“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.

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.

“While British Columbians continue to wait for the B.C. Liberals to live up to their promise of acting on the independent review, residents up and down the coast are going to get hit again and again with steep ferry fare increases,” said New Democrat ferries critic Gary Coons.

“Last week the Ferry Commissioner gave B.C. Ferries the go-ahead to raise fares, and they didn’t hesitate. Just one week later, B.C. Ferries announced they will raise fares on routes by as much as seven per cent.”

Coons said cities, towns and First Nations communities have already been been devastated by skyrocketing fares since the B.C. Liberals privatized our ferries in 2003.

“Businesses that rely on ferries have also been hurt,” said Coons. “The trucking industry has said that fare increases could result in job losses, and many small tourism businesses are also feeling the pinch as visiting ferry-dependent communities becomes increasingly expensive.”

When the B.C. Liberals announced a review of B.C. Ferries in July, Finance Minister Colin Hansen said, “we must ensure that services provided to ratepayers are done so in a way that is financially sustainable and provides maximum value for all British Columbians.”

“Fares have already shot up by 40 per cent on major routes and 60 per cent on minor routes since 2003,” said Coons. “The B.C. Liberals need to act on the findings of the comptroller’s report, and quit stalling.”

Coons pointed out that ridership has already dropped as a result of steep fare increases and said the downward spiral will likely continue.

“The release of the review showed a glimpse of how the ferries are run, and it raised some alarming financial questions,” said Coons. “The public learned, for example, that the CEO takes well over a million dollars per year while coastal residents are stretched thin to make important ferry trips for groceries, to get to school and for doctor’s appointments.

“It’s the first time the public has been allowed to even get a glimpse since the B.C. Liberals excluded B.C. Ferries from the Freedom of Information Act.”

Coons also said that the B.C. Liberals’ HST, which they had promised not to bring in during last spring’s election, will compound problems at B.C. Ferries once it is implemented this summer.

“Expenses for items such as safety equipment will increase for the corporation, and those increases will likely be reflected in future fare increases,” said Coons. “Customers will also pay seven per cent more for food on ferries.”

Carole James and New Democrats will continue to hold the B.C. Liberals to account for skyrocketing fares and will fight for British Columbians when the government brings forward HST legislation in March.

Ferry commissioner Martin Crilly approved an increase in price caps for both major and minor B.C. Ferries routes on Friday.

B.C. Ferries is now crunching the numbers and is expected to announce the dollar amount of the increases near the end of this week.

The price-cap hike is 2.68 per cent for three major routes: Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen, Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo and Tsawwassen-Nanaimo.

A price-cap average increase of 5.68 per cent has been set for all other routes, including the system’s 18 minor routes, three northern runs and the Horseshoe Bay-Langdale route.

B.C. Ferries expects to pin fares close to the top of the price cap, said spokeswoman Deborah Marshall.

Still, a five per cent price increase on the majority of minor routes — Swartz Bay to Fulford Harbour on Saltspring Island, for example – will translate to a hike of only about 45 cents, said Marshall.

Ticket prices on minor routes already include a fuel rebate of about five per cent and there’s a two per cent fuel rebate on the Horseshoe Bay- Langdale route.

New Democratic Party ferry critic Gary Coons warns the fare increases will mean a drop in ridership and less revenue for tourist-dependent businesses.

“It’s going to be devastation again to coastal communities and those on Vancouver Island,” Coons said, in a phone interview. “Along with the carbon tax and possible HST next July, [the fare increase] will be the nail in the coffin for many businesses and tourism-dependent entities.”

Fares have risen by 40 per cent on major routes and 60 per cent on minor routes since 2003, when B.C. Ferries was changed to operate like a private business, Coons said.

Studies show as fares go up 10 per cent, ridership drops about seven per cent and that trend will continue, Coons said.

Marshall doesn’t expect the nominal increase will drive down ridership or have an impact upon tourism, however.

He argues that soaring gas prices affect ferry traffic much more than fare increases.

