentials for those most vulnerable. As citizens, it is up to those of us with some influence with decision-makers to make sure the burden of government deficits is borne by those most able to pay. This should be done through the tax system, not through service fees and cuts that hurt most those with the least ability to pay.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Common Front for Social Justice have drilled down into the tax system to shed some light on how this can be done.  In their just-released research paper Economist Rod Hill (UNBSJ) and Jason Edwards with the CCPA remind New Brunswickers that by 2011 the tax cuts legislated in 2008 by the Liberal government have resulted in the removal of $325 million from provincial revenues – half the current deficit.

Most of that money went back into the pockets of people who need it the least.  There was virtually no benefit to people earning $15,000; a family earning $30,000 enjoyed a modest $600 decrease in taxes.  Twice that income ($60,000) enjoyed twice the tax cut, about $1,200.  From there, the benefits skyrocket.  A $90,000 income realized a $2,600 tax cut, while a $150,000 income earner had $6,000 more to invest in the stock market, stash away in tax-free or tax-deferred retirement plans, take an extra southern vacation in mid-winter, pay their child’s tuition, or put towards that new Lexus.

This is not just a New Brunswick phenomenon. Reducing taxes on the wealthy is a pillar of the dominant ideology that says that more money in rich people’s pockets will result in greater investments in the economy, more economic growth, and thus more taxes overall being paid to support public services. This utopian vision has not and will never materialize.

What has materialized is an ever-growing gap between rich and poor. InCanada, based on 2009 tax data, 3.8% of households control more than 67% of total financial wealth. In New Brunswick, the richest 20% controlled nearly 42% of all income, while the lowest 20% shared only 5.4%. This gap will have grown in 2010 and 2011 as the new tax regime was rolled out. Nationally, high income earners pay a lower tax rate now than at any time since the 1920s, with the top 1% paying a slightly lower rate than the bottom 10%.

The point of a progressive tax system is to keep this gap within socially responsible limits. The greater the income inequality, the greater the social problems. Private wealth accumulation starves public services that benefit everyone, and especially those at the other end of the spectrum.

There has never been more wealth in this country than now – the economy has grown by leaps and bounds over the post-war years. Billionaires are the new millionaires. Yet governments are cash-strapped. Infrastructure built in much leaner times is now crumbling with no money to replace it. Nation-building projects like railroads are the stuff of myth. Why? Because money that used to flow from the wealthy into public coffers to support the common good is now staying in private hands and supporting private wealth accumulation.

In New Brunswick, public services are under attack. Badly needed welfare rate increases are off the table, along with a universal drug plan. Dental care subsidies for social assistance recipients are cut, resulting in a withdrawal of services by the dentists.  Methadone programs are squeezed as drug abuse is growing. Forget about new investments in affordable housing, early childhood programs, and other prevention programs that would break the poverty cycle.

This analysis is not new.  Economists Joe Ruggeri and Jean-Philippe Bourgeois prepared a detailed critique of the new tax regime when it was implemented.  Several other economists signed a statement advising against it. I wrote about it in this column.  The Green Party had it in its 2010 election platform.

How to fix it? Return to 2008 tax levels. Also, add a new top tax bracket for incomes over $150,000 with a marginal tax rate of 21%. These measures would restore $260 million of revenue to the government, bringing significant relief to the cutting exercise now underway. I would make one modification to the proposal. Families with income under $20,000 should pay no tax. The cost of this would be less than $2 million, money that would go into the pockets of those who need it most.

Until fair taxation is on the table, our financial and social problems are only going to get worse.

— Janice

Originally published February 22, 2012

Rural New Brunswick must stand up and be represented

I predict that the future of New Brunswick rests with its local communities. Two decades of Imageglobalization following two decades of ‘provincialization’ has left citizens disempowered and communities hamstrung. New pressures of all sorts – economic, social and ecological – are going to make life a lot more difficult in the coming decades. The only way we are going to deal with them is for all citizens to re-imagine our collective future and set about achieving it. This is best done at the local level where people live and work. For that to happen, local governance needs to be re-organized and communities given the power to chart their own course and the tools they need for the journey.

This government has set this in motion with its local governance reforms. The potential is there for a revitalization of our province from the bottom up. But if rural New Brunswick does not want to be dictated to by municipal interests (which are well represented in the news), they had better get on the local governance train. Either rural dwellers become engaged in shaping the future or it will be shaped for them and they may not like what they get.

