“The opposition to this project is massive and growing everyday”, “We have drawn a line in the sand. There will be no Enbridge Pipeline and there will be no crude oil tankers in our waters. This is not a battle that we intend to lose.”  Gerald Amos, MC at protest.

North Coast MLA Gary Coons, addressed some of the concerns regarding the project. Here is the public discussion.

Transcript of presentation to JRP

1217. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Good afternoon, Mr. Coons. Thanks a lot for jumping ahead and we welcome your comments. So if you would care to state your name and spell your last name for the record, please?

1218. MR. COONS: Thank you. Gary Coons. G-A-R-Y C-O-O-N-S.

1219. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Now, if you could proceed and help us answer those three questions, that would be great. Thanks.

— ORAL PRESENTATION BY MR. GARY COONS:

1220. MR. COONS: Thank you so much, and I sort of planned a summary of what I’m going to try to relate to and it’s in front of you. Thank you.

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

1221. And I’d like to acknowledge that we’re on Haisla territory and thank the Haisla for this opportunity, and thank the Panel for coming here and giving all of us an opportunity to look at some of the issues relating to the Northern Gateway Pipeline project.

1222. I’m Gary Coons. I’m the MLA for the North Coast; I live in Prince Rupert. And in the agenda it says I’m the B.C. Government representative and I represent the government but in the Official Opposition  – and proud of it.

1223. And if you look at the riding I represent, it’s Prince Rupert/Port Ed, the four villages Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla, Hartley Bay, Kitkatla, Haida Gwaii, the Central Coast from Klemtu, Bella Bella, Bella Coola Rivers Inlet. A wide diverse region that’s fairly dependent on the resources — the vital resources that our waters and land supply us.

1224. As stated in the terms of reference for the project and just to clarify with people, you know, the application is filed, the Panel determines if there’s sufficient information and, if so, a Hearing Order is put forward. If not, the process will not proceed until the required information is filed.

1225. In my brief presentation today, I’ll look at a number of the issues; information that I believe is incomplete and data that needs filing to ensure a fair and thorough understanding of this project.

1226. And I’m sure you have had quite a day today with the opening ceremony and going through the honourable and respectful nature of First Nations tradition and culture. And there’s a lot of emotion, a lot of passion, a lot of concern about this project and so I’d like to start off with looking at the VECs.

1227. Basically, the valued, environmental and socio-economic components and in Volume 6(c), in Section 3.32 on page 319 — and just for people out there that aren’t too sure what VECs are, VECs are the valued environmental and socio-economic components — and the application states the following:

“VECs related to the regional economic and social effects of the project will be made available at a later date.”

1228. And I have a real concern that this deficiency has to be addressed in this — in the documents before us and the VECs that have to be available are the regional population changes; regional employment opportunities; effects on well-being and delivery of protection and social services, community services and infrastructure;

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

health conditions and health care services; traditional culture; and regional transportation.

1229. And so my first point is I believe that in Volume 6(c) that the VECs have to be put before the public before we can make an informed decision.

1230. The second part I’d like to look at in Volume 6(c) are the cumulative effects, and on page 480 in Volume 6(c) under “Socio-economic Conditions” in 4.2.9, it says — there’s a paragraph in there talking about:

“In terms of cumulative effects, the project is expected to increase human health risks, but the assessment shows that the increases will be minor and indistinguishable from the current risk levels.”

1231. And the application says:

“Therefore, the cumulative effect is not significant.”

1232. And I beg to differ with that, and I’m sure a lot of people out there who are concerned about this project have a concern about cumulative effect, especially when part of the process for you to consider as a Joint Panel during the Joint Review.

1233. As far as under Section 16 of the CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it says — and this is part of the information that we got –

“The environmental effects of the project including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project, and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out.”

1234. And as a Panel, you need to look at the significance of the effects referred to above. I believe that you need to look at that and I don’t think the concern about cumulative effects and upstream effects are taken into account with the application before us.

1235. And as we know, or most of us know, you know, and question whether this review is taking into account the cumulative environmental effects associated with increasing oil sands productions which is another project or activity that is going on in conjunction with the pipeline and tankers on our coast.

1236. You know, and we need to know what are the upstream impacts of tar sands development with this project. And I have read and I’ve been told that this

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

project — it’s calculated that production associated with this project in front of us would produce 25 million barrels of toxic tailings, consume the same volume of natural gas as 1.3 million households do in a year, and consume the same amount of water annually as a city of 250,000 people.

1237. And I honestly believe that we cannot ignore — and you as a Panel cannot ignore — the impacts and the increased greenhouse gas emissions that will result from these other projects or activities that are in combination with the project before us, especially when in B.C. we have the B.C. Climate Action Charter which 178 communities have signed onto. So it seems like a real yin-yang situation where we are concerned about the environment but we’re supposedly proceeding with projects that are on the contrary.

1238. My second part are First Nations issues and I believe there are a few concerns about ATK, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. And as far as the project before us, it will be and will traverse Crown land and traditional territory and what we’ve noticed is that there is a real problem.

1239. What I’ve noticed in the application before us — that there is a concern with the Proponent getting and moving forward on Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. And at this point in time, it seems that there’s been over 60 Aboriginal groups identified for engagement and only 17 studies are available in the package before us.

1240. I believe that before we move forward there has to be — it’s incumbent on the Panel and on the Proponent to ensure that all of the First Nations, all 60 First Nations, have the opportunity and the funding to move forward with the ATK program.

1241. And as required by the filing manual, Northern Gateway must incorporate Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge into the application and must exercise due diligence in obtaining and incorporating such reports. So I see that this section with ATK is lacking and it must be dealt with in a comprehensive manner.

