Different takes on the same announcement

Earlier today the Government of Nova Scotia announced the details of a new MOU with the province's universities.  I gather that in general austerity is the theme of the announcement (with $25 million in funding specifically dedicated to cost cutting - however that is supposed to work).

Of course how the province is presenting this announcement is a little different than some media sources.  To demonstrate the difference I thought it might be fun to provide the first paragraphs from a sources covering this issue.

To start, here is the first paragraph from the government's news release:

A three-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the province and Nova Scotia's 11 universities will ensure tuition remains at, or below, the national average, increases research and development opportunities, and invests $25 million in universities to help them become more sustainable.

 From the Metro's story on the topic:

The Nova Scotia government will allow tuition fees to rise by three per cent a year while reducing its grant to universities.

From the Chronicle Herald's story:

Nova Scotia universities will see a three per cent cut in provincial funding, Labour and Advanced Education Minister Marilyn More announced this afternoon.  

 From the Globe and Mail's story:

The Nova Scotia government will allow tuition fees to rise by three per cent a year while reducing its grant to universities.

(As you may haven noticed, there is a striking similarity between the Metro and Globe and Mail paragraphs.  Though the stories had different headlines it seems that they both just re-issued the Canadian Press story.)

I guess the media wasn't too interested in going with the province's take on things in this case.

Information they don't post in Newfoundland

A few days ago I noticed a CBC story about Newfoundland and Labrador not posting restaurant inspection results for the public to see, and not having any plans to do so in the near future.

At the time my thought was that the implementation of such a scheme would likely be relatively straightforward, particularly because the data already exists (and probably in a relatively accessible way).  Basically all the province would need to do is release it to the public.

Moments ago I happened to be browsing through New Brunswick related web-content and found their restaurant inspection depository.  From what I can tell from this site, it looks as though this process is just about as easy as thought it would be.  I imagine that they have a database that then feeds the site so that the most current reports are displayed and restaurant profiles automatically updated.  Presumably they would have such a database even if they weren't actively providing the information to the public, the internal management of the data would require such a structure.

Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the location being inspected seem to pass quite easily.  Though I was surprised to see some of the infractions.  In particular I was surprised to see infractions that I just wouldn't have really thought likely.

For instance, in at least one case a location was cited or not having refrigerators with thermometers.  Such an infraction immediately raises at least two questions.  Firstly, if fridge thermometers are required wouldn't you expect them to come with fridges?  Secondly, given that these inspections seem to be somewhat regular, how could such an infraction arise in a place that is not new to the food service industry?  Shouldn't such an infraction have been caught almost immediately?

If you examine the inspection report I just linked to you might also see that there seems to sometimes be inconsistency between the broad information provided about the report and the details contained within.  Notably, the report itself suggests that the last inspection was on November 22, 2011 and that the follow-up should be on December 6, 2011.  The higher level information suggests that the last inspection was on November 22, 2011 but that the follow-up inspection should be on January 16, 2012.

One final thing that I found interesting about these New Brunswick restaurant inspection reports is that they seem to either be done in English or French, not in both languages.  Furthermore, one has to open the report to see in which language the report was prepared.

Big news on the Occupy Halifax/NS front

Though I haven't mentioned anything about the Occupy NS/Halifax front for several days the protest has been on-going. After a negotiated departure from the Grand Parade (in advance of today's Remembrance Day ceremonies) the occupiers set up camp in Victoria Park, a site across from the Public Gardens. As far as I knew things were in motion for the Occupiers to return to their original location in the near future.

It seems now, at least according to the Chronicle Herald and a city notice, that this may not be happening. The city seems to now be attempting to shut down the protest before it returns to the Grand Parade. Apparently the city is now going to try to enforce the no camping and park closing rules that they have been lax about for the past few weeks (That the city seems to think that it is Ok only to enforce rules when it wants to is troubling and, at least to some extent, undermines the principle of Rule of Law that is so important in Canadian society).

In many ways this was a neat little maneuver by the city. The protestors left the site directly in front of city hall voluntarily based on negotiations with the city (a city that seemed to imply that it would support a continued occupation - it even suggested land that could be used for an encampment site). Now, once the protestors have vacated the prominent location, the city has decided it will shut them down.

