[All] Line 9 reversal update: Public Open House summery.

[Louisette Lanteigne]

Hello everyone

On Wednesday I attended the open house regarding the reversal of Line 9 which is in regards to an Enbridge pipeline that goes from Sarnia to Westover passing through Waterloo Region and the Grand River around Ayr. The event was hosted by the National Energy Board. There was no city, regional or GRCA representatives on site. In fact there was approximately 8-10 people in attendance total. That includes my husband and I. 

The background data that I gathered prior to the meeting states that the pipe was initially designed and installed in 1975 during the energy crisis so refineries in Quebec could secure access to Western Canadian Crude but by the 1990's it was underused so Enbridge with the support of Ontario refiners, reversed flow to the tune of $90 million.  Currently Enbridge wants to reverse flow again, to move oil sands crude to the US Northeast and Eastern Canada which is anticipated to cost $100 million or more. The pipe has a current capacity of 240,000 barrels a day. 

At the open house, in documents given to the public, it states the application for the line reversal was received by the NEB on August 8, 2011 and filed under section 58 of the NEB act. The board set out a public comment process in Fall 2011 and decided to convene an oral public hearing. (Enbridge previously submitted a letter in attempt to bypass this process).

To view the documents related to this case you can visit www.neb-one.gc.ca.  I specifically requested at the meeting that the public handouts that I received today be posted online. The NEB agreed to this and it will be posted on their website by next Tuesday. With that being said I won't go too heavy on procedural regulation but would much rather forward the link when it's online. The NEB confirmed the data we are receiving is consistent with the information being provided to all areas along Line 9. A request was also made to facilitate the distribution of hard copies via City Halls so residents without computers can review all the related documents. This has not yet been provided but one can formally request for this process by writing to the NEB to facilitate this. 

The meeting proceeded and essentially, it was a review of the procedural process and did not specifically refer to any the details of the actual proposal. The basic hearing steps are as follows: The application was filed, the Hearing Order is issued. We are not at the stage where parties choose participation options. Evidence and written questions can now be submitted along with final arguements (Oral) then the Board Adjourns and decisions are based on evidence.

This is a quasi jurisdictional system, aka similar format to the OMB. So I asked them, if we as citizens give reference to expert reports, is that considered hearsay. They stated yes. I stated, "That means the tribunal gives a higher value the testimony of experts above that of average citizens." They confirmed yes  saying that experts could be questioned and can support their claims.  I looked at them and basically stated their system was fundamentally flawed because not a scientist in their right mind would risk their career or research funding to give volunteer testimony in a public forum like this. It would ruin their reputation. They are considered biased to even show up so in essence, unless they are actually paid for we're essentially depriving them of their democratic rights to participate due to the current chill of the Harper government and of the scientific and business community. I asked them, does the option exist to summon experts? They
 said yes it has been done before but it is very rare. I asked them, is there a way we can facilitate a way to allow for the disclosure of expert comments without having to professionally expose them in to avoid backlash? Perhaps the NEB could provide an ID number rather than name names in the public documents.  She said they are open to suggestions of this nature and they requested I write that concern in.

This entire meeting was being filmed. After the meeting, the camera man came to me and asked that I speak on camera regarding my concerns on expert testimony. I agreed basically relaying the above statements. I stated that as a democracy, our  nation values debate to achieve the highest level of knowledge prior to make decisions but if we don't facilitate the way for our experts to speak than we create inferior system when we place the burden on common citizens to provide the counter arguments based on hearsay. We can't reasonably advance towards the best decision in that kind of environment and it creates a far greater risk as a result. The camera man asked me if I knew of any experts who were subject to backlash as a result of participating in a public process. He was quite literally trying to get me to name names on camera. I told him I won't give those names but instead I told him my story.  I was sued for the wording of a city council speech
 posted online in a website that had three years of photos featuring oil and diesel spills in Waterloo Region that I witnessed. The site was created because the MOE wanted the photos and I had to many to email. This resulted in a 2 million dollar SLAPP lawsuit in attempt to silence my voice. Imagine what happens to concerned scientists who volunteer their time to speak out against them in a public forum like the NEB! Those with money use it to silence opposition. The chill factor is very real. 

Another person at the meeting raised concerns on the lack of protocols at the Regional level to address a potential oil spill. She used FOI docs to find out what the protocols for a Regional response are only to find out there are no actual protocols in place. 


Back in 1975, there was no regard for Climate Change, source water protection or impacts of acid rain on cement or pipes or rare species. The GRCA is doubling flood zones right now. What are the vulnerabilities associated with this pipeline in regard to the water and geological risks we now currently face? If Enbridge gets their way, there will be no further EIS studies to determine such risks. The risks to the Waterloo Moraine were never considered in the days this pipe was approved. They've spent 90 million reversing flow once and plan on spending $100 million to reverse it again, but without a National Energy Strategy, how do we know this is the right decision? 

The National Energy Board has funding for non profit groups interested in participating as intervenor at the public hearings. To participate as an intervenor you must respond to the NEB by Feb. 17th 2012 and if you want to secure participant funding you have to complete an application which is due Feb. 2012. 

The website to gather all the data on this project, including forms to become an intervenor or to secure participant funding, visit here:  http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rcmmn/hm-eng.html

Essentially, the roll of intervenor is the same as participant status at the OMB. It's basically giving statements under oath and on public record specific to the application made. You have the right to question experts, you have the right to speak to the board but unless you are an expert or provide sworn expert evidence your personal views simply don't hold weight. People can hire experts and if they do the board prefers to hear from them directly so they can be questioned. 

If you do not wish to participate in the hearing, you are more than welcome to submit written comments to the National Energy Board online via their website but all documents will be public so be aware of that. That's about it. 

Lulu









.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120209/75719150/attachment.html>