1242. I’m going on to Volume 7C and as we all know there’s 8,000 pages and many volumes and so I’ve given you a summary and trying to keep my comments hopefully directed towards where I want to go.

1243. And in Section 7, basically the concern that we have is with the food, social and ceremony fisheries. And it says on page 716 in the report that FSC fisheries are important to coastal Aboriginal communities and are often a major component of their diet. Targeted species include — and it lists a bunch of them. FSC fishing occurs throughout Kitimat Arm. Exact locations and relative importance of the locations are not known.

1244. And I believe again that it’s incumbent on the Proponent and on the Panel to ensure that we do know the exact locations and relative importance of FSC fisheries to First Nations up and down the coast that might be impacted by this project.

1245. I’m moving on to Traditional Marine Use, and I’m going to look at Section — I’m still in Volume 7C. I’m looking at Section 8.31, page 8.4. And again it looks like there is unfinished business in here and deficiencies that must be addressed before a hearing order is issued.

1246. If we look at the baseline conditions of traditional marine resource use and this is a quote from page 8.4,

“There is currently very limited information on Aboriginal use of fish, wildlife, and vegetation resources for communities in the region.”

1247. And again, there’s very limited information and I believe that we have to know what that information is and it’s incumbent for the Proponent to do their due diligence on that.

1248. Okay. I’m now looking at page 910 in Volume 7C which is Section 9.5.32 and it’s on Mitigated Effects on the Human Environment. And it talks about heritage resources and traditional marine uses in the intertidal and shoreline regions could be affected during summer. And it talks about, and I’m reading right from page 910 –

“Aboriginal groups would be particularly sensitive because of their long association with and dependence on the sea for food, transportation, social and ceremonial purposes…”

1249. And this is a quote,

“…because detailed information regarding traditional use in these areas has not yet been provided, conclusions regarding effects on harvesting and cultural resources have not been reached.”

1250. And again I believe under the legislation and under the Act that it’s incumbent on the proponent to do their due diligence and work closely with First Nations to ensure that everything that is necessary for us to make decisions is included. So I believe this is — this deficiency precludes one from properly assessing

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

the application.

1251. The next volume I’d like to get into — and I’m going into Volume 8A. And I’m going to look at TERMPOL. And just for people out there, TERMPOL stands for Technical Review of Marine Terminal Systems in Transshipment Sites.

1252. And on page 1.1 in the introduction to 8A, it basically says Northern Gateway is completing a wide range of studies for review under the TERMPOL review process and this volume provides in summary form the results of the studies. And again, what we have before us are summarized studies and analysis and I think that it’s incomplete and there should be a full documentation of what studies were reviewed.

1253. Also on page 1.6 in Volume 8A it says,

“Northern Gateway informed Transport Canada in March of 2009 of its intent to complete detailed TERMPOL studies in support of marine transportation associated with the project.”

1254. And these will be submitted to the TRC in Q2 of 2010. And it talks about several additional studies and documents will be prepared before the start of the terminal operations.

1255. And I think this project is too vital, too important to those that live on the coast and First Nations that depend on the resources to have studies that are currently underway and several additional studies and documents that will be prepared. And we need them before us in order for us to ensure that we have the information to make wise decisions.

1256. I’m continuing with 8A and I’m going to look at the OPEP which is the Oil Pollution Emergency Plan and the OPPP which is the Oil Pollution Prevention Plan.

1257. So as I said I’m in Volume 8A under “Overview and General Information” about marine transportation on page 470. And it says under 4.7.12.1:

“The Kitimat terminal will be an oil handling facility as defined in Section 2 of the Canada Shipping Act and will need to develop an oil pollution emergency plan and an oil pollution prevention plan to comply with the Act.”

1258. And further down on page 470 its says:

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

“Northern Gateway intends to further develop a marine OSRP” which is an Oil Spill Response Plan “and a Kitimat terminal Oil Spill Response Plan as umbrella documents that is needed for their plan.”

1259. So we’re missing vital information concerning pollution emergency plans, pollution prevention plans and oil response plans and I think it’s incumbent as I have stressed previously that this must be dealt with in a comprehensive — in a comprehensive order for people to make wise decisions.

1260. And on page 4.72, — of Volume 8A it says:

“Northern Gateway intends to submit the terminal OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) including the OPEP (the emergency plan) and the OPPP documents to Transport Canada and to the NEB at least six months before the Kitimat terminal begins handling bulk oil.”

1261. I personally believe that’s unacceptable that we — the Proponent is going to submit documents about vital components of marine safety six months before operations start, especially when on page 487 it says: “The cornerstone of the contingency planning process is a general oil spill response plan” and it is not available to us.

1262. On page 489 it says:

“A detailed marine OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) has not yet been prepared.”

1263. And it goes on — you know — in this volume about the deficiencies and the information that is necessary before we move forward to a hearing and I believe the — you as a Panel — you’re required to consider the OPPP, the OPEP, the OSRP, yet these are not provided in the application before us and they must be prior to proceeding to a hearing.

1264. Again I got — I’m going into Volume 8C, the last volume that I’ve had the opportunity to glance at and I’m going to be looking at the QRA which is the quantitative risk analysis and this is in the preface to Volume 8C and it talks about the quantitative risk analysis and that it will be finalized in Q2 of 2010.

1265. And again, I believe that that is something that must be in this documentation before us before we move on to a hearing.