Though I don't know all of the details, from the outside this definitely seems a little duplicitous on the part of the city government. Not only were the camps allowed to pass health and safety inspections, something that seemed to implicitly suggest some level of governmental approval, but the protestors were also explicitly offered an alternate park-based location for their protest by the city. This latter fact seems particularly pertinent.

For the city, which seemingly approved of the activities protests, to now try to shut them down, if anything, is asking for trouble. I suspect that many of the protestors and those who support the protestors will feel betrayed by the city. As I haven't been in Halifax for the duration of the occupation I don't really know what the public's position is on the matter, but I suspect that it could have a big impact on how this will all play out (and who knows, maybe the city knows that the public doesn't support the occupation). In any case, the city seems interested in forcing the issue sooner rather than later.

This is unacceptable

A few minutes ago I was reminded of a situation that has been allowed to continue on the Government of Newfoundland website that is completely unacceptable.

While the Department of Government Services provides online access to its Registry of Companies, one can only access the database if they are using Internet Explorer 6.

In case you aren't up on these things, Internet Explorer 6 was first released in 2001. According to the Wiki article about Internet Explorer 6 suggests that "Microsoft now considers IE6 to be an obsolete product and recommends that users upgrade to Internet Explorer 8." A Microsoft website dedicated to eradicating Internet Explorer 6 goes are far as to say "Now that we’re in 2011, in an era of modern web standards, it’s time to say goodbye." This same site also suggests that only 2% of Canadians use this browser.

So to get back to my original point, by allowing access to the database exclusively through an outdated browser the Department of Government services is effectively failing to provide access to this data about Newfoundland companies to the vast majority of the Canadian population. That this situation has been allowed to persist is completely unacceptable.

What's the difference between pro sports and the film industry?

Based on my assessment of news coverage in St. John's, the potential return of an AHL team to St. John's seems to be a pretty big story at the moment. An aspect of the story that seems to be getting the most coverage is whether or not the municipal and provincial governments would provide the team with some sort of subsidy/incentive to help the whole relocation process along.

A few days ago the city decided it wouldn't offer such an incentive and just a few moments ago I heard that the provincial government has also decided against providing such an incentive. Apparently Terry French went so far as to say that the government would be 'philosphically' opposed to such a subsidy.

And while I don't happen to be a particularly big fan of subsidies to pro sports teams I do find it funny that the same government that actively subsidizes the TV and film industry, among other industries, would go so far as to suggest professional sports are a lesser (in terms of meriting public support) form of mass entertainment or employment. I have to imagine that the number of jobs associated benefits that could be almost guaranteed by the arrival of a pro hockey team would be of greater economic significance than frequently arise due to other industrial subsidies.

If you don't want to subsidize a particular company, fine, don't subsidize it, but to suggest that you are philosophically opposed to a particular aspect of the entertainment industry seems a bit much, particularly on a day that the same government announced funding for the acquisition of lighting equipment for the TV and film industry.

Fun stuff on the interwebs

A few days ago I became aware of International Coffee Organization, an IGO dedicated to the coffee trade. Not only does this organization involve itself in the international coffee trade, it also provides all kinds of information about the coffee and the coffee industry. If you are a coffee drinker they likely have information that is is worth checking out.

Just this afternoon I became aware of the fact that the Canadian government, though Public Works and Government Services Canada, operates an online auction site through which all kinds of goods are sold. While they claim vehicle sales are what they are best known for, they currently have a wide range of women's undergarments and designer apparel available for purchase. Oh, and they also have a Rolex and some jewellery for sale, along with surplus military attire. This

And because they are in the midst of their annual MaxFunDrive I should probably encourage everyone to check out the great free content that is available through Maximumfun.org. In particular, mainly because I haven't mentioned it here before, I should direct your attention to their newest podcast, Judge John Hodgman. Except as they relate to matters of style, Hodgman's 'rulings' are always insightful, eloquent, and persuasive.

Update: Shortly after I finished this post I saw that my friend Nicole posted about the fact that Life's photo archive is now available through Google. Anyway, this is another "Fun stuff on the interwebs" that I recently discovered and that I think is worth checking out.

This brings back memories

It seems that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be going ahead with their plan to sue big tobacco 10 years after passing the enabling legislation.

