[All] Fw: Line 9: Silencing public participation, bigger risks & solutions

[Louisette Lanteigne]

Hi folks

This is bigger than just valve issues. Way bigger and we need to act soon to avert the risks. 

Lulu 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "pm at pm.gc.ca" <pm at pm.gc.ca>; "kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca" <justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca>; "Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca" <Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca>; "thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca" <thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca>; "stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca" <stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca>; "linda.duncan at parl.gc.ca" <linda.duncan at parl.gc.ca>; "ahorwath-qp at ndp.on.ca" <ahorwath-qp at ndp.on.ca>; "catherinefife at on.ndp.ca" <catherinefife at on.ndp.ca>; "regionalcouncillors at regionofwaterloo.ca" <regionalcouncillors at regionofwaterloo.ca>; "david at donnellylaw.ca" <david at donnellylaw.ca>; "akoehl at ecojustice.ca" <akoehl at ecojustice.ca>; "theresa at cela.ca" <theresa at cela.ca>; "Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca" <Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca>; "Joe.Oliver at parl.gc.ca" <Joe.Oliver at parl.gc.ca>; "peter.braid.c1 at parl.gc.ca" <peter.braid.c1 at parl.gc.ca>; "commissioner at eco.on.ca" <commissioner at eco.on.ca>; "abscott at environmentaldefence.ca"
 <abscott at environmentaldefence.ca>; "bchiarelli.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <bchiarelli.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "fmoola at davidsuzuki.org" <fmoola at davidsuzuki.org>; "gmurray.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <gmurray.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "dzimmer.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <dzimmer.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "secretary at neb-one.gc.ca" <secretary at neb-one.gc.ca>; "feedback at sixnations.ca" <feedback at sixnations.ca>; "fightback at goldhawk.com" <fightback at goldhawk.com>; "francis.scarpaleggia at parl.gc.ca" <francis.scarpaleggia at parl.gc.ca>; "info at messages.whitehouse.gov" <info at messages.whitehouse.gov>; "NSCI_ECSN at rcmp-grc.gc.ca" <NSCI_ECSN at rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; "nsapao at nsa.gov" <nsapao at nsa.gov>; "palmater at indigenousnationhood.com" <palmater at indigenousnationhood.com>; "Ruby at rubyshiller.com" <Ruby at rubyshiller.com>; "rbrassard at montrealgazette.com" <rbrassard at montrealgazette.com>; Sara Elcombe <articling at waterkeeper.ca>; "commission at ottawa.ijc.org" <commission at ottawa.ijc.org>;
 "commission at washington.ijc.org" <commission at washington.ijc.org>; "jmolnar at ecojustice.ca" <jmolnar at ecojustice.ca> 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 10:21 AM
Subject: Line 9: Silencing public participation, bigger risks & solutions
 


Dear Hon. Prime Minister, Hon. Premier and Ministers et al.

After the first Line 9 hearing the NEB mandated folks fill out a new 10 page application process and some speakers were denied the right to participate because they were "not directly affected" or they lacked "expertise".   If that happened to me and the valve issue slipped by unnoticed, imagine the kind of disaster we could have if a pipe breaks in a river.  

If someone sees a risk, it should not matter where where they live or what their do for a living. Should not matter if they are an expert or not, if a risk is identified, and it is a reasonable concern it should be addressed. The fact a person lives away from the pipe is absolutely irrelevant. The fact I serve coffee for a living is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Enbridge didn't look at the placement of their own valves. Doesn't matter who raises that concern. They need to deal with it. It's common sense. We should not silence the right of citizens to participate in these hearings. It is discriminatory. We cannot allow discretionary powers to be used to silence public participation. 

This morning as I drove my husband to work, he asked me this simple question: "How many pipelines have been built like this? Not just Enbridge pipelines. How many in total exist with just the one valve along the river?" 

I respectfully request that we support legislation to make it mandatory to include two shut off valves for all new oil pipelines crossing rivers and I would like to see a review of existing lines take place in order to mandate a retrofit of new shut off valves where significant risks have been identified. We know climate change is ramping up risks of flooding and erosion. We do not have the luxury of time on our side to follow traditional policy formation to secure these things. It's time for us to act before disaster takes place. That data must be based on scientific fact not politics. 

We cannot afford to negate the protection of water in world facing climate change and water scarcity. The floods are already on the way. We must respond to avoid the risks.

Thank you kindly for your time.  I honestly do appreciate it and I pray for your intervention on these issues. Please help. 

