Specifically:
1. The piece was written without contacting the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited or Halifax Regional Municipality to obtain relevant background information on the file.

2. And it contains the following factual errors:
Benjamin says the water lot infill project on the Bedford Basin waterfront has not been subject to an environmental assessment. The Bedford Phase II project was subject to environmental assessment required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and has been approved and monitored by relevant provincial and federal regulatory bodies throughout the history of operations. Impacts on habitat have been assessed and mitigated through operational protocols and procedures.

Benjamin indicates that the infill material is “construction rubble.” This is incorrect; the infill project only exists to provide a safe disposal site for acid generating slate. This slate is a naturally occurring rock common to the geology of Halifax. When not managed and exposed to water and oxygen it produces acid runoff that can severely impact adjacent watercourses and aquatic life.

Following review by the NS Department of Environment and Environment Canada, it was determined that marine disposal of this material rendered it inert and was the preferred method to ensure that the material would not pose a risk to aquatic animals. WDCL was requested to operate the facility for this purpose.

Benjamin says the original plan for the Bedford Waterfront project was for a “marine park.” This is incorrect. The initial 1985 Bedford Waterfront Master Plan envisioned an active year-round, mixed-use urban waterfront that would be developed in stages and provide public access to the water’s edge. This conceptual plan was used as a guiding document in the development of the current plan, and ratified through extensive public consultation and the overall objective remains unchanged. Benjamin says there is no business plan for the project, when in fact there is a clear sustainable business plan for the project. WDCL operates the facility and charges the development industry tipping fees for the material. All revenues received are, and will be, reinvested in the development and management of public infrastructure. This includes boardwalks, marinas and event plazas. The central objective of the conceptual development plan is to ensure that the plan is economically viable and will see the public infrastructure developed and maintained.

Benjamin describes the project as “anti-community.” We believe the history of active community involvement in the project is evidence of the contrary. The project is consistent with, and stems from, the HRM Regional Planning Process that identified the objective of creating a suburban local centre and transit hub at the site. Members of the community have volunteered hundreds of hours in participation in the visioning and public consultation components of the ongoing project.

Benjamin concludes that the project “will do great harm to wilderness and water, with little payback for locals.” This is inaccurate. The project is specifically designed to incorporate sustainable development practices in all aspects of community design. When this project is complete it will provide, aside from the economic development benefits, signature public amenity features and a design as determined by the community. This includes public access to the water’s edge, event plazas, exhibition and performance space, playgrounds and a range of recreation opportunities, as well as opportunities for residential and commercial development.

With respect to Benjamin’s comments regarding the Paper Mill Lake area, HRM wishes to point out that this area has been contemplated for mixed-use residential/commercial development since the 1990s, as described in the Bedford Municipal Planning Strategy. Further, part of the area is the subject of a development agreement that was approved by Council more than 15 years ago.

Regarding the United Gulf land holding at the interchange of Hammonds Plains Road and Bicentennial Highway, an application has been received, and staff will be proceeding through the planning process this fall, which necessarily includes public consultation. In addition to input from the general public, the proposal will be reviewed by the Bedford Waters Advisory Board, a volunteer committee of Council, who advise Council on environmental matters. Halifax Regional Council and North West Community Council must ultimately approve any required land use policy changes and a site-specific development agreement before any development can occur.

In the future, the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited and Halifax Regional Municipality would respectfully request that your staff contact our respective offices when preparing articles relating to our projects or initiatives so that accurate information can be provided to your readers.

—Colin MacLean, president, Water Development Corporation Ltd. and Paul Dunphy, director of community development, Halifax Regional Municipality

Chris Benjamin responds: Most of what MacLean and Dunphy call factual errors are differences of opinion. The error regarding an environmental assessment is mine and for that I apologize.

I didn’t contact WDCL directly for the piece, but I did read what its public website ---including the Bedford Waterfront Design Study report---has to say about the project. My source on the project’s dependence on tipping fees, for example, is WDCL staffter Terry Drisdell, in a video presentation at halifax.ca/visionhrm/bedfordwaterfront.

He states: “Toward the end of Phase I it was realized that…the infrastructure costs and the provision of public amenities were just more than the project could bear, so there was no business case that could be made at that time to continue on to Phase II. Roundabout the same time the Department of Environment was looking for identification of an area that would be suitable for the safe disposal of pyritic slate…it was determined that the Phase II location of the Bedford waterfront was the most appropriate and practical location...And for the business plan we decided that in order to make it a feasible operation…we would charge tipping fees…Any development, any large construction projects going on in the area that generated the slate would be charged.”