Working at the public hearings held before the passage of the legislation that got this ball rolling was one of my first responsibilities as page when I started working at the House of Assembly in April 2001. Though I think I only worked for one such session I still remember quite a number of the presenters that participated in the event.

In many ways the presentations pretty much summed up the whole pro/anti-tobacco discourse. On the anti side there were presentations from older individuals suffering from tobacco related ailments, an anti-tobacco 'youth team,' and several doctors. Opposing the legislation and the idea of the lawsuit was a lone tobacco industry advocate - a lawyer/law professor if my memory serves me correctly. Given that the tobacco advocate was a hired gun it isn't too surprising that they gave the most professional and effective presentation of the day. And, for better or worse, it is their presentation that I remember the most.

Actually, as far as presentations on dry topics go, this may have been most engaging presentation I have ever heard - and it was in the service of an industry with a somewhat tarnished reputation, a fact that has since made me feel a little strange about finding it to be such an effective presentation. But I guess this is basically the movie Thank You For Smoking was about.

Of course, to no one's surprise, the legislation was eventually passed and the chain of events leading up to today's story set in action.

Anyway, if it has taken 10 years to get to through the pre-lawsuit I am curious to see how long it will take to get through the full-blown lawsuit phase and whether or not not they will ever meet with any success.

Score
Cameron 26
Neil 0

Isn't this the same guy who has the power to overrule CRTC decisions?

Tony Clement's Twitter feed continues to blow my mind. Earlier today he was talking about the songs he was playing on guitar, reminiscing about attending Super Bowls past, and now he is providing Canadians with access to American Super Bowl ads that are blocked from Canadian broadcasts of the game.

In one of Clement's latest tweets he provided a link to a YouTube account that seems to have copies of the Super Bowl ads that can be viewed world-wide (or at least in Canada).

I really wonder if Clement gets the irony of this last tweet.

The same guy who just used his Twitter account to announce that he would be encouraging the reversal of a CRTC decision is now using the same account to complain about another policy in the same policy area. Given that Clement is clearly aware of the popular opinion on the matter (people want to see these ads as part of the live broadcast) and that he is a member of a government that seems to claim that they want to represent such views, maybe he might consider using his Twitter account to announce that this policy will also be subject to further review or reversal.

By the way, is this now the position of the current government on Super Bowl ads?

Score
Cameron 17
Neil 0

Tony Clement/the Canadian Government and Twitter

A few days ago Canada's Industry Minister, Tony Clement, used his Twitter account to publicize the government's decision to get the CRTC to revisit their decision on usage based billing (UBB).

While I guess that things like this are likely to be the wave of the future it is, nonetheless, a little strange.

While in some ways making announcements via Twitter might increase access to the content of the decision, this approach might disperse official policy stances of the government across the web. Determining which of these positions are the official positions of the government, given that they are on non-official sites, might be challenging.

Also, who controls this data? Will these tweets be available permanently and in venues other than Twitter? Will these tweets be considered official government statements? Who will manage this information? All in all, the switch to this platform seems to have been taken without much planning or thought.

All of this is not to say that the current government doesn't have a number of good reasons to move to this platform for official announcements. Firstly, Twitter is fast. For instance, Clement was able to get his message out to thousands almost instantaneously. This speed means that news cycles can be skipped or toyed with. Secondly, Twitter provides a way for the government/ministers to communicate directly with interested parties and the public, a feature that must be particularly appealing to this somewhat media-phobic government. The government does not have to rely on the mass media to transmit their message to the public nor worry that their message might be distorted by devious journalists. Furthermore, follow-up questions from the public (or media) can be addressed directly and quickly (and these are things that Clement seems interested in).

And finally, it seems that with same Twitter account that Clement is using to make policy statements he is also commenting about important topics such as the quantity of Red Bull his squash competitors have consumed or what he thinks about the half-time entertainment at the upcoming Super Bowl.

Thus Clement is blurring the lines between his public and private persona. When he says something on Twitter, as he has been for the past while, is it a reflection of the government's position (i.e. Does the Canadian government think that the Black Eyed Peas suck?) or are such positions reflections only of Clement's personal beliefs? How are citizens to know when Tony Clement is speaking for only Tony Clement or when he is actually speaking for the Government?

Anyway, given that this trend is likely to increase in popularity rather than diminish I think that a few of these issues (and likely a few that I have neglected to discuss) are worth considering somewhat seriously before we proceed too far along this path.

