Damien Gillis is a Vancouver-based documentary filmmaker with a focus on environmental and social justice issues - especially relating to water, energy, and saving Canada's wild salmon.
The Norwegian salmon farming industry got a lesson in the old adage, "be careful what you wish for" this week when it learned of industry critic Don Staniford's next job.
The British-born, globe-trotting salmon activist announced on his blog yesterday that following his scheduled deportation from Canada later this month he will be heading to Norway to work with that country's leading environmentalist bad boy, Kurt Oddekalv, head of the Green Warriors of Norway.
The industry may have got its wish - seeing the last of Staniford in BC - but it's turning out to be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Oddekalv had this to say on the development: “I am pleased to announce that Don Staniford is coming to Norway to spearhead the global work of the Green Warriors. Once he has finished fighting the Norwegian Government owned company Cermaq in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Don is welcome here in Norway. Cermaq's problems in Canada are coming home to roost.”
One of the industry's three Norwegian titans - which together own 92% of BC's salmon farms - Cermaq-Mainstream, is currently suing Staniford for defamation at the BC Supreme Court over his recent campaign comparing salmon aquaculture to Big Tobacco. On the opening day of the trial last month, officers from the Canadian Border Services Agency showed up to inform Staniford he would be deported following the trial for over-staying his visa. The charge is accurate, and yet it was hard not to draw a connection to the industry and its close ally, the Harper Government, given the place and manner in which Staniford was delivered the news.
Staniford and Oddekalv are unquestionably the global salmon aquaculture industry's boldest foes. Both employ provocative tactics that consistently get under the industry's skin. Their partnership is the salmon activist equivalent of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro joining forces.
I've met Oddekalv on several occasions and spent a few days at his Green Warriors headquarters near Bergen, Norway in 2009 - while working on my film "Farmed Salmon Exposed". To describe Oddekalv as a character is an understatement. The man is a larger-than-life eco-Viking, always happy to regale his guests with tales of his daring exploits against the industry and other environmental violators in his native Norway.
Meanwhile, Staniford is the man who developed a global network of salmon farming critics through his former position as director of the Pure Salmon Campaign out of Washington, D.C. His quest against open net pen aquaculture has taken him to all the industry's operations - in Norway, Chile, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and the US - many times over.
Staniford - who has also plied his trade in BC during an earlier stint with the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and before that in Scotland - decamped again to BC a year and a half ago, as the province was developing into the front line of the battle over salmon aquaculture. But in the course of that time, he's gone from the director of a well-funded global campaign to guerrilla-style warrior with few resources, surviving mostly on donations from supporters (in recent weeks, his phenomenally successful legal defense fundraising campaign has netted some $50,000 in public donations).
Partnering with Oddekalv provides a major boost to Staniford's work. Despite his comparably daring campaign tactics, Oddekalv runs a well-oiled operation - offering Staniford resources he has lacked in recent years. For Oddekalv - perhaps the only major environmental leader who would dream of hiring Staniford right now - the activist from Liverpool may prove a valuable catch. The two men's tactical styles are a good fit - and Staniford brings to the Green Warriors of Norway a global perspective and rolodex to match, not to mention his unrelenting determination to take down the industry.
Staniford's trial is due to conclude next week, after which he will be escorted out of the country at the end of February.
And from there, it will be very interesting to see what mischief these two salmon rebels make for the industry back home.
Regional politicians in jurisdictions along Howe Sound are calling for a bigger role in the review of a major proposed gravel mine at McNab Creek. Several Sunshine Coast regional directors and councilors have recently stepped forward with concerns about the lack of local government involvement in the project's environmental review - currently being carried out under the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Burnco Rock Products, Ltd. of Calgary wants to build a 77 hectare, 55 metre deep gravel and sand pit in acknowledge fish and wildlife habitat. The company estimates it can extract 1 - 1.6 million tonnes of gravel per year for 20-30 years from the property, rising to as much as 4 million tonnes in some years. The size and potential environmental impact of the proposal have local politicians and citizens raising red flags. A local citizens' group, The Future of Howe Sound Society, is also concerned the project has slid under the radar thus far and is urging the public to comment on the proposal by the end of the week, when the first public comment phase closes.
Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District expressed surprise at a January 19 meeting that the public comment period for the project was already underway. “We’ve got a huge thing going on, and we find out about it in the newspaper, when we have already registered quite a strong degree of concern,” West Howe Sound director Lee Turnbull told the meeting, according to the Coast Reporter. “The extent of this — this is going to be bigger than Sechelt. I’m not kidding. This is bigger than the [Lehigh] construction aggregate and it’s going to be running out of Howe Sound.”
The Future of Howe Sound Society has been warning the public about the project since last year. In November they issued a media release calling for more public involvement in the federal government's process:
Howe Sound is only now recovering from the environmental damage and pollution caused by past mining and other industrial activities. Dolphins and whales are returning to Howe Sound for the first time in a generation and fish numbers are increasing. To now allow new industrial projects without a comprehensive land use plan would be short sighted and tragic.
Public participation is necessary to ensure that any review conducted through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency goes beyond that and examines the overall impact on marine life, residents and users of Howe Sound.
The project was first proposed by Burnco in 2009 but faced a series of setbacks when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sent it back to the drawing board with some key unanswered questions. The company says it's addressed DFO's concerns about potential impact on nearby fish habitat - which supports coho, chum, Chinook, pink and steelhead salmon and resident and sea-run cutthroat trout - but not everyone is convinced.
Councilor Dan Bouman told the Gibsons council meeting on January 17, “I’ve been aware of this project for about three years. I’m wondering: [DFO] is the key agency that has statutory authority to grant or not grant authority to do habitat damage. They’re saying it’s too much. Why are we going into environmental assessment?”
A report submitted on behalf of the company to the federal review process acknowledges a number of important wildlife values as well - listing 24 different blue and red listed species that may occur in the area of the proposed project. The report suggests about half of these species likely don't use the specific area of the proposed pit, but acknowledges potential impacts to others:
[Species at Risk] confirmed to occur in the Property include coastal tailed frog (in Harlequin Creek), herons (forage in the spawning channel and McNab Creek mainstem), and barn swallow (nests in abandoned buildings). Other SAR that could potentially occur on the Property include red-legged frog, northern goshawk, band-tailed pigeon, coastal western screech-owl, sooty grouse, olive-sided flycatcher, and pine grosbeak.
The Future of Howe Sound Society is also concerned about the massive mine's potential impacts on the broader region of the Sound - including whales and dolphins and other community values register its concerns about the project this week, saying on its website, "The aim of the Society is to protect the future of Howe Sound through the development of a comprehensive and holistic land and water use plan," which the region currently lacks.
The group is urging citizens from the region and beyond to weigh in on the public comment process this week, saying, "If you do not make your views known, please understand this project and it’s predictable destruction in the Sound will take place unchallenged just at a time when the dolphins and whales have returned to the Sound."
The BC Cancer Foundation is ready for your concerns over accepting title sponsorship from controversial oil pipeline builder Enbridge for this year's annual "Ride to Conquer Cancer" (make that the "Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer"). They even have a handy instruction sheet preparing their staff to deflect your tough questions and subdue your outrage. I should know - I helped draft it (well, sort of).
This past Thursday, reporter Stephen Hui published a leaked internal memo from the BC Cancer Foundation on The Georgia Straight's blog. The document was a draft list of talking points (scroll down) formulated to deal with the building backlash over the fundraising partnership between the Foundation - which is the fundraising arm of the BC Cancer Agency (a provincial department) and not to be confused in any way with the Cancer Society - and Enbridge Inc.
I first wrote an exposé on the "Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer" in The Common Sense Canadian last November, titled "Oil, Cancer and Bicycles".
Interestingly, a number of the sample questions listed in the memo - to which optimal answers are supplied - were copied and pasted directly from my list of emailed questions to the organization last Fall, while others are very similar. For instance (copied or similar phrases in bold):
Their talking points question: "Are you concerned that Enbridge is using the BC Cancer Foundation to green wash or soften its public image in BC?"