It’s disheartening to see that our governments and crown corporations think assigning token community members to volunteer committees, throwing in a green space or two, and holding non-interactive public presentations of their slideshow plans, constitutes community involvement.

The market is not completely finished nor as I understand it, all the systems for heating, cooling, et cetera fully operational. As well, I have heard comments about how crowded it is.

Well, let’s face it, a lot of people who never attended the old Brewery Market probably made a point of going to the Seaport Market on the past two Saturdays out of curiosity, thus giving the impression it will be like that all the time. Let’s be patient and reserve our judgments until it is fully operational. —Shirley McLaughlin, Halifax

For this reason, Halifax Regional Municipality, Feed Nova Scotia, The Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers and the Health Association of Nova Scotia have strongly urged the government to keep the long-form census.

But the Conservatives refuse to listen to the voices of these Canadians. Instead, they plan to move to a new voluntary survey that will cost taxpayers $30 million more to administer, and which will provide seriously flawed data that will under-represent certain groups in society. A voluntary survey will inevitably mean a lower response rate from low-income Canadians, immigrants, Aboriginals and other disadvantaged groups. This will undermine the accuracy of the data and negatively impact the ability of governments, businesses and organizations to make well-informed decisions.

The Harper government prefers to base government policy on ideology rather than sound information. Rather than listening to concerns raised by provincial and municipal governments, statistical experts, business groups and community organizations, the Harper government has made ridiculous claims about privacy concerns and jail time for those who refuse to complete the census in order to justify this decision. No Canadian has ever been jailed for not completing the census. Liberals believe a reasonable compromise can be made to preserve the mandatory long-form by removing the threat of jail time from all census forms.

I have written to industry minister Tony Clement asking that the decision to eliminate the mandatory long-form be reversed. Unless the Harper government reconsiders this unfortunate plan, Liberals will seek to change the Statistics Act to restore the mandatory long census. —Geoff Regan, MP for Halifax West

In order for wind power to get better, challenges and questions need to be made against it. I know so many people who read this article and automatically condemned it; proclaiming it anti-environment and hateful. I certainly don’t think that way, and I hope more people will read this article with a sincere mindset. —Breathing Fresh Air, Halifax

Your article states that the changes are awaiting approval by Parliament; unfortunately, this was a change to regulations and doesn’t require a vote of Parliament, and was done unilaterally by the Conservative government, without any community consultation.

In 2007, the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Solicitation Laws heard from over 300 witnesses and examined available literature to come to the majority conclusion that current laws surrounding prostitution are harming women and men working in the sex trade. None of the sub-committee’s recommendations have been implemented to date. The government’s latest move---bringing sweeping changes without consultation or debate---is irresponsible, wasteful and harmful. Thanks to The Coast for letting us all know how wrong these changes are. --- Megan Leslie, MP for Halifax

Dear readers,
The Coast went through a legal situation recently regarding privacy and online commenting, and on our lawyer’s advice we were uncharacteristically quiet about it in the paper and online. Of course, people have still been talking about it. Walking out of a Nova Scotia Supreme Court courtroom last week and into the business end of a scrum of reporters and cameras was a major Backwards Day moment for me. Instead of asking questions, I was answering. And when it was over, and the journalists printed and posted and broadcast their stories across the country, the Backwards Day effect continued. A story involving The Coast generated approximately a bajillion comments and at least one phone-in radio show, and The Coast didn’t mention it.

I’m sorry that you had to hear about it someplace else. Now that the legal fog we’ve been in is clearing, and we can talk about it, you’re probably tired of the whole mess. Believe me, I understand, and will take no offence if you skip to the next letter.

We were in court because somebody wanted information from our website’s logs in order to launch a defamation suit against some of our online commenters. Internet Protocol information in particular is a sort of digital fingerprint, as the IP address can pinpoint quite closely where in the offline world a comment came from. Constant IP tracking is a feature of the internet, and it means that very little online activity happens in an anonymous vacuum.

People often approach The Coast asking for IP addresses so they can try to get hold of a member of our online community. No matter the reason---from Who is my secret admirer? to Who do I sue?---if we just handed over the info we’d probably be violating privacy laws. So in this case we gave the standard answer: That is information related to our business, and we won’t share unless you get a court order. Soon enough we were in court, where Supreme Court Justice M. Heather Robertson granted the order forcing us to surrender the IP information.

Like Google, who was also named by the court order, we didn’t put up a fight in Justice Robertson’s court and we surrendered the information as required by the order. This decision inspired second-guessing from various armchair lawyers online. The Coast should defend its journalistic sources, they said, or at least ought to honour its committment to protect anonymous commenting. One commenter on the Globe and Mail site said that “apparently some low-ranking district court judge now makes law. Congratulations on one of the most backward decisions in recent history.” My favourite comment is the one that starts: “IMO, it’s not ‘libel’ if....”