1266. And again, I do have to — as I’m going through Volume 8C and looking at

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

some of the additional information that they should be required to file I go into the next volume, Volume 8C, compared to Volume 8D where Volume 8A — you know, I talked about the OPPP and the OPEP and again it says in Section 1.1 in Volume 8C,

“An oil pollution prevention plan, an oil pollution emergency plan are being prepared and would be implemented to manage risk relating to hydrocarbon spills that might occur during vessel transport in Canadian waters.”

1267. And, you know, we cannot sit here, we cannot be in a position to make decisions when there are incomplete documentation provided in the proposal before us.

1268. They talk about, on page 5.1, in Section 8C, Incident Prevention and Response:

“Northern Gateway has developed an OSRP (Oil Spill Response Plan) concept founded on the vision of creating a model for response capability for the project-related activities.”

1269. I believe that those of us that live on the Coast, the First Nations whose original territories, the pipeline and tankers are going to be travelling through deserve more than a concept, an oil spill response plan concept and they need the concept before us and you know, before a Hearing Order is issued.

1270. The last point I want to bring up that needs some more clarification and should be required to be filed is dealing with emergency response plans and I’m still in Volume 8C, 5.2 on page 53. It says:

“The title response approaches and capabilities prior to commencement of marine transportation associated with the project Northern Gateway will complete project-specific emergency response plans for review by the National Energy Board and Transport Canada.”

1271. So prior to the commencement of marine transportation we’re going to get an emergency response plan for the project. I believe that’s totally unacceptable and that is something that is missing from this and must be identified and be addressed.

1272. So I guess those are additional information that I believe need to be filed by the Proponent prior to going to a hearing but I do have some comments and some thoughts about broader policy questions and issues within the draft list that I’ve got before me and that you’ve given us.

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

1273. And I believe that the Panel should not make a decision without considering the broader policy questions such as our energy future — you know — where are we going with the development of tar sands? Is it wise and prudent to pursue a crude oil pipeline to ship tar sands oil when we should be on a transition mode away from dirty fossil fuels?

1274. I think it’s incumbent on the Review Panel and the Proponent to look at the impact of this project, the cumulative impacts. I think there’s significant risks posted by lifting the existing moratorium on oil tanker traffic. Even though it’s a policy it’s not a written — it’s not a legislative document; it’s a policy that’s been going on for decades, through many Prime Ministers and Premiers.

1275. Even a minor oil spill on the Coast could dramatically affect coastal communities, the fishing and tourism economies, human health, cause severe and lasting damage to wildlife environment. And we’ve heard this concern earlier today. What about the — what about the liability for oil spills from tankers and pipelines; who is actually responsible?

1276. The last broader policy question and issues within the draft list I believe is First Nations. Many First Nations affected by the Enbridge project strongly oppose it. The 10 First Nations that are encompassed within the North Coast riding all oppose tankers on our coast line and the Enbridge project.

1277. Many people have mentioned to me that the JRP was developed without First Nations having any choice to the process. The JRP disregards First Nations’ right to govern, manage and make decisions in their territories and before this project can be approved in their territories it is believed international law affirms that Canada must have consent of First Nations.

1278. As I move forward to my conclusion — I’m sure a lot of people are looking forward to that — I’d like to look at Number 3, the locations for the oral hearings. And I believe, as we’ve heard before, from the health sec in Bella Bella, from Hartley Bay that there must be a wide — a wide stretch of region and territory to hold hearings in, as many places as possible, in the north, in the south, otherwise the process may shut people out.

1279. In building the Northern Gateway Pipeline, it affects all British Columbians, the majority of whom do not live within reasonable travelling distances. So I believe hearings should be held — numerous hearings should be held in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, up and down watersheds that could be affected, including the Skeena, Fraser and Mackenzie rivers, who would be affected by downstream and upstream effects of pipeline construction and spills.

Oral presentation Mr. Gary Coons Transcript Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project – Panel Sessions

1280. I believe on central and northern Vancouver Island communities there will be exposed to the risk of oil spills, and up and down the coast throughout Haida Gwaii, both along the tanker route, and I believe in smaller communities and First Nations communities it’s incumbent to have hearings in Nisga’a territory, Tsimshian, Haida, Kitasoo, Heiltsuk, Nuxalk, Wuikinuxv — those within my riding — and obviously Prince Rupert. I believe that there must be a hearing in that community.

1281. And in conclusion, I hope I have put forward some thought-provoking issues that I thought that needed to be filed, and I thank you for the opportunity in travelling to Haisla territory and to the northwest, and I hope I’m clear in my position on the status of the application as filed.

1282. It is not complete in the areas that I have identified to you, and I do believe that you, the Panel, must consider this application, the cumulative effects of this project and especially with the combination of other projects or activities that are being carried out.

1283. It’s imperative that the people of British Columbia, the First Nations whose traditional territories will be impacted and the communities who are concerned are listened to. They are the ones that are taking all the risk and seeing no benefit. And once again, thank you so much.

1284. MEMBER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coons. We certainly appreciate your comprehensive description of your views on the application and I especially liked the specific references to sections of the application. That really helps us out as a Panel in taking another look at those sections and reviewing the application.

“August 11 was a historic day in BC history. The success of the HST initiative petition is a testament to the hard work of thousands of volunteers in communities right across the province who have had enough of the BC Liberals’ lies and deceit.

It is obvious that Elections BC made the wrong decision, to not follow the legislation outlined in the Recall and Initiative Act  and this government agency has an

obligation to explain its decision with respect to the HST petition. I believe that Elections BC must lay out to the public, to British Columbians,  why they have decided to take this extraordinary action and stall the democratic process.

It is outrageous that the BC Liberals’ allies, who have donated over $380,000, have decided to challenge the initiative in a thinly-veiled attempt to frustrate the public will. The BC Liberals lied about the HST, rammed their bill through the legislature, and have refused to listen to the very people they were elected to serve.