“While I appreciate no one likes to pay more for goods or services, with increasing costs we have to have tariff adjustments from time to time,” Marshall said.

The fares for northern ferry routes were increased early, in September 2009, and will stay in place for 18 months, until April 1, 2011.The annual increases are set by the B.C. Ferry Commission.

By Cindy E. Harnett

Times Colonist

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The commissioner approved a 2.68 percent increase on the three major routes between Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland and a 5.68 percent jump on all other routes.

“This will result in adjustments to passenger and vehicle fares effective April 1, 2010, with the dollar amounts to be published by B.C. Ferries in due course,” the commissioner’s announcement said.

In two cases B.C. Ferries fares are now below the amount they are allowed to charge, meaning the northern routes may see an additional hike of 4.2 percent and the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale route may go up by a further 3.4 percent.

“These increases in fares will definitely result in less ridership and more difficulty for [B.C. Ferries],” said New Democratic Party ferry critic Gary Coons. “It’s a vicious circle that the [Coastal Ferry Act] has created.”

The increase will hurt many businesses and other organizations that depend on tourism, he said.

The B.C. Government is reviewing the legislation that governs the ferries and the fares should be kept stable until that process is complete, he said. “Many British Columbians feel strongly that Victoria’s experiment in trying to make B.C. Ferries run like a profitable company rather than operate efficiently as an integral part of the highways system has failed miserably.”

The commission has posted the reasons for Crilly’s decision along with a chart showing that since 2003 fares have risen by 40 percent on the major routes and 60 percent on the minor routes on its website.

By Andrew MacLeod

The Tyee

February 15, 2010 04:48 pm

“Today B.C. is facing significant challenges, including heavy job losses, persistent child poverty rates and an extended recession in which families are struggling to make ends meet. Not only did the Liberals fail to mention these challenges in the Throne Speech, they failed to put forward a plan to address them,” said James.

“A year ago, the B.C. Liberals promised ‘bold action’ on the economy. They delivered deep cuts to public services, a plan for more privatization and the Harmonized Sales Tax – a regressive tax that will hurt consumers and small businesses and kill jobs. That’s the wrong approach for our economy, and New Democrats will continue the fight to stop the HST.”

North Coast MLA Gary Coons echoed these concerns. “This speech from the Premier highlights how out of touch he is with those struggling in our province. We needed a visionary discourse that would guide through this difficult time and all we got was indicators that B.C. is in for even deeper cuts and tough times to come.”

Coons recognized the Premier’s ability at ‘doublespeak’ throughout the Throne Speech. For example when the Premier says:

1) The government will “take a fresh look at B.C.’s regulatory regimes,”…

Translation: more cuts to ministry staff who enforce provincial laws and regulations, and a complete watering down of current Environmental Assessments to the detriment of our fish and wildlife.

2) “the government will pursue more public-private partnerships in “transportation, health delivery, education support services, systems management and more,”…

Translation: a continuation of the outsourcing of public jobs to private interests, out of the reach of FOI and public reporting, and funneling profits into multi-national corporations instead of into vital public services…..privatize , privatize to the detriment of the public!

3)  “lowering taxes remains a core feature of the government’s prosperity agenda..This session will feature additional measures to restore our economy and to create jobs in every sector;”…

Translation: Reducing government revenues even further in a time of already depressed tax revenues – either through further tax down-shifting from business to individual taxpayers, increased user-fees in lieu of taxes, or both…. just another downloading onto individuals and municipalities.

4) “Stemming the unaffordable growth in health costs is essential in meeting our obligation to rebalance the budget by 2013,” the speech said. “As long as we are spending more money to pay for our services than we are generating in revenue, we are living beyond our means.”…

Translation: Continue the massive service and funding cuts, as a means of degrading public services to the point where taxpayers will have to accept privatized service models in health care and other social services .

“British Columbians realize that we are in an unique position to build a sustainable economy that helps tackle climate change and creates the green jobs of tomorrow.” claims Coons, “Nothing in this Throne Speech laid any groundwork to reassure us this Premier has any economic vision past the Olympic games. The Speech deserved a ‘Gold Medal’ for its lack of vision and rehashing of old ideas.”