My original question to them: "[Are] you concerned that Enbridge is using the BC Cancer Foundation to greenwash or soften its public image in BC in light of all the controversy its proposed project has generated?"
Their talking points question: "Given that the monies raised by the BC Cancer Foundation are going to a public body, the BC Cancer Agency, essentially Enbridge is providing funds to the provincial government, can you disclose the amount?"
My question: "Given these monies raised by the BC Cancer Foundation are going to a public body, the BC Cancer Agency, I have to ask you the specific amount of Enbridge's financial contribution to the Foundation with regards to this event."
Their talking points question: "How can you accept money from Enbridge, they are a cancer-causing organization? [It’s been proven that Benzene, found in petroleum products, is a carcinogen]. Would you accept money from a tobacco company?"
My question: "Is it hypocritical to accept sponsorship from a known cancer-causing company?"
The "best practices" responses provided are a study in the corporate PR art of deflection. You can read them yourself here, but of note to me was the layered responses to the key question - namely, how can you take money for cancer research from a company whose products cause cancer? (I won't go into that point in detail here - you can read the basis for this contention in my original article - suffice it to say there is considerable evidence that oil and its byproducts cause cancer at various stages of its life cycle). Here are the instructions from the memo - picked up after the initial response isn't working:
[If pushed on the Benzene/cancer causing questions] I’m not an expert in environmental factors as they relate to cancer. What I can tell you is that the Ride raises more money than any other cancer fundraising event in Canada and these dollars are supporting research with direct impacts on cancer outcomes in this province and across our country.
[If pushed.Verbal answer only] Nationally, Enbridge is in a three year sponsorship agreement for the Ride, which is helping to invest more dollars from the event into critical, live-saving research. The BC Cancer Foundation collects event related feedback from our Ride participants and the public, which will help us to inform future plans and agreements.
In other words, whatever you do, DO NOT ACTUALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I had also asked the Foundation whether it felt it was "problematic to be associated with such an unpopular company and project in BC?" (i.e., the controversial proposed Northern Gateway pipeline). The talking points response: "Ride participation for 2012 is on track to set a new record with over 3,000 riders. This event is very personal to these individuals because they are survivors or are honouring loved ones who have been taken by Cancer."
And yet, they're clearly concerned enough to go to the trouble of formulating an internal strategy for dealing with Enbridge blow-back. To date, to my knowledge, only my original column, a subsequent excerpt published in Common Ground Magazine, and the aforementioned Georgia Straight blog have drawn attention in the media to this issue. But with the enormous media focus and public awareness the battle over Enbridge's pipeline is generating as we speak, that may be about to change.
I suggest it is time for the BC Cancer Foundation to put those talking points to use. After all, practice makes perfect. It is time for the organization - linked through its sole client, the Cancer Agency, to the BC Government - to hear from the public about its deplorable choice to provide a very unhealthy company a platform to greenwash its image at such a pivotal moment in its campaign to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
So go ahead and phone in or email your questions and concerns - and watch for those copied and pasted talking points! (You may even try reading along with them when they go into a given script - I know that one, that's talking point #8 - my favourite!)
Lest I be accused of being down on cancer research in general, I've done a little research of my own - into alternatives to the Enbridge Ride.
Readers who wish to continue supporting cancer research through a cycling activity may choose to divert their funds from the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer to the "Ride2Survive" - described on the organization's website as "a one-day cycling event from Kelowna to Delta BC to raise funds for cancer research through as an Independent Fundraising Event for the Canadian Cancer Society." (emphasis mine) The organization also boasts that 100% of the funds raised from the ride go directly to cancer reserach, something few cancer reserach initiatives can claim.
Listen to Damien Gillis on CHLY's A Sense of Justice from last week, discussing Enbridge and Kinder-Morgan's proposed Tar Sands pipelines through BC. Damien and host Rae Kornberger cover the National Energy Board's recently-begun hearings into the Northern Gateway Pipeline to Kitimat and the contention by fake grassroots group EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government that foreign interests are behind BC's opposition to the project. Is there any truth to these claims and what is the relationship between EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government? (41 min - from Jan. 11)
Read this in-depth report from DeSmogBlog.org exposing more connections between "astroturf" group EthicalOil.org and the Harper Conservatives. (Jan 14, 2012)
Hamish Marshall, through strategicimperativesonline, has registered 32 websites. Nearly all are connected to EthicalOil.org, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the right wing Alberta Wildrose Alliance Party.
