“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.

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.

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.”

VICTORIA— On the 21st anniversary of the catastrophic Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, the B.C. Liberal premier expressed support for a pipeline that would see 525,000 barrels per day of Alberta Tar Sands oil shipped in supertankers along the coast – threatening the Great Bear rainforest and putting wild salmon, killer whales and 150 other species at risk.

“The B.C. Liberal premier torched his environmental credibility and cast aside his so-called new relationship with First Nations in a single afternoon,” said New Democrat environment critic Rob Fleming. “Building the Enbridge pipeline would result in 6.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year — the equivalent of 1.6 million more cars on the road.

“The only green that the B.C. Liberals care about is in the pockets of their friends and donors; it’s clear that First Nations and the environment come last with this government.”

Every coastal First Nations government, along with the majority of First Nations along the proposed pipeline route held a press conference today where they delivered a clear message of opposition to the Enbridge pipeline, saying “oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Alberta Tar Sands will not be allowed to transit our lands and waters.”

“28 First Nations bands and councils, many of them in my constituency, have said no to this project,” said North Coast MLA Gary Coons. “The B.C. Liberals buried any hope of a new relationship with First Nations when the premier stood up and willfully ignored the fact that affected First Nations fully oppose the Enbridge Tar Sands pipeline. No amount of ‘consultation’ is going to change their minds.”

Yesterday, a scientific study was released showing that killer whales are in danger of going extinct if the Enbridge Tar Sands pipeline is allowed to go ahead. According to the report, which was compiled by 12 scientists over 5 years, it would only take one significant spill to put the survival of up to 150 species at risk.

Enbridge has donated almost $50,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 2005. Former B.C. Liberal MLA Roger Harris, who was defeated in 2005, is also a vice president of the company.

“Today 45 businesses, many of them located in the northwest, came out against the Tar Sands pipeline. It would only take one oil spill to threaten our wild salmon and destroy our reputation as a destination for wilderness tourism and world class hunting and fishing opportunities,” said Stikine MLA Doug Donaldson. “It’s clear that the B.C. Liberals are more interested in helping out their friends and donors than in doing the right thing for regional economies and the environment.”

Carole James and the 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.

 —30—

Click here to view Gary’s question to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (link will forward to Legislative Assembly Hansard):

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION ON ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

G. Coons: Today was a historic moment for First Nations in British Columbia and, indeed, across the nation as dozens of nations and tribal councils from across the province joined together to oppose the Enbridge tar sands pipeline. My question is to the Premier. Will he show respect for First Nations by standing up today and saying no to the Enbridge pipeline?

Nov. 4, 2009

VICTORIA— Today in question period the B.C. Liberal Environment Minister shrugged the fact that the grizzly bear population of the Great Bear Rainforest is plummeting when he was questioned by New Democrat MLA Gary Coons.

“It is imperative for this government to take immediate action to find out why the number of bears in the great bear rainforest is declining, and to decide what steps need to be taken to protect them. The 2009 Pink and Coho salmon returns were above average in the region, so most of the bears that did survive last winter should have been observed feeding on salmon after the berries finished, but they were nowhere to be seen” said Coons.  

This year’s helicopter survey of the Kimsquit drainage showed that the number of mother bears with cubs was down 65 per cent. The number of bears overall was down by 55 per cent.

When questioned about what the government planned to do to protect grizzly bears in the Great Bear Rainforest given the steep population decline, the Environment Minister responded by saying “there are periods where the bear population decreases, and then it increases. There are natural variations over the years in the bear populations on the north coast.”

The North Coast MLA doesn’t think that is a good enough answer.

“These are extremely troubling numbers and I am appalled that the Environment Minister is not taking them seriously,” said Coons. “It’s clear that the B.C. Liberal government simply can’t be trusted to act to protect species at risk.”

After this year’s count Tom Ethier, a manager with the B.C. environment ministry’s fish and wildlife service called the steep decline in this year’s grizzly bear numbers “worrying.” “His own staff describe the lack of grizzly bears, and especially of bear cubs, this year as ‘worrying,’ but the minister doesn’t appear to be concerned at all,” said Coons.  “This is one more example of how the B.C. Liberal government is all talk and no action on the environment and on the protection of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest.”

-30-

To read the Hansard yourself:

http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th1st/H91104y.htm

VICTORIA – The escape of 40,000 Atlantic salmon from a fish farm in the Broughton Archipelago highlights the B.C. Liberals’ failure to protect wild salmon stocks, say the New Democrats.