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2




________________________________
 From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "pm at pm.gc.ca" <pm at pm.gc.ca>; "kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca" <justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca>; "Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca" <Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca>; "thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca" <thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca>; "stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca" <stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca>; "linda.duncan at parl.gc.ca" <linda.duncan at parl.gc.ca>; "ahorwath-qp at ndp.on.ca" <ahorwath-qp at ndp.on.ca>; "catherinefife at on.ndp.ca" <catherinefife at on.ndp.ca>; "regionalcouncillors at regionofwaterloo.ca" <regionalcouncillors at regionofwaterloo.ca>; "david at donnellylaw.ca" <david at donnellylaw.ca>; "akoehl at ecojustice.ca" <akoehl at ecojustice.ca>; "theresa at cela.ca" <theresa at cela.ca>; "Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca" <Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca>; "Joe.Oliver at parl.gc.ca" <Joe.Oliver at parl.gc.ca>; "peter.braid.c1 at parl.gc.ca" <peter.braid.c1 at parl.gc.ca>; "commissioner at eco.on.ca" <commissioner at eco.on.ca>; "abscott at environmentaldefence.ca"
 <abscott at environmentaldefence.ca>; "bchiarelli.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <bchiarelli.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "fmoola at davidsuzuki.org" <fmoola at davidsuzuki.org>; "gmurray.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <gmurray.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "dzimmer.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org" <dzimmer.mpp.co at liberal.ola.org>; "secretary at neb-one.gc.ca" <secretary at neb-one.gc.ca>; "feedback at sixnations.ca" <feedback at sixnations.ca>; "fightback at goldhawk.com" <fightback at goldhawk.com>; "francis.scarpaleggia at parl.gc.ca" <francis.scarpaleggia at parl.gc.ca>; "info at messages.whitehouse.gov" <info at messages.whitehouse.gov>; "NSCI_ECSN at rcmp-grc.gc.ca" <NSCI_ECSN at rcmp-grc.gc.ca>; "nsapao at nsa.gov" <nsapao at nsa.gov>; "palmater at indigenousnationhood.com" <palmater at indigenousnationhood.com>; "Ruby at rubyshiller.com" <Ruby at rubyshiller.com>; "rbrassard at montrealgazette.com" <rbrassard at montrealgazette.com>; Sara Elcombe <articling at waterkeeper.ca> 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:27 AM
Subject: Fw: I stopped Enbridge Line 9
 


Dear Hon. Prime Minister, Hon. Premier and Ministers

Mr. McCarthy is from the Globe and Mail and he wrote of how Line 9 was non compliant to condition 16 of the NEB ruling mandating 2 valves along the rivers.  I wrote to him because I helped to secure that condition of approval.

Please review the letter I sent to Mr. McCarthy and support an Ontario Provincial review of Line 9.

Thank you. 

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "smccarthy at globeandmail.com" <smccarthy at globeandmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:50 PM
Subject: I stopped Enbridge Line 9
 


Hi Mr. McCarthy

My name is Louisette Lanteigne. I'm a married mother of three in Waterloo Ontario. I work at a cafe and I am the NEB delegate who's concerns about the valve stopped Enbridge Line 9.


I was a delegate at the first hearing in London Ontario. After that process, I got curious about where the valves were placed if they reversed flow so I wrote emails to Enbridge's solicitors for answers. They were used as evidence during the NEB hearing so it's all public record now. See attachments. I also include my affidavit for your reference.

Currently the valves are approx. 12 miles apart with one valve close to the river on the East side of each river to allow for an East to West oil flow. If the line is reversed, the nearest valves are all on the wrong side of the river. Enbridge's Environmental Assessment was limited to the area of their pumping station so it totally negated to review the placement of these valves.  Even if there is one valve on the correct side of the river, if the pipe ruptures it could still leak out 12 km of fluids with all existing valves closed. This is why we need 2 valves by rivers to stop the flow. 

The Navigable Water's Act mandates that protected water bodies have a valve but the revised law removed protection and negated the need for the valves so I went to the NEB to secure that they will be placed in major rivers and flood risk areas regardless and the NEB agree with me. The mandated that two valves "shall" be placed. This is not permissive. It is a condition of approval. They have to do it. 

I found the NEB letter to Enbridge on the NEB's website and when I learned it was my issue that stopped the oil flow, I laughed at first because it seemed ridiculous at first. I've never in my wildest dreams thought that I would be the one to stop a pipeline from flowing. The document was so specific to the fact it was my issue that killed it. Then I started crying and then I was really upset. I threw up. I stopped that pipe and it scares the hell out of me that it took a mom like me to raise the concern. That's really scary. 

My evidence shows how I raised the issue with Enbridge's solicitor before the second hearing. Even now after the order Enbridge ignored the concern. Why didn't  Enbridge or any of the engineers they hired look at the issue of the placement of shut off valves with the reversal of the flow?  This is in my view, criminal negligence that creates a National Security risk! Engineers are not supposed to put people at risk like this. They knew of my concern. There was no plausible deniability! 

We MUST secure a Provincial Review. We need reasonable engineers to peer review this project on behalf of the Province and public safety. These water bodies are primary water supplies for people. First Nations eat the fish and feed it to their kids. We need reasonable engineering to keep people safe. 

I want you to tell my story and please help me to encourage the public to secure a Provincial review of this project. 

Thank you. 

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20141010/25c1ebd8/attachment.html>