“This ruling confirms what we have been hearing from parents, teachers, support staff, and students,” said New Democrat education critic Robin Austin. “The B.C. Liberal government is breaking their own class size and composition law, and students are the ones who are paying the price.”

The ruling was the result of grievances filed by thousands of teachers whose classes were overcrowded according to the B.C. Liberal government’s own class size and composition law – Bill 33. It is estimated that one in four classrooms in British Columbia exceed the government’s limits.

“The arbitrator made it clear that the B.C. Liberal government is responsible for ensuring schools have the funding to keep classes from being overcrowded,” said Austin. “This ruling is the result of years of cuts and downloaded costs, something that will only get worse if the HST is implemented and takes even more resources out of the classroom each year.”

North Coast MLA Gary Coons notes that some districts have been ordered to compensate teachers for the violation of Bill 33 and will result in massive funding issues that districts cannot afford at this point in time.

“This ruling confirms what many have said for years…this government’s priorities are wrong and their actions continue to put public education and our children at risk,” said Coons.

Arbitrator James Dorsey, in his 74 page decision reiterated that teachers have a right to expect to be assigned to a class that meets class size and composition standards and one that respects the law. When the rules are not followed, “the burden of the breach is primarily borne by the teacher(s) of the class, not the principal, superintendent, trustees or even individual students.”

“Those concerned about the shambles of Bill 33 have been echoing that classes are too large and contain too many unsupported special-needs children,” said Coons. “In 2002, when the Liberal government stripped contracts of the ability to negotiate class size and composition at the bargaining table, they started a systematic slide that finally has bounced back to reveal how they left our public education system in tatters after eight years of neglect. A key part of Dorsey’s ruling was a section that made it clear that the B.C. Liberal government cannot hide behind school boards – the B.C. Liberal government is ultimately responsible for ensuring that districts have the resources to meet the government’s legislated class size and composition rules.”

Recently school district secretary-treasurers told trustees that there is a $293-million price tag on new costs and cancelled grants for 2010-11, and that doesn’t include general inflation(see below).This recent ruling will only cost districts more and further erode services to our children!

Many districts are already predicting drastic and massive shortfalls in funding for the next school year; this will only increase the burden upon school boards. The Vancouver district says their shortfall could be as high as $19 million, the Richmond district is predicting a shortfall of up to $15 million, the Burnaby district is looking at an $8 million dollar shortfall, the Vernon school district is facing down a $2.5 million shortfall, and Victoria schools expect to be short as much as $9 million.

Carole James and New Democrats believe that, in order to help drive the ideas and jobs of tomorrow, we must reduce class sizes, eliminate of barriers to post-secondary education, and invest in research and development.

-30-

Counting the (missing) dollars

By Janet Steffenhagen

27 Dec 2009

Here is a story that’s likely to dominate education news in the new year — school district secretary-treasurers have put a $293-million price tag on new costs and cancelled grants for 2010-11. That doesn’t include general inflation.

The most significant hit comes from their expectation that the Education Ministry will not reinstate the annual facility grant (AFG), which was worth $110 million when it was cancelled in 2009-10. Another big cost is full-day kindergarten at $44 million. Although the ministry has promised new money to fully cover that program, the secretary-treasurers – through their B..C. Association of School Business Officials (BCASBO) – have not included that in their list of 2010-11 funding pressures. The only new spending identified is a $37-million bump in overall K-12 funding as promised by the Liberals in the last budget.

The other new costs include: (The BCASBO presented this list to trustees at their recent academy in Vancouver)

Implementation of Harmonized Sales Tax on July 1 — $32 million ***different than the $24 million reported in Nov…see below!