True to his word, local government minister Bruce Fitch is not forcing amalgamations or new governance structures on anyone. But he is providing a great deal of incentive for rural areas currently without any local representation to take a good hard look at it. The regional service commissions recently announced will entrench some basic – and undemocratic – inequities between communities with and without local councils that will quickly become apparent once the commissions are up and running next year.

These regional service commissions are large, encompassing several municipalities and local service districts. They will be responsible for delivering (solid waste management, emergency services) and coordinating (policing, recreation) services throughout this region. Perhaps more significantly for rural areas, they will also carry out regional planning and local planning in unincorporated areas. What is important here is how decisions are going to be made. Who will sit on these commissions and how will they be appointed?

It should come as no surprise that the mayor of each municipality and incorporated Rural Community within the region will have seat on the board that will govern the commission. After that, things get messy. Unincorporated areas, the Local Service Districts (LSDs), will be allocated a certain number of seats based on some unspecified ratio of population and tax base – in other words, not every LSD will get a seat. Who gets them? The Chairs of the LSD advisory committees within each region will get together and nominate from among themselves people to fill unincorporated seats. Those nominees would then be appointed to the board by the Minister of Local Government to whom they would be directly accountable (they are not accountable to the people within unincorporated areas). Where there are not enough LSD committee chairs to fill the unincorporated seats, the Minister will simply fill them directly.

This structure is entirely undemocratic. First, people living in the many LSDs without advisory committees have no say in who sits at the table on their behalf. Second, far too much authority is vested in advisory committee chairs who are not elected by normal election rules as mayors are. In any case, their authority is limited to their own district, not the broad unincorporated area. Finally, having the minister appoint seats from Fredericton is simply feudal.

These are not insubstantial issues. Here in Charlotte County, as many people live in LSDs as in incorporated municipalities, and most LSDs have no advisory committees. Yet only municipalities will have democratically elected representatives on the board. This will create an imbalance, probably in numbers and most certainly in legitimacy, in board decision-making.

Three possible solutions come to mind. One would be to create a board seat for each LSD and require each one to form an advisory committee whose chair would take the seat. Another would be to assign all board seats based on population and for citizens in unincorporated areas to elect their representatives directly, overseen by Elections NB. The third would be for rural dwellers to take direct responsibility for their local affairs by incorporating Rural Communities with elected mayors who would then take their seats on the regional commission board in this capacity.

Like it or not, rural communities are going to have to step up to the plate and become more engaged in self-governance or let the municipalities and province dictate what happens in unincorporated areas. The time to step up is now. The train is leaving the station.

— Janice

Originally published February 8, 2012

Efficiency New Brunswick a Finance Minister’s Dream

ImageFinance Minister Higgs is asking people to contribute constructive ideas on how to make government services more affordable and effective. I would go one step further and say that the budget should also contribute to other goals that New Brunswickers want to achieve like environmental protection, community development, job creation and personal savings.

Not many vehicles deliver such a comprehensive package of benefits. One that could is Efficiency New Brunswick. To the credit of Elizabeth Weir’s early leadership, Efficiency NB achieved international recognition as an innovator in developing energy efficiency incentive programs across all sectors and energy sources. In a recent presentation, vice president Lesley Rodgers gave an account of the impacts of $44.1 million in incentives provided to individuals and businesses over its first five years. Energy demand has been reduced by over 3,000 terajoules, cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 300,000 tonnes, and saving $44.4 million annually. Their $44.1 million has generated an additional $300 million in private efficiency investments. Further, Efficiency NB estimates that 3,000 person years of employment have been created over four years through their programming, based on studies which put job creation at 6-19 jobs per $1 million invested in energy efficiency.

Efficiency New Brunswick has gotten off to a good start. But this agency is being largely ignored by the government, its potential under-appreciated and therefore under-developed. As part of the Department of Energy, the agency’s 2010-11 initial budget was $17.6M, then revised upward to $23M to provide more programming funds. This past year the budget was even lower at $17M, a dead end proposition in an agency that should be building a head of steam as its effectiveness and demand for service grows.

The Ganong Report commissioned by Premier Graham stressed the power of energy efficiency to meet multiple economic and environmental goals. It recommended aggressive investments in the range of $70M per year over 10 years. This would lever over $3 billion in private investment and create over 30,000 person years of employment.