It’s obvious that the public has spoken, and the BC Liberals will be held to account for their actions. The petition passed all the hurdles laid out in the act, and the act says it should go to the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.

Every New Democrat MLA is ready to come back, debate the HST bill as soon as possible and restore democracy in Victoria. We are calling on the Premier (in a letter….below…) to recall the Legislature to deal, once and for all, with the public’s overwhelming opposition to the HST.”

“What an awesome day in Victoria for Tulani Ackerman….43 days…3000 km….42 communities…connecting with hundreds of people.  Tulani has completed a courageous journey to bring an awareness to concerns and issues that are plaguing our education system”

I am so proud of Tulani….she is a person who definately “walks the walk”. I was honored to be with her at the beginning of her trip and thrilled to join her at the end of her long and strenuous journey.  Lana Popham(MLA Saanich South), Tulani’s father, my daughter Breton and myself all  met Tulani to ride the final 22 km with her to the legistlature in Victoria. She was graciously met by dozens of friends, family and supporters of her cause.

Education is so critical to society.  If we don’t work together, develop strategies and ensure that funding is properly allocated, our children will essential suffer in the long run. Too many students fall through the cracks from not having their needs met and from not recieving the proper support.

I look forward to hearing the concerns that were brought forth throughout the province regarding our public education system in Tulani’s final report! Good job Tulani and supporters!

The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline would cross more than 1000 streams and rivers, including the headwaters of the Fraser and the Skeena rivers.

“It’s time for the B.C. Liberals to explain why they continue to support a project that has the potential to threaten some of our most significant waterways, including the Skeena and the Fraser River,” said New Democrat environment critic Rob Fleming.

“The major risks posed by both the pipeline and the hundreds of crude oil supertankers that would carry tarsands crude from our coast far outweigh any short-term benefits to the region and our province as a whole.”

The three million litre spill originated in Talmadge Creek, a small waterway located in the state of Michigan. Enbridge’s slow response to the spill meant the oil was left to cascade down the creek for hours until it entered the Kalamazoo River, which empties into Lake Michigan.

“This latest Enbridge spill is a reminder that all the promises in the world from big oil companies can’t protect our rivers and coastlines if the B.C. Liberals let this pipeline go forward,” said Gary Coons, the New Democrat MLA for the North Coast. “Instead of listening to British Columbians, who have said loud and clear that they are not willing to take this risk, the B.C. Liberals are pandering to one of their major campaign donors.”

Enbridge, which donated more than $50,000 to the B.C. Liberal party from 2005 to 2009, has said they don’t know what went wrong with the pipeline. However, Enbridge’s CEO, Patrick Daniels downplayed the 27 kilometre long Kalamazoo spill by saying it was only the company’s “second or third largest” spill.

 
“Enbridge continues to make bold promises of the safety procedures  but it looks more like all they’re promising us is a big disaster,” said Coons. ” We need to say no to pipelines , no to tankers on our coast and no to Enbridge…it isn’t worth the risk!.”

The governor of the state of Michigan has declared a state of disaster in response to the spill, which is already being called the worst environmental catastrophe in U.S. Midwest history.

“The northwest is known worldwide for intact wilderness and incredible hunting and sport-fishing opportunities,” said Doug Donaldson, the New Democrat MLA for Stikine. “All it would take is one spill to destroy our reputation as a destination for tourism, fishing and hunting – which would blow a hole in the northwest economy that short-term construction jobs could never fill.”

New Democrats are also deeply concerned about reports that the company may have waited up to 11 hours before reporting the spill to authorities, especially given the remote nature of much of the land that the pipeline would cross.

“If it takes Enbridge almost half a day to respond to a spill that happens in a densely populated and easy to access area, how long would it take them to respond to a pipeline rupture in an isolated and remote area?” asked Robin Austin, the New Democrat MLA for Skeena. “Enbridge’s sluggish response to the Kalamazoo River spill doesn’t give British Columbians reason to be confident about this company’s ability to protect our waterways from devastation in the face of inevitable accidents.”

Coastal First Nations and First Nations along the pipeline route are overwhelmingly against the project. Both the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Coastal First Nations alliance have condemned the project and vowed to fight against it.

The Carole James New Democrats are fighting for an environmental plan that respects communities, creates green jobs, offers families positive choices and commits to concrete action to protect species at risk.

Picture: Gary Coons,  Tulani Ackerman, and Carole James

“To counter the government façade of protecting education it is important that people understand the necessity to embark in a positive dialogue and awareness of what is actually happening in our public education system. Tulani’s courageous journey across British Columbia will create a stepping stone for that to happen. We’ve had enough of the funding ‘shell games’ that create chaos. We’ve seen class sizes and composition issues arise that do not meet the needs of children. We need to reach out and build an education system that focuses on our kids. I thank and honour Tulani and I will be there at the beginning of Tulani’s trek and at the end on August 12.”

“New Democrats have been saying farm gate sales can be done safely ever since the B.C. Liberals took away our right to buy meat directly from farmers,” said healthy living and sport critic Jagrup Brar. “Now, after six years of dithering and misinformation they have admitted that farm-gate sales of meat can be done safely, but the B.C. Liberals are still restricting consumers’ right to buy local meat.”

On Friday, the government announced new classes of meat license which will allow farm gate sales, but these licenses will only be available in Bella Coola, the Powell River Regional District and Haida Gwaii. New class D Retail Sales licenses will permit farmers to make direct sales to local consumers and to retail establishments, while Class E Direct Sales licenses will permit farmers to make direct sales to local consumers. Both licenses restrict the amount of meat farmers are allowed to produce annually.