But the laws are not what we want them to be; they are what they are. Although lots of things about how the internet fits into the legal system are still being worked out, the laws of libel and defamation definitely include such things as online comments. Not only was the Supreme Court judge well within the law when she ordered us to surrender the IP addresses, but our highly experienced media lawyer says judges grant these sorts of court orders all the time.

We don’t hear about most of these cases. We hear about the exceptions, the hard-fought contentious cases that may set a precedent. But the current situation was never going to be one of those. The commenters were not journalistic sources who were promised anonymity; they were people who chose to say things on our site---things that violated our policies and which we apologized for permitting on the site. We could have claimed they were sources, but there are legal tests that decide whether someone really is a source, and this situation failed them all. Similarly, while we allow anonymous commenting, we do not promise confidentiality.

There may be an argument to make about free speech, but it’s not necessarily applicable in this country. Canadian law is a much different beast than American law, with its oft-repeated guarantees for freedom of expression. It is significant that the American icon of the untamed frontier is the cowboy, while Canada’s is the Mountie. Here, internet commenters are “like other people,” as Justice Robertson put it in her ruling, and “have to be accountable for their actions.”

That said, we have enough freedom that you don’t have to agree with our decision or the judge’s. But you should be aware this doesn’t change anything in terms of anonymity and commenting at thecoast.ca. The discussions are an important part of The Coast online; they are wide-ranging, open to practically anyone, full of free language.

However, that doesn’t mean they are perfectly anonymous and confidential. We don’t guarantee anonymity, we can’t guarantee it and if you choose to post a comment on our site, we can only protect you as far as the law allows. --Kyle Shaw, editor, The Coast

Alison Lang's Metric article ("Measuring Metric's success," April 8) calls Emily Haines a goddess, a bitch, a siren, maybe a visionary. I think Emily Haines is one of these things: a bitch.

Lang had a bad interview with Haines go sour due to Haines' bad attitude, yet Lang proceeds to blame herself and kiss Haines' feet. This is not behaviour unknown to Metric fans; indeed, most that I know feel that Haines is a complete jerk, and excuse it completely without blinking. It makes me a little sick, especially when I read things like: "Canada's erstwhile queen of cool is as susceptible to pain and disappointment as anyone else."

Don't get me wrong: Lang didn't have much to work with, and she had to write an article. Furthermore, there are plenty of awesome rock stars that are complete pricks and still super-cool.

Maybe it's personal: About two years ago, when Metric first played the Cunard Centre, we arrived early enough that we caught Haines outside while no one was there. My girlfriend at the time was decked out in as much Metric merch as you can imagine, and approached her to say how huge of a fan she was. Haines' response? "Sorry, we have a soundcheck." Didn't even slow down to say it. The next day, when I wrote an email to Metric to voice my disapproval of her actions, I discovered that their fanmail inbox was too full and my message couldn't be delivered.

Of course Emily Haines is sad. She's a spoiled brat who doesn't realize how good she's got it. The point is: Even I still listen to Metric for their music, but Emily Haines is just some chick in some band, not an icon. Can we please stop with the blind worship?—Justin M. Wiles, Halifax

In his column, Bruce Wark asks if it would be possible to set up a provincially owned power corporation that would issue bonds in exchange for the shares now held by private investors ("People power," Editorial, April 1). While this may be possible, I would ask why would we want to?

We've been there and done that, Bruce, and that is why we are where we are. When Nova Scotia had its crown company NS Power operating the electrical utility in our province, we accumulated a debt of $2.245 million. When the privitization took place this debt was transferred from Nova Scotia taxpayers to those persons who purchased the shares of the new Nova Scotia Power.

I believe that I, together with the thousands of Nova Scotians who purchased the shares initially or subsequently, are pleased to enjoy, especially at this time of year, the eight percent federal dividend tax credit we currently receive. And the good news is that the opportunity remains available for anyone who wishes to partake.

The New Brunswick government, in its signing of the MOU with Hydro-Quebec, was attempting to do what Nova Scotia had done in 1992 and to eliminate the $4.8-million deficit accumulated by their crown NB Power company. Perhaps they may have been more successful if they had followed what Nova Scotia had done. Governments do not have good track records operating electric utilities.