To make this a bi-partisan endorsement, Premier Alward’s Energy Commission (Jeannot Volpé and Bill Thompson) went the next step to recommend how this investment should be secured. Rather than being subject to the vagaries of annual budgeting such as the process now underway, they concluded Efficiency New Brunswick should be independent of the Dept. of Energy and funded through a very small efficiency charge on energy bills – electricity, natural gas and oil. The agency would be regulated like all other energy services by the Energy and Utilities Board. The EUB would review Efficiency NB budgets, set energy demand reduction targets, make sure they are providing value for money, and set the efficiency rate to be charged on energy bills.

Nova Scotia, whose energy efficiency agency is brand new, has adopted this model and has already surpassed New Brunswick’s budget. Yet Premier Alward rejected it, perhaps because it was misguidedly viewed as contrary to the promise to freeze power rates. There are several reasons why finance minister Higgs should put it back on the table.

First, it would take $17M off the government’s books without diminishing – in fact dramatically expanding – service to the public. Second, unlike a new tax or rate hike, an efficiency charge on energy bills goes right back into customers’ pockets. It builds a pool of funds which is disbursed directly to energy customers across all sectors as interest-free loans or rebates for efficiency upgrades in homes and businesses. Third, for every one dollar of incentive paid by Efficiency NB, an additional five dollars of private money will be invested in new technologies, materials, renovations and contractors. Fourth, every $1M invested would create an average of 10 jobs requiring a variety of skills distributed throughout all regions of New Brunswick. Fifth, reducing energy demand means lower energy costs for households and businesses, helping everyone’s bottom line. Sixth, if everyone is paying into the pool, more people will be motivated to take advantage of it, increasing the uptake and expanding the benefits. Seventh, scrutiny of the EUB would ensure that New Brunswickers are getting value for money while meeting energy demand reduction and environmental goals. Finally, it is a springboard towards a sustainable energy economy – just the thing to attract and keep young people working here at home.

This is a package ready-made for a cost-efficiency conscious finance minister. It’s just a matter of Mr. Higgs recognizing the potential with Efficiency NB to both save money and drive economic development. The only other billion dollar investment on offer these days is shale gas, a proposition that will deliver far more trouble than it is worth. Given a choice between the two, energy efficiency would win public approval hands down.

— Janice

Originally published January 24, 2012

What radical ideological agendas are afoot?

ImageLast week, the day before the regulatory hearings began on the Northern Gateway pipeline from the tar sands in northern Alberta to the northern BC coast, federal natural resources minister Joe Oliver issued an open letter with the following message:

A. The pipeline is critical to Canada’s economic interest.

B.  Environmental and “other” groups with radical ideological agendas, funded by foreign special interests, oppose the project.

C.  The regulatory approval process allows such interests to interfere with important projects like the pipeline, thereby undermining Canada’s national interest.  E.  The regulatory system has to change so this no longer happens.

Never before have the lines been drawn so starkly between the environmentally concerned public (who constitute and support these groups) and the federal government.  Some of those groups have been around since before Environment Canada was formed in the early 1970s. From that beginning, public concern for the environment as reflected in the environmental movement and the government’s interest in and capacity for environmental protection grew in lockstep. The relationship has been tense because the job of the environmental movement is to hold government to account, but it has always been one of mutual respect.

Until now. With this letter, the Harper government has thrown down the gauntlet. They will finish what they have already started – decimation of Environment Canada and environmental research, repudiation of international environmental agreements, gutting of regulatory systems, and crippling of citizen environmental groups through funding cuts and withdrawing charitable status.

Now, this agenda begs the question. Just who is the radical? The adjective “radical” is defined as relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something. On the face of it, I would say the Harper environmental agenda is pretty radical. What has been built up in 40 years will be destroyed in four.

Joe Oliver ascribes a radical ideology to the groups opposing the Northern Gateway project and its related tar sands, yet his own ideology – standard fare in the capitalist world – remains unexamined. It is the ideology of progress measured by economic growth. Economic growth made some sense when countries like Canada were first developing. It has since become a secular religion to be pursued at any cost. No resource should be left unexploited, no opportunity to make a dollar left untapped. Prosperity and the good life are measured in dollars and the only way to get them is through unimpeded and limitless economic expansion, fuelled by technology and capital.