Score
Cameron 13
Neil 0

Big news year so far

Is it just me or does 2011 seem to be disproportionately newsworthy?

In Newfoundland and Alberta their have been and will be party leadership battles. In both cases the outcomes of the winner of these battles with be the provinces' new premiers.

On the weather front many parts of North America seem to be getting a disproportionate amount of snow and stormy weather.

Of late there has been quite a brouhaha about the CRTC's UBB ruling and its eventual reversal (via Twitter) by the Harper government.

Then, of course, you have the mass demonstrations presently taking place in police/authoritarian states throughout the middle east and Northern Africa, the most prominent example being the anti-Mubarak protests in Cairo and Egypt generally. Oh yeah, and in response to these protests the Egyptian government closed down the internet in their country! What?

Oh yeah, and former members of the Tunisian regime showed up on Canada with their ill-gotten billions and were then stripped of their status as permanent residents (this otherwise major story has been completely overshadowed by the events going on in Egypt).

I am sure I am missing other major stories, but this year just seems to be been intense from the get go. I kind of hope that this level of intensity doesn't dog us throughout the year, I don't know if I will be able to handle it.

Score
Cameron 12
Neil 0

Why Durham wants taxes

Just a few pages later one gets Durham's assessment of the previously described (somewhat anemic) revenue stream:

This immunity from taxation has sometimes been spoken of as a great privilege of the people of Lower Canada, and a great proof of the justice and benevolence of their government. The description which I have given of the singularly defective provision made for the discharge of the most important duties of both the general and the local government will, I think, make it appear that this apparent saving of the pockets of the people has been caused by their privation of many of the institutions which every civilized community ought to possess. A people can hardly be congratulated on having had at little cost a rude and imperfect administration of justice, hardly the semblance of police, no public provision for education, lighting, and bad pavements in its cities, and means of communication so imperfect, that the loss of time, and wear and tear caused in taking any article to market, may probably be estimated at ten times the expense of good roads.

It seems that Durham might have been an early supporter of something approximating our contemporary welfare state.

Government revenue in Canada before Canada was Canada

Because I have already introduced the concept of municipal finance today, it seems appropriate for me to also include what Durham had to say about the source of government revenue in the 1830s

With the exception of the small amount now derived from the casual and territorial funds, the public revenue of Lower Canada is derived from duties imposed, partly by imperial and partly by provincial statutes. These duties are, in great proportion, levied upon articles imported into the Colony from Great Britain and foreign countries; they are collected at the principal ports by officers of the Imperial Customs.

At the time of the writing of the report the total revenue collected was about £100 000.

My how things have changed since those old pre-income tax and pre-welfare state days.

More not news from Newfoundland

I happened to be skimming my Twitter feed when I noticed a new update from VOCM, a St. John's radio station. The tweet, "MHA Pleased with Governmental Investments," attracted my attention because of it's awkward wording. Why didn't they just write "MHA Pleased with Government's Investments"?

I decided to read the story to see if the tweet's strange construction was merited.

When I got to the VOCM site I found something of a non-story.

The VOCM story in its entirety is:

The minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development says she is pleased with the investments made by the government in the Buchans Junction-Millertown area during the past year. Area MHA Susan Sullivan says there was roadwork carried out on the Buchans highway in that area, in addition to some pavement in the community of Millertown. Sullivan says there was also a half-million dollars invested for a new water system for a section of Buchans Junction.

As far as I can tell, the only thing this story does is provide an opportunity for a cabinet minister to compliment the work done by her government. What a shock that she thinks she is doing a good job. Did they try checking with residents of the district to see if they agree? Was this the part of the district that needed the investment the most?

Is this story, as it presently stands, worth anyone's time? Does it add anything to the public's knowledge or understanding of government? Not really - particularly given the fact that the investment in itself pretty much laid out the government's position on the worthiness of the investment.

I probably shouldn't let stuff like this get to me, but it is frustrating that stories like this are frequently passed off as news.

We're not so innocent

Many observers of the Canadian political system, myself included, take pride in (or at least appreciate) the fact that Canadian legislation is not burdened with unrelated amendments and riders (the range of goals associated with this practice potentially being quite varied). This, of course, is in contrast to the (perceived) frequent occurrence of this practice in the US.