North Coast MLA Gary Coons, who has been fighting for assistance for over 3 years, sees this as a victory for those in Bella Coola and Haida Gwaii but does not understand the logic behind it. ”The new licenses are a step in the right direction, but restricting farm gate sales to certain areas of the province is arbitrary and illogical. It’s concerning that it  took this long for the Minister to realize the geography of the province and that there were viable solutions for those in rural and remote areas. I am pleased that we can finally move forward and have people buy farm gate from their neighbours, as they have done for decades.”

“If the B.C. Liberals are willing to admit that it’s safe to buy meat from local farmers on Haida Gwaii or in Powell River, then why isn’t it safe in Saanich or Kamloops?” said Opposition agriculture critic Lana Popham. “The B.C. Liberals’ decision to restrict farm gate sales licenses to only three regions of the province doesn’t make any sense.”

Popham said the lack of consultation has been especially appalling. She noted this is just one more instance of a government making one-off decisions instead of coming up with a plan that supports small farmers.

“The B.C. Liberals are creating even more chaos with this decision,” said Popham. “People spent money on a transition plan that was never designed to work.”

Brar noted that countless small farmers went out of business after the B.C. Liberals brought in regulations that restrict consumer choice.

“After six years of failed agricultural policy, the B.C. Liberals are still refusing to give consumers across the province what they want – the right to buy meat directly from a farmer they trust,” said Brar.

Carole James and the New Democrats are advocating for positive environmental solutions, including a Green Fund which would see $150 million a year for climate change solutions and transit improvements in communities across the province.

—30—

Oct. 20, 2007

RURAL FARMERS IGNORED AS NEW MEAT REGULATIONS MOVE FORWARD

PRINCE RUPERT – On Thursday in Question Period the New Democrats pounded the B.C. Liberals on the Meat Industry Regulation they imposed in September.

“The Campbell government remained arrogant in its response to rural farmers across the province today by refusing to fix the new regulation,” said Agriculture Critic Corky Evans.

“The Meat Industry Regulation continues to wipe out thousands of family farms throughout rural B.C. who face unmanageable capital improvement costs, just to sell meat locally and legally,” said Evans.

North Coast MLA Gary Coons is concerned that cutting off the supply of local meat will likely make it more difficult for some families in his constituency to get by, as well as decreasing food security for the entire region.

“Food prices on island communities are already extremely high; eliminating local meat from the market will mean a lot less on the table for some families,” Coons noted. “British Columbia is not a uniform province; differences in geography and culture need to be taken into consideration when the government gets to tinkering with something as fundamental to our lives as food.”

Coons also sees the issue not only in terms of economics, but in terms of the environment. There are no commercial slaughtering facilities that meet the new regulations anywhere in his constituency. This means vast amounts of fossil fuels must be consumed to put meat on his constituent’s plates.

“It doesn’t make sense to enforce these regulations, in economic or environmental terms,” said Coons. “For example, someone who raises cattle on the Queen Charlotte Islands is expected to transport their animals to the nearest licensed facility in Prince George, or even to Alberta, to be slaughtered, burning hundreds of litres of gasoline in the process. If we are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this is exactly the wrong way to do it. We should be encouraging local agriculture, not running it out of business.”

Coons is particularly puzzled as to why the government has chosen to ignore the recommendations by Don Richardson, a prominent veterinarian and cattle breeder who has been slaughtering and selling beef from his ranch in Tlell for 88 years. His recommendations focused on certifying small producers to slaughter meat for direct sale from the farm to the consumer.

“Producers like Don Richardson are not saying no to regulation, they are simply asking the government to be sensible,” said Coons. “There is no evidence that small meat producers pose a significant threat to the health of British Columbians; they shouldn’t be driven out of business because of ill-conceived legislation.”

“The New Democrat rural caucus has made this issue a top priority in the House this fall,” said Evans. “The Regulation clearly favours factory farms over family farms. It does not work for small rural communities-period.”

The B.C. Meat Inspection Regulation which governs the slaughter of animals for food sales in British Columbia was enforced province wide Sept. 30, 2007. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 11, 2007

B.C. LIBERALS GENERATE CHAOS WITH NEW MEAT REGULATIONS

The Campbell government is continuing to botch the implementation of the new Meat Industry Regulation by throwing misinformation into the mix, says New Democrat MLA Gary Coons.

In a recent media interview, B.C. Liberal MLA Val Roddick gave radio listeners the wrong information when she was quoted as saying, “Right now you can buy [meat] right from the farm. It is just that you can’t resell. You can certainly go and buy right now from a local farm, what these regulations mean is that you cannot resell to a restaurant or a store.”

The radio show was pushed to air a subsequent segment to clear up the mass confusion generated by Roddick’s erroneous statement.

“Under the Campbell government’s current legislation selling meat without government inspection at the farm gate is illegal, and this statement only intensifies the chaos generated by the government’s handling of the issue,” said MLA Coons.

“When the B.C. Liberal Parliamentary Secretary for Agricultural Planning, who herself is involved in agribusiness, shows confusion around her own government’s legislation, it’s clear that something is massively wrong with the way the Meat Industry Regulation has been handled,” said MLA Coons.

Roddick’s statements were compounded by earlier confusion in the industry when the Minister of Agriculture announced last minute changes to the September 30 Meat Industry Regulation deadline. Under the new changes only meat producers and processors actively working towards Meat Industry Regulation licensing are permitted to continue operations, for six additional months, under a Class C transition license issued by the BC Centre for Disease Control.