In recent years the failure of Ontario Hydro left Ontario with a $22-million debt and an electric system with many problems. The Bruce nuclear plant with an output of 6200Mw was in shutdown for reasons of neglect or incompetence. The government, understanding the critical importance of the ouput of this station to the energy needs of Ontario, transferred the ownership and the responsibility for its refurbishment and restart to a private consortium. The result has become a success for everyone. The now investor-owned Bruce Power Station is a prime example of what good business operators can accomplish. Perhaps there is a lesson here with respect to the problems at NB Power's Point LePreau rehabilitation.

Yes, there is a role for governments in "people services," but the operation of electric utilities is not one of them! —Bill, Halifax

Once again Tim is the Woodward and Bernstein of Halifax---drawing a clear and revealing line between this decidedly unserious plan and the thwarted Commonwealth Games scheme. Thank you Tim!

—John Wesley Chisholm, Musquodoboit Harbour

Convention central

So mayor Peter Kelly thinks the proposed new convention centre is a no-brainer ("The convention centre rescue plan" by Tim Bousquet, April 1). I didn't know that no-brainer meant colossal white elephant.

What a waste of prime real estate and tax dollars! The proposed design reminds me of an updated Scotia Square (already a dead zone). This oversized idea should have its own space, like on the waterfront. But do it without taxpayers' money. After all, if it's such a great business idea, it should fly on its own.

As for the prime real estate downtown, it should be used smartly, imaginatively and organically. In ways that will draw Haligonians to the area.

—John Davis, Halifax

As Nova Scotians prepare for the introduction of a new budget by the government, the fiscal challenges of our province will no doubt take top priority. Minister Graham Steele's budget consultation projections show health care costs for Nova Scotia soaring to over $4 billion by 2012. The staggering costs of health care can be directly linked to the increasing levels of chronic diseases, yet many of these are due to common habits such as tobacco use, harmful alcohol use, unhealthy eating and physical inactivity.

We currently spend 90 percent of our health care system's budget dealing with the costs of diseases from unhealthy habits, yet the department of health promotion and protection only receives less than one percent of the provincial government's budget.

It is integral to have health care there for people when they need it but we also need to invest in keeping people as healthy and physically active as possible to live independent and meaningful lives.

In May of 2009, the Nova Scotia Alliance for Healthy Eating and Physical Activity, of which the Heart and Stroke Foundation is a member, developed a report, The Case for a Comprehensive Provincial Physical Activity Strategy, demonstrating the physical, mental and economic benefits of physical activity. The report provides examples of effective interventions to achieving results in the short and long term. The cost to support such a strategy---$5 million.

In addition to providing a return on individual and population level health, increased physical activity through a provincial strategy delivers economic benefits. A 10 percent reduction in physical inactivity could mean $7.5 million saved in health care spending, $17 million in productivity gains and $24.7 million in savings. These results will play an immediate role in our current economic recovery as benefits will be felt within two years, providing long-term stability.

If we are to get back to balance in Nova Scotia, an investment in Nova Scotia's health through physical activity and prevention is critical for addressing our current and future health and fiscal challenges. —Menna MacIssac, CEO, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Nova Scotia

FOI should be a last resort

Tim Bousquet is becoming a very lonely advocate for open and accountable government. His frustrations getting information from HRM are legendary ("Taxpayers on ice," Editorial, March 18).

One has to wonder if our councillors are aware that there is a law in Nova Scotia obliging municipal councils to be "fully accountable" to the public, and that means secrecy should apply to only a few isolated exceptions, such as personal privacy and perhaps ongoing negotiations. Our freedom of information legislation is clear on those exceptions, which it describes as "rare."

Don't our councillors know the perils that await the keeping of secrets? Perhaps they haven't heard of our MLAs' finances scandal, or the troubles with the South West Development Authority or the fuss over secrecy in the Commonwealth Games organizing group. They've certainly heard from citizens on the lack of information on harbour pollution problems.

When the HRM election was upon us I contacted every candidate, on behalf of the Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia, to ask them to pledge to embrace openness if elected. Those who ran in my electoral district were subject to a seminar on my front steps. Many responded and all said they were four square behind getting rid of secrecy on council. (The mayor and I happened upon each other awhile back and he encouraged me to keep up the good work. If it is "good work," there's little in the way of results.)

I did the same with provincial election candidates and, again, those I heard from endorsed openness and accountability and pledged to bring improvements to our freedom of information legislation. Some of them are now in government. The chief of staff to the leader of the opposition at the time, now the premier, agreed with me that our Freedom of Information Act "requires regular review to ensure it is meeting the changing and dynamic information needs of Nova Scotians."

In the same letter the promise was made to address the waiting times for more timely access. One of the new government's first decisions was to lower the application fee under the Act to $5 from $25, an important and welcome improvement. Other improvements are awaited. Waiting times must be shortened and processing fees must be lowered.