Teacher salary increase of two per cent — $43.5 million

Teacher pension cost increase of 1.04 per cent — $23.1 million

Estimated cost of carbon offsets — $5.95 million

MSP premium increase — $2.8 million

Deployment of SmartTOOL software for calculating carbon emissions — $444,000

BC Hydro rate increases — $2.4 million

CUPE trades adjustment — $3.3 million.

Other possible pressures, included on the list:

Continued cancellation of AFG — $110 million

Exhausting one-time reserves for 2009-10 budget funding — $63 million

Growth in special education and general inflation for supplies and services, benefits, energy — Unknown

The BCASBO presented this list to trustees at their recent academy in Vancouver

 HST COULD COST B.C. SCHOOLS $24 MILLION, ASSOCIATION FINDS

November 8, 2009

VICTORIA – The Liberals’ Harmonized Sales Tax could be a $24 million hit to annual operating costs for B.C. schools according to estimates from the B.C. Association of School Business Official.

The BCASBO stated in a letter to Finance Minister Colin Hansen that “B.C.’s K-12 Section will face significant cost increases due to HST”, and estimated the new tax will cost B.C schools $24 million per year in additional operating costs.

“This report confirms what the B.C. Liberals continue to deny,” said North Coast MLA Gary Coons. “The HST will hurt consumers in provinces that implement it.”

“British Columbians are already suffering from the economic downturn,” said Bruce Ralston, New Democrat finance critic. “This is the worst time to introduce a tax that will curb spending and leave less money in the pockets of hard-working families.”

Sales Tax Harmonization In Manitoba: What It Would Mean For Households, Businesses And Public Finances says that with “an HST in Manitoba, consumers would pay $405 million more in provincial sales tax.” Ralston noted that the total cost for our province would be higher, given that the population of B.C. is nearly four times that of Manitoba.

“Manitoba looked at the HST carefully and decided not to adopt it,” said Ralston. “In B.C we had a Liberal government say during the election they had no plan to implement a Harmonized Sales Tax, then as soon as the election was over, without any careful analysis, announced the HST.”

 The Manitoba report also acknowledges that even items not directly affected by the introduction of a HST, such as residential rent, could cost more due to the increases that owners face.

“The full impact of the HST on North Coast communities may not be known for some time,” said Coons. “Business owners and landlords can’t soak up the increases they face from the HST, they’ll pass those on to consumers.

Coons said a recent poll by Ipsos Reid shows 82 per cent of British Columbians are opposed to the HST, and most believe it will hurt our provincial economy. The Manitoba government did the right thing…they listened to the people, they listened to small business and determined that there is a risk to economic recovery and a huge burden that would be placed on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty. It’s time Gordon Campbell did the right thing and listen to British Columbians.

“People know the HST is a $1.9 billion tax shift on to consumers,” said Coons. “If only seven B.C. Liberal MLAs heed the wishes of their constituents and vote against the HST, it can be stopped.”

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-

Winners and losers

THOSE who would gain under the HST:

Construction companies ($267 million), manufacturing ($69 million), retailers and wholesalers ($64 million) and farmers ($18 million).

Overall, the net benefit to business would be $510 million a year in Manitoba.

Those who would lose under the HST:

Consumers would bear the brunt, with a total annual tax increase of $405 million.

The provincial government would be out hundreds of millions of dollars annually if it cushioned the blow for low-income Manitobans and exempted certain goods and services from the new tax.

Some businesses — such as residential landlords, daycares, private personal-care homes, financial services firms and most non-institutional health and dental service providers — would be worse off under tax harmonization because they provide exempt services and are not eligible to claim input tax credits. They would pay more sales tax due to an expanded base of taxable items.

– Source: Manitoba Finance

Manitoba makes case against HST, says would cost consumers millions

By Chinta Puxley (CP) – 2 days ago

WINNIPEG — A Manitoba government report says harmonizing provincial and federal sales taxes would save the province’s businesses $510 million a year but cost consumers more than $400 million.

The average consumer would pay hundreds more for everything from gasoline to home heating to haircuts, says the report, which seeks to justify why Manitoba continues to resist the call of a harmonized tax.