That ideology can only conclude that Canada’s tar sands must be fully exploited and pipelines must be built to move it to markets. There is no choice in the matter. When you have no choice, you ignore evidence that says global climate change is underway and your project will be a rocket booster for the process. And you demonize those who challenge the underpinnings of your religion as enemies of the state.

On the other hand, the ideology of those who oppose this route to the good life holds that it is hubris to think that humans can transcend or replace the complex, unknowable Earth systems that keep us alive. We are members of the Earth community, not masters of it. Cash payments cannot substitute for clean water, air and soil. Droughts, floods, and pestilence are not acceptable costs of economic growth. It is immoral to knowingly squander our children’s future. There are limits to growth on a finite planet. The Earth is telling us we have hit the limit. It’s time to back down, change course, and find another route to prosperity.

This latter ideology is indeed radical. It directly challenges the status quo – the economic growth religion – and demands a complete transformation of human systems. But it is also grounded in the inherently conservative idea that we must learn to live within the planetary boundaries imposed upon us.

While holding fast to the economic growth ideology and maintaining human systems around it may appear moderate, it is dangerously radical. It defies the idea of limits, placing human will above ecological and planetary boundaries. Economic growth that undermines the integrity of the Earth’s life support systems, driving species to extinction, contaminating air and water, burning holes in the protective ozone layer and changing the climate – and thus the face of the Earth – is a radical pursuit, an uncontrolled, irreversible planetary engineering project, the outcome of which all indicators suggest will not be good.

Given the choice between radically reinventing human systems and radically destroying natural systems, I suggest that the wise and prudent radical choice would be the former.

— Janice

Originally published  January 18, 2012

Fiscal reforms need to be grounded in fairness

ImageFinance minister Higgs is now in the home stretch of budget preparations. While it may seem that there are few options open to him to get our fiscal house in order, there are, in fact, different ways to cut the cloth. The approach Minister Higgs takes to this task is ultimately shaped by his starting assumptions.

On the face of it, these seem to be that there are no sacred cows, that all departments and programs will have to make their contribution to the cause. Such declarations have the façade of fairness and they go over well in speeches meant to prepare everyone for what’s coming. But this idea of fairness only works in a world where everything is of equal value for each dollar spent and every person has equal opportunities to flourish. We know, however, that this is not the case.

Fundamentally the role of government is to correct to the greatest extent possible the inequalities that exist among citizens, to recalibrate the imbalances of power that are usually at the root of inequality, and to prevent exploitation of others and the environment (our life support system) in the pursuit of private interest.  This obligation is accomplished through the tax system and protective legislation.  Fairness in this current budgeting process, then, is not about equal treatment but making sure that the burden of rebalancing our fiscal state does not impinge on government’s ability to meet this bottom line obligation.

The trend, sadly, is in the opposite direction. National statistics demonstrate a growing divide between rich and poor, the result of recent regressive tax policies that have left more money in the hands of those who need it least. Less money, meanwhile, is available to governments to invest in people whose needs are not being met. Society is stratifying between a growing underclass and a monied class that controls increasingly more wealth.

This trend was exacerbated in New Brunswick when the Liberals changed the personal income tax system, providing an escalating tax rate cut as the salary scale goes up from $35,000 and virtually no benefit to anyone making less than that. Finance minister Higgs took the first step in correcting this by cancelling the final instalment of the tax giveaway to upper income earners that was to have come into effect on January 1st. But he needs to do much more. He needs to restore income tax rates to their 2009 level, returning another $2-300 million to government coffers.

Then, some of that restored revenue should then be used to increase the income level below which no income tax is paid to $20,000. That would put even more money into the hands of those that need it. An extra $50 to someone on minimum wage is worth a whole lot more than an extra $50 to someone making $50,000. It would be spent on needs, not wants, thereby increasing the resilience and decreasing the vulnerability of those families, and ultimately reducing the burden on other social services and charities.

On the fairness test, so far this government is failing. Last fall, Premier Alward reneged on the commitment to increase the minimum wage by 50 cents an hour. Small businesses argue if they have to pay higher wages, they will have to cut jobs. That may be so. But a minimum wage law should ensure any worker a liveable wage. Rather than fix this problem, Premier Alward has forced the poorest paid workers to continue subsidizing their employer through legalized poverty-level wages.