Not surprisingly, it turns out that Canada hasn't always been free of this practice. It seems that in the pre-Durham/United Province of Canada days the existence of this practice was something that Durham highlighted and repudiated in his report

As Durham was kind enough to note,

“A singular instance of this occurred in 1836 with respect to the renewal of the Jury Law, to which the Assembly attached great importance, and to which the Legislative Council felt a strong repugnance, on account of its having in effect placed the juries entirely in the hands of the French portion of the population. In order to secure the renewal of this law, the Assembly coupled it in the same Bill, by which it renewed the tolls of the Lachine Canal, calculating on the Council not venturing to defeat a measure of so much importance to the revenue of the latter, by resisting the former. The Council, however, rejected the Bill; and thus the Canal remained toll-free for a whole season, because the two Houses differed about a jury law.”

Sitting days

Earlier today I came across a local CBC news story in which Duff Conacher, out-going leader of Democracy Watch, criticizes the Government of Nova Scotia's decision to have the legislature sit for fewer than 70 days since their election in June 2009. Conacher suggests that a "Politicians [sic] role is to solve systemic problems and a lot of those solutions mean making legislative changes and those can only be done when the legislature is open." In light of this view it is argued that the legislature should sit for about 150 days a year.

The suggestion that Nova Scotia would be well served by a legislature sitting twice as many days a year struck me as strange, even if we accept the role that Conacher has assigned it.

First of all, is there universal agreement that there are "systemic problems" that need to be tackled? While I suspect that most people, including members of the government, would acknowledge that there a number of problems but I don't think that everyone would agree on the set of outstanding "systemic problems" that require the attention of the legislature. Some things that some people think are problems might not even be considered problems by others.

Secondly, if we accept that such a set of problems do exist and that provincial legislators are the right people to deal with them, given such a sitting schedule, when would the politicians tackling 'systemic problems' have the time to investigate and examine such issues? How does one analyze and understand such problems when they are spending more than half of their working year in adversarial meetings? I just don't see how more time in the legislature is necessarily good - even if we are just looking at Conacher's concerns.

Thirdly, though this point is related to the second point, with which resources are the legislators supposed to examine these 'systemic problems'? As it stands now government backbenchers and members of the opposition do not have access to resources that would allow them to conduct the quality of work conducted by the government (through the public service). I am not sure exactly what would be accomplished if we just increased the number of sitting days without introducing fundamental changes to things like committee and funding structures. Is it possible that we could just end up with twice as much uninformed meddling as we have presently?

(If I put a few more minutes into thinking about this issue I could probably come up with a few more problems with the proposal. Since it seems unlikely that the Government of Nova Scotia will consider such a change this extra time seems hardly worthwhile.)

While it is quite likely that the aforementioned article does not do justice to Conacher's arguments (and may have abandoned some key components of his position), the ideas that do come across in the article seem somewhat ill-conceived and possibly more problematic that advantageous. Arbitrarily adding more days to a legislature's calender without also making other changes will likely lead to more of the same rather than a new approach to politics. Much more change is needed if the role of the legislature is to change fundamentally to start examining "systemic problems," and those changes may not include increasing the number of days a year that the legislature sits.

Our McGill man in Ottawa

It seems that former McGill University president David Johnston has sworn in as Canada's new Governor General. Even though I bear something of a strong antipathy towards McGill administration, somehow this individual's past association with McGill has encouraged me to listen up whenever I hear his name. As much as I might not like to admit it, my association with McGill has likely left some kind of mark on me, even if I don't yet know the precise nature of that mark.

All of this being said, I think that Johnston's back ground and experience will serve him well in his new role. Furthermore, I am inclined to go so far as to think that he will actually do a very good job. Hopefully he will bring to the job an understanding of the constitution and operations of government that has not always been present among our Governors General.

All of this just so that a judge can have a few days off

A few minutes ago I decided that I should probably browse a few recent Canadian Orders-in-Council just to be up on the kinds of things that Cabinet is dealing with these days. Not surprisingly, many of these deal with things like appointments or amending previously passed Orders-in-Council. When everything was considered, the content of most of the Orders-in-Council that I examined was not particularly surprising or shocking (though in one case it did look as though Cabinet mistakenly referred to the NSERC Act instead of the SSHRC Act).