The province itself would lose out on $134 million in annual revenue, says the report released Tuesday.

“Manitoba does not support harmonization at this time because of the potential risk to the economic recovery and the burden it would place on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty,” it says.

“Manitoba recognizes that the pace of the global economic recovery continues to be slow and that any decision to harmonize must be considered with particular attention to this economic reality.”

Manitoba is one of the last provincial holdouts – along with Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island – when it comes to harmonizing sales taxes. Ontario and British Columbia are phasing in the harmonized sales tax next July. Alberta has no provincial sales tax.

Finance Minister Rosann Wowchuk said it doesn’t make sense to impose a new sales tax at a time when the economy is still in recovery.

“We’ve reviewed it and we are not doing it now,” Wowchuk said. “The money that the federal government is offering on a one-time basis does not even cover the additional costs. We aren’t prepared to do that.”

The report suggests businesses would benefit from bringing in the HST and could pass those savings on to consumers. But the report also predicts the savings probably wouldn’t be enough to offset the increased burden placed on consumers, who would pay more for items now exempt from federal sales tax.

“Prices faced by consumers would likely rise in the short term as tax costs are shifted to consumers, but economic research suggests prices may decrease by up to one per cent as savings to businesses are passed on to consumers in the long run.”

Those with an average household income of $63,300 would annually pay $161 more to gas up the family car and $35 more to heat the family home, the report estimates. Family entertainment would cost an extra $63 more while haircuts could cost $30 more a year.

New homes would also cost more – up to $17,500 in HST for a $250,000 house. Tenants could also end up paying more in rent, the study suggests, since landlords would pass on their increased costs.

Proponents of a harmonized sales tax have argued that Manitoba will lose jobs and the provincial economy will suffer if there isn’t such a tax. Business groups say an HST makes the province more attractive for businesses who would save taxes on goods they purchase.

But the government report points out that Manitoba’s main trading partner is south of the border.

“Our main trading partner, the United States, applies a welter of RSTs at the state and local level and does not have a (tax) like an HST.”

Manitoba businesses have benefited from the province’s tax cuts and can be “supported with tax relief that does not burden consumers with the increased costs of an HST,” the report says.

Even with one-time federal compensation, the province also can’t afford to shell out $400 million a year, which would be necessary to cushion the impact on consumers through exemptions, the report says.

Although Manitoba is ruling out bringing in the HST for now, Wowchuk hinted that could change down the road.

“But for us, right now, this is not the step to take because we think it would be a very heavy burden,” she said. “It would cost the province more money than would be gained from it.”

Under questioning in the legislature yesterday, Bond would only say that government will consider each of the comptroller general’s recommendations — including that B.C. Ferries be subject to Freedom of Information law.

“We asked the comptroller general for advice, and we intend to review every recommendation,” she said.

The Opposition, however, accused Bond of “stalling” and blamed the lack of transparency at B.C. Ferries for the fact David Hahn earned $1 million last year — more than double the amount paid top executives at larger public sector bodies.

“It was this premier that gave B.C. Ferries a green light to excessively spend and to operate in secret by exempting them from FOI,” NDP critic Gary Coons said. “This premier created this B.C. Ferries gone wild with no accountability and no scrutiny.”

The Liberal government shielded B.C. Ferries from freedom of information law six years ago when the company switched from a Crown to a quasi-private corporation. As a result, executive salaries remained a secret — even though taxpayers subsidize the company by more than $100 million a year.

Hahn’s compensation only surfaced this summer because of changes to federal securities laws that obliged the company to disclose compensation amounts.

At the time, Bond called Hahn’s compensation level “shocking” and ordered a review by the comptroller general.

Coons said Bond could avoid such shocks in the future by forcing B.C. Ferries to obey open records rules. “This government is stalling, hoping the issue will go away,” he said. “It was a mistake to hide B.C. Ferries from the public.”

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation also have urged government to bring the ferry company back under FOI law.

Times Colonist

By Lindsay Kines

Friday, November 20, 2009