“The Campbell government has repeatedly delayed implementing the Regulation, made last minute changes to the September 30 deadline, and now they’re playing damage control after Roddick’s interview,”  said MLA —. “I am calling on MLA Roddick to apologize to the farmers and processors throughout B.C. who she has troubled further with her misinformation.”

“The government needs to recognize that it is throwing many small meat producers and processors out of business by rushing ahead with new regulations without adequate consultation with the meat industry,” said MLA Coons.

–30—

October 2, 2007

For Immediate Release

LATE ADJUSTMENTS TO MEAT REGS NOT GOOD ENOUGH-

MLA Coons continues fight for input and changes

Prince Rupert – The Liberal government’s last minute attempt to provide temporary relief to small meat producers and processors is a band-aid solution for a major problem, says New Democrat MLA Gary Coons

“Small meat producers and processors won a small but temporary victory with Friday’s announcement that some operations will get another half year to operate,” said Coons MLA for North Coast. “But this Campbell government’s decision to impose the deeply flawed Meat Industry Regulation continues to put the industry at great risk, and we will continue to fight for changes that will ensure long term viability for all safe meat operations in and around the Central and North Coast.”

Two days prior to the Sept. 30 deadline for imposing the new MIR, the Campbell government responded to opposition pressure for industry assistance. In a Ministry of Health release dated September 28, the province announced it would provide six-month transitional licences to meat processors whose facility upgrades were in progress.

This is the second attempt since 2004 to delay implementation of the Regulation. One of the major problems with the Regulation is it ignores small meat producers and processors who lack the capital associated with MIR upgrades.”

“This is another example of the Campbell government dismal failing to meet the needs of rural B.C.,” said Coons. “We continue to call on the Minister of Agriculture to offer a realistic program, with strategies and incentives, which includes all industry players and increase meat transition funding under the MIR. We must ensure the viability of local food production in rural and remote areas of the Province.”

The MIR is a regulation which governs the slaughter of animals for food sales in British Columbia.

For Immediate Release

September 25, 2007

NDP PUTS PRESSURE ON CAMPBELL GOVERNMENT TO HALT MEAT PROCESSING REGS

VICTORIA – New Democrat MLAs are turning up the heat on the Campbell Liberals to rescind the September 30 deadline for the new Meat Inspection Regulation (MIR) – a move which threatens to devastate the livelihoods of meat processors across rural B.C.

“Independent meat producers across B.C. are approaching their MLAs to say that this looming deadline could spell disaster for the industry,” said Charlie Wyse, MLA for Cariboo South. “We’re delivering the message loud and clear to this government that they must not go through with this.”

“The New Democrat Caucus has unanimously agreed to make this issue a top priority,” said Agriculture Critic Corky Evans. “The regulation does not work for small rural communities, and in the case of isolated communities, defy common sense.”

At a full caucus meeting on Monday, September 24, the New Democrat MLAs agreed that the Campbell government is imposing the MIR without consultation from smaller players in the meat industry, and without adequate resources for implementation. The New Democrats are calling on the Campbell government to deliver a clear, equitable regulation which does not impose unmanageable capital improvement costs on smaller meat processors.

North Coast MLA Gary Coons has had numerous discussions about this issue with many concerned constituents and believes if these regulations come into force the negative impact on family farms in BC will be substantial.

“Many concerns need to be addressed…the expensive undertaking of upgrading local abbatoirs, the possibility of ‘going underground’ with private sales and regulations that must have the support of small processors,” said Coons. “This is a continuing example of the Campbell government not listening to British Columbians and putting corporate interests first. We’ve contacted both Minister bell and Minister Abbott to request rescinding the September 30 deadline and meet with local stakeholders to ensure the vitality of local meat processing facilities in B.C.” (letter below)

“Farmers from around this province have proposed viable solutions for their communities since the MIR was proposed and many were not even provided with the courtesy of a reply. This speaks of a government whose interests have again failed rural B.C.,” said Wyse.

The B.C. Meat Inspection Regulation was enacted as part of the Food Safety Act in 2004 and application of the regulation will be enforced province wide Sept. 30, 2007. The Regulation is set to govern the slaughter of animals for food sales in British Columbia.

A 2009 internal audit at B.C. Ferries found 45 deficiencies regarding data and personal information security systems at the corporation. The deficiencies have not been fixed, and according to B.C. Ferries CEO David Hahn, won’t be until at least November of 2010.

The breach includes multiple people using same I.D. log in information, passwords stored in plain text format, and the duplication of credit card data.

Most recently, on the Easter long weekend, thousands of customers were double-billed on their credit cards due to a system breakdown.

B.C. Ferries customers who pay with a credit card are being put at risk by flaws in the company’s data security system.

Recent internal audits conducted by the ferry corporation have identified glaring deficiencies in the way in which the company is protecting sensitive customer credit card information.

And internal company documents obtained by The Globe indicate B.C. Ferries faces substantial fines and other penalties reaching into the millions of dollars if that information falls into the wrong hands as a result of unaddressed weaknesses in the company’s data security operation.

The ferry corporation processes up to $400-million worth of credit card transactions a year. It is required under the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCIDSS) to safeguard and protect the use of customer credit card data. It is also required to “properly use and dispose of its (credit card) data.”

In order to be compliant with industry standards, there needs to be zero gaps identified in any audit. One audit the company conducted last fall revealed as many as 45 deficiencies in its data security system.

David Hahn, B.C. Ferries president, said in an interview that the problems will be remedied by the fall. Meantime, he said, the credit card information of travellers is secure.