One Order-in-Council that did catch my eye had to do with the transfer of the position of Administrator (i.e the stand-in for the Lieutenant Governor) from the Chief Justice of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal J. Michael McDonald to a series of other individuals.

At first this seemed a little strange. Why would the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court lose this post only to have it filled by two other individuals in quick succession? Of course once I read the entire Order-in-Council, instead of just skimming it, things started to make a little more sense. It seems that McDonald will be unable to perform the duties of the Administrator for a few days (I am guessing that this need might related to a vacation or trip) and needed a fill-in. For whatever reason, instead of appointing just one fill-in to act as Administrator during McDonald's absence (July 12 to July 21), two Court of Appeal judges were appointed (one to take the first few days and the second to take that final few days).

Of course, to achieve this juggling of responsibilities six distinct directions had to be given. Firstly, McDonald had to be relieved of his duties as Administrator. Secondly, a first replacement had to be appointed. Thirdly, the first replacement's duties were to be terminated on a given date. Fourthly, a second replacement had to be appointed. Fifthly, the second replacement's duties were to be terminated on a particular date. Sixthly, McDonald had to have his duties reinstated. These orders were then repeated in French.

So now you have a little bit more information regarding the types of business Cabinet deals with.

"We Earn It!"

While looking through yesterday's newspaper coverage of the 'historic vote' on healthcare reform in the United States I saw a photo of some protestors outside the Capitol. Some of the protestors had signs with the message "In America, We Don't Redistribute Wealth, We Earn It." This message frustrates me because it perpetuates a myth about the role of the government in the United States and its history as it relates to the redistribution of wealth in the US (the US government has been redistributing wealth since its founding). This message also implies other untruths, namely that all redistribution of wealth is inherently Marxist/Communist in intention and origin and certainly un-American in nature and essence.

This basic factual inaccuracy of the message is striking. Contrary to what is suggested by this sign, one of the activities that US governments (local, state, and federal) have engaged in most consistently over the 200-year plus history of the country is the redistribution of wealth through various forms of taxation. Whether the form of taxation is duty paid on goods, sales tax, income tax, or capital gains tax the general effect is to transfer funds to the state (in its various forms). These funds may be used in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, the payment of salaries of civil servants, the provision of a justice system, the provision of welfare services, or the maintenance of a military force. Schools, libraries, and the military (and the teachers, librarians, and soldiers that they employ) are institutions that have been particularly longstanding beneficiaries of this wealth.

The point is not that we need like such practices (or even accept the necessity of a government) but that we should at least understand that they are inherent, to a lesser or greater extent, to government (which requires some resources - even if they are only human). Even the most basic government, one that deals only with law making, the provision of a justice system, and the protection of its borders, requires some funds (raised through taxation), which it then distributes in fulfilling its duties. Whether we like it or not, governments acquire resources which they then redistribute.

Even funnier is that, arguably, the US was founded on claims relating to the support of Americans for redistribution of wealth. The phrase "no taxation without representation" did not suggest that the colonists did not accept taxation (and the consequent redistribution of wealth) but that they wanted a say in how this wealth was to be collected and redistributed. It was on this issue, the control of the redistribution of wealth, (among others) that the Revolutionary War was fought. And since before the introduction of the present American constitution American governments have been actively engaging in the hard-fought-for ability to redistribute wealth in accordance with the wishes of representatives elected by taxpayers

So to not understand that the US engages in the redistribution of wealth, and has since its founding, is to not understand either the history of the country or the functioning of modern government. To suggest it is un-American is another issue all together in that it suggests an ahistorical understanding of history that seems to associate this practice with other, less-well regarded (at least from the American perspective) political systems. The general systems to which these practices seem to be associated are the communist/Marxist systems that American governments have vilified (i.e. ‘the evil empire’ or the ‘red threat’) for years. Unfortunately, these connotations have meant that the public has not been able to engage in reasonable discussions about the redistribution of wealth in the US and the role that it has played since before the founding of the country.

To conclude, and to maybe take the point just a little too far; it might even be reasonable to argue that the redistribution of wealth is more American than apple pie in that the redistribution of wealth is so essential to the American state that without it there would not be an American state (or subsidies for the apple farmers).