Despite the escape, the Liberals will still not commit to implementing closed-containment technology, a system that would have prevented the escape from the open-net Marine Harvest fish farm Friday.

“The legislature’s all-party finance committee has recommended the implementation of closed containment as a benefit to the economy and to the environment, but the B.C. Liberals continue to sit on their hands,” says opposition agriculture and lands critic Lana Popham.

“The 40,000 fish escape is embarrassing to both this Liberal government and to an industry that declare they have the best management practices in the world,” says North Coast MLA Gary Coons.” This is just another example of why closed containment is needed in B.C.’s waters. The last thing we need is thousands of  mature, alien fish have escaping into the wild, competing with native wild stocks for food, looking to spawn and increasing the potential of passing on disease. If ever there was a time to protect our wild stocks and go to closed containment, this is it! It can’t be ‘business as usual’!”

Just last month ago a 60,000 fish escape (below) happened in Scotland with outcrys of ineffective management practices and fish farms operating at the ‘lowest common denominator’. The Lochaber District Salmon Fishery Board, said: “After 20 years of serial escapes, the industry has proven that it is incapable of containing its fish.” The same holds true for BC. We need to become leaders in the technology of closed containment and support BC companies (like Agrimarine), not just allow them to be outsourced to foreign interests.

Opposition environment critic Rob Fleming says there are fears the B.C. Liberals are fast-tracking seven new fish farm licenses before they transfer oversight of aquaculture to the federal government in February.

“We’ve just passed a summer in which the Fraser River sockeye returns were dramatically lower than expected,” said Fleming. “A significant stock is in crisis, but the B.C. Liberals are still blithely carrying on as if there is no problem.”

In Question Period Monday, the opposition asked Agriculture Minister Steve Thomson to commit to not fast-track those seven new licenses. Thomson indicated that despite the stocks in crisis and regardless of the escape from the Marine Harvest site, it was business as usual for his ministry.

The opposition has called for the province to commit to three immediate steps:

•  No expansion of open-net fish farming activities or approval of new sites on B.C.’s coast.
• Implement the bi-partisan recommendation of the B.C.’s Select Standing Committee on Finance to move finfish aquaculture to closed containment and world-leading sustainable practice.
•  Immediately begin open, transparent and complete stakeholder consultation on the February 2010 transfer of fisheries aquaculture management responsibility so that B.C.’s long-term interests in a sustainable fishery are represented in any transfer agreements.

–30–

G. Coons: The rain forest coast of British Columbia is the largest remaining intact temperate rain forest left in the world. While it is often the beauty of our rain forest which captivates visitors, it is the productiveness of these forests that makes them so vital. They feature the highest biomass per hectare of any ecosystem on earth. They provide critical habitat for diversity of wildlife and provide spawning and rearing habitat for five species of Pacific salmon. 

Last week was World Rainforest Week. Every year the Rainforest Action Network takes this opportunity to highlight rain forest destruction around the world. Usually we think of the rape and pillage of the Amazon rain forest, but this year the network highlighted a little-known threat that tar sands development poses to the temperate rain forests in British Columbia.  

Our rain forest, the Great Bear that stretches the entire central coast all the way to the Alaskan border, is being threatened by the most destructive project on the planet, the tar sands of Alberta. Despite the illogical push from all governments to expand tar sands and strip mining, many comprehend the implications. Spills along the 1,100 kilometre pipeline are certain, but the real threat to B.C.’s rain forest is a shipping route that will carry tar sands by supertankers through 110 kilometres of narrow inlets. 

The people of British Columbia aren’t fooled. A recent poll found that 72 percent of British Columbians want oil tankers banned, and first nations are very clear where they stand. The Haida “will certainly not accept tanker traffic in our waters.” The Gitga’at: “There is nothing but risk in this whole process.” The Wet’suwet’en: “We don’t want it.” The Haisla: “We will not allow any project including Enbridge to proceed if it illegally infringes on our constitutionally protected rights.”  

Last month northwest residents dodged a bullet when a boat freighter ran aground at full speed outside Kitimat, luckily with no environmental damage. Had this been an oil tanker with full payload, it could have been catastrophic. Last week World Rainforest Week helped strengthen my resolve to protect our Great Bear rain forest. 