“There are still enough flags in place to recognize problems,” Mr. Hahn insisted. “We catch credit card scammers all the time. We’re pretty diligent on this stuff. We are confident that are system is safe and won’t be compromised.

“We take security matters extremely seriously.”

It was revealed yesterday that thousands of ferry customers who travelled over the Easter weekend were double billed on their credit cards because of a breakdown in the company’s data system. Ferries said the malfunction was caused by the high number of refunds the company had to process because of sailing cancellations due to high winds.

According to an internal document, PCIDSS sets out requirements that any organization processing credit or debit cards must follow. For instance, all personnel authorized to access credit card information should have unique identification to ensure users are traceable. The Ferries audit found that the same user ID was being used by multiple people.

PCIDSS insists all access passwords be stored in an unreadable format. The audit uncovered instances of passwords stored in plain text formats. Also, all database access should be monitored. The report found that “auditing was not enabled on the database.”

Perhaps most concerning of all, security standards insist that an archiving policy must be in place and data should only be stored as long as required. But B.C. Ferries has several years worth of unnecessary credit card data remaining in various databases. The report says that data are being duplicated across a half dozen databases.

An example scenario outlined in the documents obtained by The Globe explains the current situation this way: “A customer makes a reservation, purchases a travel fare and buys food using their credit card. This credit card information is now located in five production databases. Due to ongoing development and testing, the environments are refreshed from production.

“The customer’s credit card information is potentially in up to 28 databases, as well as the POS (point of sale) site server. At the end of 30 days there are 840 instances of the customer’s credit card data. At the end of 60 days there are 1,680 instances … and at the end of 90 days there are 2,520 instances.”

The report says that while there is an encryption key to secure the customer data, “the encryption routine is not fully secure or monitored/audited.”

“This means that at the end of 90 days there are 2,520 instances where the sensitive data could potentially be retrieved/accessed,” the Ferries’ document states. “Since not all credit card data is encrypted, this risk has now increased further.”

The document indicates that Ferries could face substantial fines and other penalties measuring in the millions of dollars if there is a breach of credit card security because of current deficiencies.

For instance, it would have to pay the $30 replacement fee for any credit card that is exposed to potential fraud. For 100,000 cards that would be $3-million. The company could also face up to $1-million in fees and fines until it is deemed complaint by the Payment Card Industry council.

The report also suggests the corporation is at risk of class-action lawsuits if there is a security breach.

If not fixed, the document says, financial implications also include: “Potential loss of merchant status resulting (in) inability to process credit cards (loss of millions of dollars – majority of revenue is credit card).”

Mr. Hahn said a request for $500,000 in funding to address the security deficiencies was approved in March. But he acknowledged that the compliance gaps won’t be fixed until November – that’s how long it will take for the system updates to be completed.

He said industry security standards are constantly changing and he was sure that when another audit is “done in three or four years’ time it will identify other problems that will need to be addressed.”

But Gary Coons, New Democratic Party MLA and his party’s critic for the ferry corporation, isn’t buying it.

“It’s shocking,” said Mr. Coons.

“I think it’s outrageous and quite frankly scandalous that customers and the public have been kept in the dark for months now about these non-compliance gaps in protecting valuable credit card information.”

Mr. Coons said seven months was too long to wait for the problems in the system to be addressed.

“It’s just unacceptable and deplorable,” said the MLA for the North Coast. “But it seems obvious that David Hahn and the board of directors think that it’s okay to wait seven months to fix the system. If that’s their take on it I think the Minister of Transportation needs to get involved immediately.”

“There are still enough flags in place to recognize problems,” Mr. Hahn insisted. “We catch credit card scammers all the time. We’re pretty diligent on this stuff. We are confident that are system is safe and won’t be compromised.

“We take security matters extremely seriously.”

It was revealed yesterday that thousands of ferry customers who travelled over the Easter weekend were double billed on their credit cards because of a breakdown in the company’s data system. Ferries said the malfunction was caused by the high number of refunds the company had to process because of sailing cancellations due to high winds.

According to an internal company document, PCIDSS sets out requirements that any organization processing credit or debit cards must follow in order to be compliant. For instance, all personnel authorized to access credit card information should have unique identification to ensure users are traceable. The Ferries audit found that the same user ID was being used by multiple people.

PCIDSS insists all access passwords be stored in an unreadable format. The audit uncovered instances of passwords stored in plain text formats. Also, all database access should be monitored. The report found that “auditing was not enabled on the database.”

Perhaps most concerning of all, security standards insist that an archiving policy must be in place and data should only be stored as long as required. But B.C. Ferries has several years worth of unnecessary credit card data remaining in various databases. The report says that data are being duplicated across a half dozen databases.

An example scenario outlined in the documents obtained by The Globe explains the current situation this way: “A customer makes a reservation, purchases a travel fare and buys food using their credit card. This credit card information is now located in five production databases. Due to ongoing development and testing, the environments are refreshed from production.

“The customer’s credit card information is potentially in up to 28 databases, as well as the POS (point of sale) site server. At the end of 30 days there are 840 instances of the customer’s credit card data. At the end of 60 days there are 1,680 instances … and at the end of 90 days there are 2,520 instances.”

The report says that while there is an encryption key to secure the customer data, “the encryption routine is not fully secure or monitored/audited.”

“This means that at the end of 90 days there are 2,520 instances where the sensitive data could potentially be retrieved/accessed,” the Ferries’ document states. “Since not all credit card data is encrypted, this risk has now increased further.”

The document indicates that Ferries could face substantial fines and other penalties measuring in the millions of dollars if there is a breach of credit card security because of current deficiencies.