Back to Tim's problem. Given the secrecy of HRM, he must now resort to seeking the information he wants through our freedom of information legislation, a process that could well take a year, or even more. Using the FOI Act should be a last resort. Too many public bodies are using it as a first resort.

The most serious consequence of secrecy, in my view, is that it leads to voter apathy. Some 40 percent of eligible voters no longer even bother to vote. All of our politicians should be concerned about this "democratic deficit" and should work to address it without delay.

—Darce Fardy, president, Right to Know Coalition of Nova Scotia

Re: "Barefoot Marathon" by Lizzy Hill (Reality Bites, March 18), about Tanya Bloomfield running the Bluenose Marathon barefoot to raise $10,000 for Safe Harbour: It is an excellent summary of the work of the church. Tanya has certainly brought awareness to the community of Safe Harbour. —Jane Underwood, Halifax

Recent media reporting and subsequent blogging comments have cast unfortunate aspersions over the Halifax Regional Fire and Emergency Services---its leadership and, as a result, all of its members ("Black firefighters enraged," Reality Bites by Tim Bousquet, March 11).

While Nova Scotia prides itself on its freedom of speech legacy and inroads made so early in our history by individuals such as Joseph Howe, it is unfortunate those freedoms have been skewed to the detriment of the public in favour of questionable practices like anonymous blogging.

While I have thick skin and have shouldered comments as necessary in my role as fire chief, I find it hard to sit back and watch those in the service of HRM Fire and Emergency Organization have their reputations tarnished.

I write to correct information presented as fact in your article.

The offensive remark noted in the article was reported on Friday, February 26. Before the day was over, the complaint was acknowledged in writing. We categorized the remark immediately as offensive and initiated a review. The member who reported the remark was responded to and assured that we would act without delay. Other staff, including our internal diversity and conflict resolution consultants, were advised of the incident and asked to help. Our review began immediately.

On Tuesday, March 2, I sent a notice to all the personnel of the station in question, advising them of our active review. At that time, I re-affirmed our commitment to a service free of harassment and which values the diversity of all our members. A meeting was held that night at the station to explain the incident to the members and reassure all persons that corrective actions were being pursued.

On Wednesday, March 3, staff from the HRM Organizational Development and Health Section led a training session at the station. This session focused on HRM's intolerance of disrespectful behaviour and harassment in the workplace, and included a review of our Workplace Rights Policy.

On Friday, March 5, I published a notice to all members of our fire service, informing our members of the incident and our commitment to them.

At this time, it seems unlikely that we will be able to determine who wrote the remark, or even where this clipboard came from. Our activities and commitment to a diverse service free of harassment continues. Our diversity training efforts are ongoing, from the new recruit to the seasoned veteran. Our members, from many diverse backgrounds, continue to work, volunteer and socialize together. Our differences only make us stronger.

Simply put, I will not tolerate racism within the ranks of my organization.

Were there incidents of racism reported in the fire and emergency service? Yes. Were they addressed? Yes. Is work on this issue ongoing? Yes.

I am committed to my team of professionals dedicated to the enhancement and preservation of the quality of life, property and environment through education, leadership and effective response to emergencies. The 380,000 residents of HRM are protected 24 hours a day, seven days a week by 1,129 career and volunteer firefighters. In 2007-08 alone, our organization responded to 11,820 emergency calls. They are also prepared to protect their community with emergency preparedness and give back through a number of organizations and charities including, of course, muscular dystrophy.

In the meantime, whenever there is a call, our Halifax Regional Fire and Emergency service personnel respond to their calls as a team. It is imperative not only for the safety of the public, but also for the safety of these professionals.

The service's guiding principles include trust, dedication, integrity, caring and diversity.

HRM is an employment equity employer and considers appropriate representation in the municipality's workforce during any recruitment campaigns. Therefore, applications from Aboriginal people, visible minorities, women and persons with disabilities are encouraged. And, as a significant employer for the region, we take claims of racism seriously. In all cases, quick and decisive action is taken to address individual incidents.

Pierre Berton said, "Racism is a refuge for the ignorant. It seeks to divide and to destroy. It is the enemy of freedom, and deserves to be met head-on and stamped out."

We will continue on that path in the fire and emergency services organization and throughout HRM to meet racism head-on and ensure it is stamped out in an attempt to see that such behaviour is neither repeated, nor allowed to spread.

This is my commitment to all of my members within the HRM Fire and Emergency Service and to the people whom those employees serve. Sincerely,

—William H. Mosher, Chief Director, Halifax Regional Fire and Emergency