Both ethicaloil.org's americans4opec.com and chiquitaconflict.com are hosted on the server, as is Kathryn Marshall’s personal website, kathrynmarshall.ca...
The web gets really interesting when you look at the other sites registered on Marshall's server.
Conservative Party candidates with websites hosted on Hamish Marshall’s server include Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, one of the most vocal proponents of the tar sands. Oliver's open letter last week refers to the "environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade". See the WhoIs profile for www.JoeOliver.ca.
Watch this video interview by CTV News of BC Premier Christy Clark, in which she joins EthicalOil.org and the Harper Government in decrying "foreign meddling" - via BC environmental groups and First Nations - in the hearings into Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Jan. 15. 2011)
When it comes to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, British Columbia's premier says the debate and decision is best left to Canadians.
"I don't think Canadians benefit from foreign meddling in our decisions," B.C. Premier Christy Clark told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.
If money talks, then the geyser of financial support that has sprung in the past few days for salmon activist Don Staniford's legal defence speaks volumes. Staniford - who has been described by aquaculture trade media as salmon farming's "public enemy number one" - is being sued by the world's second largest farmed salmon producer, Oslo-based Cermaq (operating as Mainstream in Canada), for defamation. The trial, expected to run 20 days, begins today at the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver.
The company, whose biggest shareholder is the Norwegian Government, may have been banking on Staniford submitting to its demands out of court due to a lack of funds to pursue the case - but any chance of that happening disappeared over the past weekend when the activist raised over $20,000 in public donations for his legal battle. Staniford has been building his case, giving depositions and collecting evidence over the last several months but only went to the public for funding this past Friday, when he launched a page on the community fundraising site gofundme.com. Since then, as of this printing, over $11,000 have tumbled in - in contributions that range from $10-500 a pop, most of them being in the $30-50 region. The goal of the gofundme.com campaign is to raise $50,000 in total.
On top of those online donations, a Norwegian fishing group, The Wild Salmon Warriors of Norway, announced this morning it was kicking in 60,000 Norwegian Krone ($10,000 CAD) of its own. As the former director of the global Pure Salmon Campaign, Staniford frequently traveled the world of the aquaculture industry, drawing together an international alliance of over 30 groups and coalitions battling the industry in Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Iceland, Chile, the United States and Canada. (Full disclosure: I've worked with Staniford on the Pure Salmon campaign - including my film "Farmed Salmon Exposed" and other initiatives over the years).
Staniford has already received $20,000 in legal funding from West Coast Environmental Law - directed toward his lawyer David Sutherland, an expert in defamation law. The injection of up to another $60,000 would be an enormous boon to Stanford's case, which revolves around a recent campaign of his targeting the open net pen salmon farming industry.
The campaign employs a series of graphical representations resembling a cigarette package - emblazoned with messages similar to surgeon general's warnings, such as "Salmon Farming Kills" - to highlight problems with the industry. Cermaq's defence is based on the notion that statements like these, coupled with the cigarette iconography, give the impression that farmed salmon is hazardous to human health. Staniford's counsel will likely counter that the implication is salmon farms kill things like seals and sea lions (often shot by salmon farmers to prevent predation of their stocks) and wild salmon, through the incubation and transference of sea lice and diseases by farmed to wild fish. Moreover, it will make the case that the analogy to the tobacco industry derives from comparable approaches to denying science that is critical of industry.
According to theCanadian Press, "The company's trial brief states it's seeking $100,000 in general damages, $25,000 in punitive damages and a permanent injunction to stop Staniford from writing, printing or broadcasting defamatory words against Mainstream." (emphasis added) It's that last piece - the concept of a lifetime ban from speaking out against the company - that has Staniford determined to fight. In a recent Victoria Times-Colonist story on the case, Staniford told reporter Sean Sullivan, "This is about justice for wild salmon and freedom of speech.”