For instance, it would have to pay the $30 replacement fee for any credit card that is exposed to potential fraud. For 100,000 cards that would be $3-million. The company could also face up to $1-million in fees and fines until it is deemed a complaint by the Payment Card Industry council.

The report also suggests the corporation is at risk of class-action lawsuits if there is a security breach.

If not fixed, the document says, financial implications also include: “Potential loss of merchant status resulting (in) inability to process credit cards (loss of millions of dollars – majority of revenue is credit card).”

Mr. Hahn said a request for $500,000 in funding to address the security deficiencies was approved last month. But he acknowledged that the compliance gaps won’t be fixed until November – that’s how long it will take for the system updates to be completed.

He said industry security standards are constantly changing and he was sure that when another audit is “done in three or four years’ time it will identify other problems that will need to be addressed.”

But Gary Coons, New Democratic Party MLA and his party’s critic for the ferry corporation, isn’t buying it.

“It’s shocking,” said Mr. Coons.

“I think it’s outrageous and quite frankly scandalous that customers and the public have been kept in the dark for months now about these non-compliance gaps in protecting valuable credit card information.”

Mr. Coons said seven months was too long to wait for the problems in the system to be addressed.

“It’s just unacceptable and deplorable,” said the MLA for the North Coast. “But it seems obvious that David Hahn and the board of directors think that it’s okay to wait seven months to fix the system. If that’s their take on it I think the Minister of Transportation needs to get involved immediately.”

“Today’s HST legislation is the ultimate betrayal of the public trust,” said James. “The B.C. Liberals promised voters and businesses they wouldn’t introduce the HST. But that’s exactly what they did. They broke their promise to the people of this province.

North Coast MLA Gary Coons vowed to drag down the province’s new HST legislation with every procedural ploy in the book, after the Liberal government formally introduced a bill yesterday making way for the unpopular HST.

“British Columbians deserve to get the facts and debate they were denied when this government abruptly ‘flip-flopped” and deceived us when they said they were not introducing the regressive HST and then abruptly announced the 12 per cent harmonized sales tax is a highlight of their economic platform moments after winning last year’s provincial election,” said Coons. “We will use every strategy available to us — including repeatedly amending the  bill  and using the full speaking time allotted to MLAs to stall passage of the bill.”

The bill (Bill 9-“The Consumption Tax Rebate and Transition Act ”) runs some 80 pages and more than 200 sections. At the second stage of debate, the entire bill is debatable by each and every member of the Opposition, as are supplementary delaying motions.

At the committee stage, each section can be scrutinized at length and subjected to a recorded vote.

The Opposition set the tone early yesterday by forcing a standing vote, called division, during the bill’s introduction, which required all MLAs to stand and have their names read into the record. The government won, 47 to 34.

“Every opportunity that is available to delay and scrutinize the HST we will take advantage of,” said Coons. “If the minister

wanted his HST legislation done  early he should have introduced it in the first day the legislature came back. British Columbians deserve a full analysis and explanation of why the HST is forced upon them.”

Despite months of Liberal MLAs extolling the virtues of the tax that will benefit only big business as many as 77 per cent of people polled by Angus Reid earlier this month said they oppose the HST.

This spring, Carole James and the New Democrats have taken their anti-HST campaign on the road, meeting with concerned British Columbians and putting pressure on B.C. Liberal MLAs to vote against the legislation.

“It will take seven B.C. Liberal MLAs to defeat this Bill. Seven MLAs to stand with their constituents and vote against this regressive tax. We’re calling on the B.C. Liberals to honour their campaign promise, stand with New Democrats and say ‘No’ to the HST,” said James.

VICTORIA — In a short-sighted move that is contrary to the B.C. Liberals’ stated priorities, the government cut off funding this week for Success By 6, spelling the end of the program and hundreds of other programs in more than 240 communities across British Columbia, New Democrats said today.

Success By 6 B.C. was set up in 2003 in partnership with the United Way as an umbrella organization meant to support early childhood development. Since then, the Credit Unions of B.C. have become integral partners and remain committed to the program.

However, in a letter to program co-ordinators last week, the Early Childhood Development Provincial Partnership, which administers the program, said Success By 6 is “not sustainable without the full involvement of all three partners” and the program would be wound up due to the B.C. Liberal government eliminating funding.

“After six years, the program is finally strong, fully developed, and moving forward on innovative programs that are making a difference in our communities. And now the B.C. Liberals will cancel it outright. It just doesn’t make sense,” said New Democrat children and families critic Maurine Karagianis.

“This year their funding has been cut in half, and the provincial partnership has been advised by the ministry that ‘they will no longer continue funding this initiative beyond 2011.’ The cancellation of this program will have a devastating effect on organizations already stripped to the bone by cuts from this government.”

Karagianis, along with North Coast MLA Gary Coons and Columbia River-Revelstoke MLA Norm Macdonald, raised concerns in the B.C. legislature today, questioning the wisdom of cancelling the program.

“The cancellation of Success By 6 means that more than 400 front-line community services for families are now on the chopping block,” said Coons, noting that the program has become an indispensable resource for families in rural and aboriginal communities.

“The implications for front-line services for families are massive,” said Macdonald. “Funding received through Success By 6 allowed community organizations to apply for matching grants – now that opportunity is gone, and the survival of many of these services is at risk,”

Success By 6 provides support and funding for more than 400 projects in 240 communities in British Columbia, including early childhood literacy programs, music and social programs for preschoolers, mentorship programs for single mothers, pregnancy support and many more.

Carole James and the New Democrats have been holding the B.C. Liberals accountable for breaking their word on the HST, and for backtracking on their election promises to protect health care, education, and other vital services.

—30—