If we collectively value a vibrant small business sector and the jobs it creates, then we collectively should take responsibility for it through the tax and regulatory system. Cutting the small business tax rate to the bone, and eliminating what amounts to a power rate subsidy the commercial and institutional sectors now pay to the industrial sector, would put more money into the hands of small business so they can afford to pay their workers a liveable wage. This would mean more people moving into the workforce, reducing the costs of social security.

Blaine Higgs has options. Which options he chooses will be a test of his government’s commitment to real fairness and to the universal obligation of governments to correct to inequalities and power imbalances in our society and to prevent exploitation of some to the benefit of others. The tools are there to make sure his fiscal restructuring contributes to meeting these ultimate ends. Without this guiding principle, however, it is more likely that these ends will slip further out of reach.

Energy Policy Pipe Dreams

Pipe dream. Image credit: Flickr, Meilburgin

Canada — a nation in climate change denial endangers world.

Politics is politics, science is science — and never the twain shall meet, at least not in Stephen Harper’s Canada. Federal environment minister Peter Kent made that cleavage final Monday evening when he announced that Canada would remove itself as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the legally binding agreement to tackle global warming, which causes climate change.

In the 1960s scientists began to postulate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations (due to fossil fuel combustion) in the upper atmosphere could actually change global climate patterns. By the early 1980s, the media were writing about it.

In 1988, the first international conference of scientists and policy makers convened in Toronto. By then, the trend was so alarming and the potential consequences so dire, that conference recommended a 20 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2000. It also established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), consisting of 1200 climate scientists from nearly every country, to provide scientific assessments and advice to world leaders. In 1992, those leaders — including Canada’s Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney — signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which pledged to “prevent dangerous climate change.”

That was 20 years ago. A whole new generation — the one that was to have been the first beneficiary of the 1992 agreement — has been born since then. The only thing we can say to them now is, we failed. Dangerous climate change will happen in their lifetime, the result of a gaping chasm between science and politics that opened up following that original commitment.

With each successive report, the IPCC revises its assessment of the severity of the problem and the speed with which it is progressing — always upward, never downward. Yet in inverse proportion to this evidence, each successive meeting of the parties to the Convention and its 1997 implementation agreement (the Kyoto Protocol) strays further and further from the 1992 imperative to prevent dangerous climate change.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Canada. Like Alice’s adventures falling down the rabbit hole, climate change politics has become increasingly surreal. Peter Kent and Stephen Harper are operating in an altered reality of their own making, one in which the forces of nature do not apply. Real things like people and the planet become very, very small. Unreal things like vested interests and power politics become very, very large, presiding menacingly over the Mad Hatter’s tea party.

The government’s political goal is to protect the unreal things and to shove the real things away from the table and out the door. The real things, represented at least marginally in the Kyoto Protocol, are in the past for Canada, says Canada’s environment minister. Previous Liberal governments which nodded in the direction of real things were incompetent. The Harper government is not so silly. It has willed itself to be above real things and therefore not bound by them. Scientific evidence of changing climate, not to mention people dying as a result (in other countries so far, and so they are especially not real), is both abstraction and distraction.

The Harper government prefers to operate in the theatre of the absurd, saying one thing but meaning the opposite, poking the world in the eye by announcing a new tar sands project from the Durban climate talks, negotiating in bad faith as a party to the Kyoto Protocol while fully intending to renounce it immediately on returning home.

I have no illusions about politics, especially Harper politics: take no prisoners, cede no ground, never let the facts (the omnibus crime bill) or the law (Kyoto, the Wheat Board Act) get in the way of an agenda.

What distresses me most is that the mainstream media and the public have given this government a free pass on this issue. CBC didn’t even have a reporter in Durban. For people who are supposed to care about this issue, we are recklessly complacent about this government’s delusional and unethical stance on climate change.

Are we also in denial about climate change, or have we given up on the future? Why do we allow this theatre of the absurd to continue?

Alas, we have been silent too long. Politics has already squandered the short lead time the world had to prevent dangerous warming. Scientists say that emissions would have to stabilize by 2015 and then start to decline if we are to prevent dangerous warming thresholds — tipping points — from being reached.

This is now impossible, given that in Durban, nations agreed to the unreal — to roll back the clock nearly 20 years and start again.

Time doesn’t run backwards. Earth is real. All we can do now is stand back and watch.

— Janice

Originally published Dateline: Tuesday, December 20, 2011