The Bahama-registered Petersfield suffered a steering mishap while running at full manoeuvring speed just south of Grant Point, approximately two hours south of Kitimat, resulting in severe damage to the front of the vessel.

“What we know from the Canadian Transportation Safety Board is that the 40,000-ton (dead weight) vessel veered sharply starboard and hit the beach at a depth of 400 metres early Saturday,” said Cullen.

“If that freighter had grounded itself in shallow water, the results could have been far more serious…Had this been an oil tanker with a full payload, it could have been catastrophic,” Cullen said, pointing out ships of the disabled vessel’s tonnage carry tens of thousands of barrels of oil or diesel for propulsion alone.

And North Coast MLA Gary Coons echoed those sentiments.

“It’s a sure wake up call to those who insist that oil tankers are safe on our coast. If we allow supertankers…It’s not a question of if it will happen, it’s a question of when it will happen!”

The incident has also caused concern amongst members of the Village of Hartley Bay, who experienced firsthand what can happen when a large ship sinks in their territory with the sinking of the Queen of the North.

“The Gitga’at are of the sea and we have always known that oil and gas tankers in these waters were a horrible and frightening idea. Hopefully the Petersfield incident will help Canada and the world understand that too,” said spokesperson Cameron Hill.

“This ship was likely being guided by Pacific pilots who are the best navigators and seafarers in the entire world. But even with them onboard and other sophisticated safety precautions, these shipping accidents still occur. Mechanical failure or human error, the outcomes are the same for our culture and our territory. The oil spills over

our Elders, our children, our Spirit bears and killer whales,” added Hereditary chief Ernie Hill.

Cullen noted that the incident took place on the proposed route of tankers that would use the Enbridge Gateway pipeline, which would transport 700,000 barrels of oil and condensate between Alberta and Kitimat requiring about 225 ships yearly, and the Gitga’at of Hartley Bay note that those ships would actually be larger than the infamous Exxon Valdez. However, Enbridge VP of Public and Government Affairs Steve Greenaway said it is important to note that there are significant differences between the ship and the process that was in place with the Petersfield accident and what would be in place should the proposed terminal in Kitimat become a reality.

“The biggest difference is that there would be an escort tug tethered to the tanker and its purpose would be to step in should an incident similar to this one occur…We have simulated the size of the ship in probably the top simulator available and simulated an incident similar to what we believe occurred here, and in all simulations it proved that the escort tug could maneuver the tanker in this situation. The tethered tug model isn’t going to be cheap, but it is absolutely critical and we wouldn’t consider moving tankers up the Douglas Channel without that,” he said.

Other differences would be double hull tankers and independent vetting of the ships that would be eligible to use the terminal, looking at things such as safety record of the ship and the crew and the age of the ship.

“This does reinforce what we are saying, which is that there is currently risk to the coast from current actions. There is a sense out there that there are no tankers…What we need to speak about is the first response capability on the coast. We would be investing over $100 million in first response capabilities,” said Greenaway.

And despite the accident Cullen noted that the message he has been getting from municipalities isn’t necessarily one opposing energy-based developments.

“Coincidentally, I just spent the weekend with over 25 community leaders from across the northwest who all agreed on the need for energy projects that strengthen our economy while respecting our northwest values and ecosystems.”

Investigations into the incident by both the Transportation Safety Board and Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association are underway. Ironically, the incident took place the weekend before a major international exercise to address an oil spill on the North Coast took place in Prince Rupert.

The Northern View

By Shaun Thomas

October 1, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

VICTORIA— The B.C. Liberals’ post-election renewed push to lift the ban on coastal oil drilling shows their environmental promises during the campaign were nothing more than hot air, say New Democrats.

“It’s environmental hypocrisy for the B.C. Liberals to boost dirty coastal drilling while claiming that that they care about the environment,” said North Coast MLA Gary Coons. “The B.C. Liberals are so out of touch with those on the coast and with the will of the people. They continue their tar sands mentality by putting our coastal waters at jeopardy by promoting offshore oil and gas and planning to run supertankers through the treacherous waters of the inside passage.”

On Monday, Minister of Energy and Mines Blair Lekstrom said that B.C. is raising the issue of offshore oil and gas every chance it gets with the federal government.

