“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.

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

While Tuesday’s throne speech committed the government pursuing an Asia Pacific Gateway Authority with the Federal Government to “open up the critical Northern Corridor”, North Coast MLA Gary Coons and Skeena Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen both say people in the region shouldn’t count on it.

“For the past three years I have been saying the northern corridor is where we need provincial government investment not the ill-advised investments in Delta…For those of us in the North the ‘once again’ commitment to the northern corridor from Prince George to Prince Rupert is one of the most significant items to come out of today’s throne speech. It must be noted that last year’s Throne speech also announced that the province was committing to increase the capacity of the Port of Prince Rupert to two million containers a year from the current 500,000. This second phase was expected to be completed by 2010 followed by a third phase for an additional two million containers by 2013. We all must remember this is a throne speech a week before the huge deficit budget and although we are hopeful, I would not bet the house on it,” said Coons, adding that the concerns of the Coast Tsimshian remain unaddressed.

“There have been rumours about how to best set this up, but my concern is that there is Northwest representation on the groups or committees. Often it gets so heavily weighted in Vancouver when all the opportunities are up here…The idea of Gordon Campbell and Stephen Harper working together to make something I support isn’t impossible, but I have my doubts,” added Cullen.

And while the Throne Speech also included defending the HST and talked about the unpredictability of the current economic crisis, both Cullen and Coons said they had a hard time believing that.

“The Throne Speech in general makes the last campaign feel deceitful. The government knew how bad the budget was, but acted like it was just sprung on them,” said Cullen.

“The government does not have a mandate to bring in this tax, and people from all walks of life right across the province are joining to call on the government to put a stop to the HST. The B.C. Liberals’ Throne Speech tries to say the economic downturn was ‘brutally deceiving’, but it is British Columbians who were deceived by the B.C. Liberals,” added Coons.

MLA, MP speak out against Throne Speech

By Shaun Thomas

The Northern View

September 01, 2009

A group of protesters chanting “Don’t want it! Don’t need it!” gathered outside the Surrey docks where the press conference took place, reported Surrey Now.

The road itself is a billion dollar project (of which the federal government will contribute $365 million) and part of the much larger and controversial Gateway project.

In a press release, Gordon Campbell stated the road will streamline the movement of goods and ensure “we can tap into the trade opportunities with the Asia-Pacific.”

Don Hunt, head of Delta’s Sunbury neighborhood association, spoke to The Tyee before Harper’s event.

He said there are “a dozen different reasons why the project shouldn’t go ahead,” one of which is the fact that it’s in an environmentally sensitive area — home to Burns Bog and farmland.

Hunt also said the road and Deltaport expansion are not wanted, or needed. He thinks the “gateway” to Asia should be in Prince Rupert.

There, plans are underway to quadruple the size of the port facilities by 2014.

Barry Bartlett, corporate communications director for the Prince Rupert Port Authority, said container traffic has increased by 280 per cent in the first three-quarters of this year.

Bartlett wouldn’t comment on whether he thought federal and provincial spending on Deltaport was a good idea.

He said that funding was “still in the works” for phase two of the Prince Rupert expansion, which is estimated to cost $650 million (about as much as the province will have to cough up for the South Fraser Perimeter Road alone.)

“We’re getting containers from Yokohama, Japan to Chicago in about twelve days,” said Bartlett.

“That’s considered very, very, very good.”

Bartlett says part of the reason is because Prince Rupert is geographically closer to Asia than Vancouver, but also because the port is able to quickly offload containers directly onto a train.

“The rail line is less than 200 meters from the ship,” he said.

“We’ve eliminated the use of trucks.”

The South Fraser Perimeter Road will extend 40 kilometers through Delta and Surrey along the Fraser River, linking the port with Highways 1, 99 and 91.

Colleen Kimmett reports regularly for the Hook.

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2009/01/13/PrinceRupert/