Clearly, this David-and-Goliath battle has captured the public's attention, as the dollars roll in to support Staniford's case. But it's Cermaq that sees itself, ironically, as the David in this battle. According to CP, spokesperson for Cermaq subsidiary Mainstream Canada - the second largest fish farm operator in BC - "[Laurie] Jensen said the company is playing the role of David. 'I think we're on the righteous end of things in that we have to defend ourselves,' she said. 'If we don't, we do a disservice to our communities, our partners, our employees.'"
For his part, Staniford appears ready for the duel. Further emboldened by this outpouring of public support, he claims, "I am going to fight until the bitter end and win."
In the wake of the bogus deal Enbridge attempted to foist on the Gitxsan people of Northwest BC last month to help pave the way for its controversial proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, the community has banded together in inspiring fashion - with camcorders and the Web as their weapons of choice. The Enbridge resistance has given birth to a new website, youtube and facebook pages and twitter feed which thoroughly document the opinions of elected and hereditary chiefs and citizens, community gatherings, and interactions with the RCMP and ousted treaty negotiators who sparked the crisis by signing the since-invalidated agreement with Enbridge.
The various spokespeople for supposed "grassroots" pro-Tar Sands and pipeline organization EthicalOil.org have steadfastly maintained their campaign has no connection to the oil and gas industry or the Harper Government. But as the links between these groups continue to pile up, that contention becomes harder and harder to swallow.
I witnessed conservative pundit Ezra Levant debut his "Ethical Oil" concept when he came to Vancouver to debate the Wilderness Committee's Ben West in late 2010. The premise Levant laid out at the Rio Theatre - essentially, that bitumen from Canada is the "fair trade coffee" of the world's oil supply because this country has a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia or Iran - was being parroted soon thereafter by newly minted Environment Minister Peter Kent.
The synchronicity of talking points between Ethical Oil, Enbridge, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (the oil and gas industry's official lobby) and the Harper Government should be our first clue that these entities are working together on some level.
"Ethical Oil" didn't just spring from nowhere - it was carefully conceived in the manner of major advertising campaigns and the work of Republican strategist Frank Luntz (who coined "the death tax" in order to push lower estate taxes, and encouraged the Bush Administration to re-frame global warming as "climate change", for instance). In fact, what we are presently witnessing around the Enbridge debate is the full-force implementation of American-style political campaign tactics - where everything is built around a single, simple concept - like "socialist" Obama-care (right!), "tough on terror", or Orwellian distortions like the "Patriot "Act - which, no matter how illogical, gain traction through relentless, monosyllabic repetition, delivered via the triple threat of corporate media, government and corporate-backed lobbies, "think tanks" and pr firms.
The parallel messaging extends to the notion of "foreign meddling" in the National Energy Board review of Enbridge's proposal, now underway. The contention - from both Ethical Oilers and Stephen Harper, Industry Minister Joe Oliver and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty - is that because some large US philanthropies are donating money to campaigns in BC opposing Enbridge's proposal, the decision making process is being "hijacked" by "radical environmentalists" fronting for American interests. I won't go into this argument any further - for Stephen Hume and Terry Glavin of the Ottawa Citizen have both nailed the subject in their columns this week. The main point I wish to make is the extraordinary parity of messages coming from two entities that allegedly have no connection.
We don't know where Ethical Oil's funding derives from - it's certainly not from $10 grassroots donations! - but here's what we do know about the connections of this organization and its spokespeople to the federal Conservative government:
1.Ezra Levant is the former publisher of the conservative magazine the Western Standard, author of the book Ethical Oil and host of a political talk show on the Sun News Network. He is also the man who stepped aside for Stephen Harper in a 2002 byelection in Calagry Southwest so that the new Alliance Party leader could win a seat in parliament. Levant was apparently reluctant to do so at first, but eventually ceded to public pressure - thus doing a big favour for the future Prime Minister.