“During the election the B.C. Liberals said one thing and then after the election they do the opposite. They claimed they wanted B.C. to become a green, low-carbon economy, but their ongoing push to open up our sensitive coast to oil and gas extraction is just one more case of the Campbell government misleading British Columbians,” said Coons .

New Democrat energy critic John Horgan noted that even with advances in technology there is no such thing as environmentally safe coastal drilling.

“Coastal drilling is a dirty business,” said Horgan. “That’s why offshore oil and gas extraction on our seismically active, sensitive coastline has been off limits for over 30 years, through seven different premiers and governments of all political stripes.” 

Horgan also criticized the energy minister’s contention that being in an economic downturn was enough of a reason to ignore longstanding community and environmental concerns.

 “There is no consensus on offshore drilling and a government that is sincere about climate change and environmental protection would not try and ram through a policy change of this magnitude without talking to the people that matter, not those in Ottawa, but those on the coast and across British Columbia,” said Horgan. “Mr. Lekstrom needs to recognize he is the Minister of Energy on behalf of the people of B.C. not on behalf of multinational oil companies.”

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

 In addition to failing to make investments in closed-containment aquaculture, the green economy and new incentives for clean energy and energy efficiency, the B.C. Liberals’ have a post-election record of environmental failures which includes:

• Eliminating LiveSmart BC and cutting back on Scrap-It.
• Planning to bring in the HST, which will eliminate PST exemptions on clean and energy efficient products, meaning it will cost more to make good environmental choices at home.
• Cutting the budget for environmental protection, parks and protected areas, stewardship, compliance and enforcement and the Climate Action Secretariat by between 10 and 62 per cent.

—30—

Minister Lekstrom says with the current finances of B.C. the way they are, offshore oil and gas revenue would be more welcomed than ever

– CHNL – 10:00 AM – September 21, 2009

 Announcer: An old debate that never goes away in this province. B.C.’s Energy Minister today admitting to NL that with the current budget squeeze facing Victoria right now, offshore oil and gas revenue would be more welcomed than ever.

Reporter: Blair Lekstrom says the Province remains interested in exploring for offshore oil and gas if it can be done without harming the environment.

Blair Lekstrom: The benefits it can bring to British Columbians are significant. We face financial pressures each and every day when it comes to the delivery of health care, education, our social programs and we are a resource based economy here in British Columbia and offshore oil and gas is one of those resources that I believe could be a large benefit to British Columbia.

Reporter: Lekstrom says while B.C. raising the issue every chance it gets, it is Ottawa’s call on whether the 30 year moratorium on offshore oil exploration is lifted.

September 4, 2009

Cullen: Fisheries Committee Must Hold Hearings in BC

OTTAWA – New Democrats Peter Julian and Nathan Cullen are calling for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to hold Pacific Salmon season post-mortem hearings in B.C.

In an effort to bring much needed Federal attention to the issues of the Pacific salmon crisis; Cullen, MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley is working with Julian, West Coast Fisheries Critic, to pressure the Federal committee into a hearing tour along coastal BC communities.

“This crisis has been growing in coastal BC and, despite our greatest efforts, Minister Shea has not heeded our calls for action.” says Cullen. “The Standing Committee must look into what has happened to the 2009 sockeye runs and how the Federal government can attend to those Canadians impacted by this disastrous season.”

North Coast MLA Gary Coons agrees with his federal colleagues, “Since the BC Provincial government seems to have washed its hands of the wild salmon issue, I urge the government of Canada to sit up and take notice.”

Neither of BC’s two largest sockeye producers, the Fraser and Skeena Rivers, was able to open for a 2009 sockeye salmon season; meanwhile the Minister of Fisheries was in Norway promoting Canada as a great place to raise farmed fish.

Cullen says that barring an election call, this issue must be of the highest priority for the Standing Committee when the House of Commons re-convenes later this month. Cullen and Julian point out that the Committee has not even mentioned Pacific Salmon since February and they are urging the committee to immediately begin scheduling hearings and booking witnesses.

“Groups like the Sustainable Marine Fisheries and Communities Alliance have made every effort to be heard by the Minister,” appeals Cullen, “now they are waiting to be heard by the Fisheries committee.”

“We have seen the disappearance of Atlantic Cod through poor fisheries policies and neglect, we do not want to witness the same fate for Pacific Salmon.” says Julian, “Fisheries policies for British Columbia cannot be set in Ottawa meeting rooms. Fisheries policies for BC must be made in BC.”

- 30 –