Prior to that bit of political gallantry, Levant had a long history of campaigning for key Reform/Alliance candidates. According to Wikipedia, "While he was a student-at-law, Levant was an active political organizer in the Reform Party, and guided the successful attempts by Rahim Jaffer (as the campaign manager for his nomination in Edmonton-Strathcona and later as his communications-director during the 1997 Federal Election) and Rob Anders to win party nominations. In 1997, he went to Ottawa to work for the Reform Party, becoming a parliamentary aide to party leader Preston Manning and being put in charge of Question Period strategy."
Mr. Levant has also worked at both the right-wing Fraser Institute and the Charles G. Koch Institute - a think tank sponsored by the Texas oil billionaire family which is one of the leading financial backers of both the Republic Party machine and the oil lobby.
2. Levant resigned his duties as EthicalOil.org spokesperson soon after he launched the book and website, handing the role over to one Alykhan Velshi. A 29-year old lawyer, Velshi has been a top Conservative staffer for a number of years. He served as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's director of parliamentary affairs and communications until the 2011 federal election. Prior to that he worked for then-Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird.
In 2011, Velshi briefly left the Harper Government to lead EthicalOil.org, only to return to Parliament Hill in late fall 2011 as the director of planning for the Prime Minister's Office, no less.
Mr. Velshi's mom also recently obtained a plum appointment by Industry Minister Joe Oliver (he who dismissed Enrbridge's legions of opponents as a handful of environmental radicals in a recent open letter) to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Opposition was quick to slam the hire as a patronage appointment. NDP MP Charlie Angus told Embassy Magazine, “There are a lot of credible engineers out there, but there’s not a lot of credible engineers whose sons are closely tied to the prime minister, Jason Kenney, and their ethical oil campaign for the tar sands. This is another case of who you know in the PMO."
3. Mr. Velshi handed off the Ethical Oil baton to a 26-year old conservative law student at the University of Calgary named Kathryn Marshall this past fall. According to the Ottawa Citizen, it turns out Ms. Marshall is married to Hamish Marshall, Harper's former strategic planning manager.
Watch Marshall get slaughtered by Evan Solomon on Inside Politics (note how Ms. Marshall refuses a dozen times to divulge whether her organization is bankrolled by Enbridge - if you still believe the Ethical Oil argument after watching this, I'm afraid you're beyond help):
It is also worth noting as an aside that former Conservative minister David Emerson is today helping the Chinese buy into the Tar Sands. In 2009 Mr. Emerson became a member of the International Advisory Council for the Chinese Investment Management Corporation, which recently purchased an $801 million stake in Tar Sands properties near Peace River, Alberta. This on top of a long list of major recent Chinese investments in the Tar Sands. And of, of course, Chinese oil giant Sinopec recently revealed that it was one of 10 companies which ponied up $10 million each to sponsor Enbridge's campaign to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline - some of the others we know about are major multi-national players based in Europe and the United States. Talk about foreign intervention in Canadian pipeline politics!
You can bet the Ethical Oil crew and Harper Government will carry on with the exact same talking points and revolving door connections, all the while maintaining the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.
It's all just a big coincidence.
And if you believe that I've got some pond-front property in northeast Alberta you might like to buy.
Read this story from The Canadian Press on anti-salmon farm activist Don Staniford's legal battle with Norwegian Government-owned Cermaq, which operates in BC as Mainstream Canada. (Jan. 7, 2011)
His outspoken criticism has earned him an appearance at the Supreme Court of B.C. on Jan. 16 where he must defend himself against allegations from Mainstream Canada, the province's second largest salmon farming company, that he defamed the organization.
The case could cost him $125,000 if he loses.
The defamation case is the second Staniford has faced in the province since 2005 and the third major legal fight of his 18-year international campaigning career.
"It's definitely a stressful situation," said Staniford, who is a native of Merseyside, England, near Liverpool.
"It's obviously gearing up for a fight. It's not a physical fight but it's a mental fight."
According to court documents, the case focuses on anti-salmon farming campaigns Staniford initiated on or about Jan. 31, 2011.
In those documents, Mainstream Canada's lawyer David Wotherspoon alleges Staniford disseminated and published defamatory and false statements about the company under three titles: "The Salmon Farming Kills Campaign", the "Silent Spring of the Sea," and "Smoke on the Water, Cancer on the Coast."
