[All] Fw: Newly released FOI data regarding the National Energy Board Line 9 hearings

Wed Apr 18 15:00:28 EDT 2018

   ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lanteigne <water.lulu at yahoo.ca>To: Myeengun <myeengun at cottfn.com>; Prime Minister/Premier Ministre <pm at pm.gc.ca>; pbellegarde at afn.ca <pbellegarde at afn.ca>; Elizabeth May <elizabeth.may at parl.gc.ca>; Jagmeet Singh <jagmeet at ndp.ca>; Carolyn Bennett <carolyn.bennett at parl.gc.ca>; jane.philpott at parl.gc.ca <jane.philpott at parl.gc.ca>; jody.wilson-raybould at parl.gc.ca <jody.wilson-raybould at parl.gc.ca>; BC Civil Liberties Association <josh at bccla.org>; United Nations <indigenous_un at un.org>; Peter Watson <peter.watson at neb-one.gc.ca>Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018, 2:57:51 p.m. EDTSubject: Newly released FOI data regarding the National Energy Board Line 9 hearings
  Dear Prime Ministers and Ministers et al. 
Earlier today I brought in an Freedom of Information (FOI) document I secured from the National Energy Board and submitted hard copies to my MP and MPP in Waterloo Ontario today in good faith, to keep everyone informed on issues regarding Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) as I'm witnessing it. I include a PDF copy for your reference with this correspondence in the attachments.
The concerns I had about the FOI response were as follows:

1. I've been a delegate of the Line 9 hearings since 2011 and since that time I have exchanged communications with the NEB for seven years now. So why at this point in time do they send a package to me by Purolator Express addressed to:
Ms. Louisette LanteigneMike De Souza 700 Star Flower Avenue WATERLOO ONN2V 2L2 
Why did they think that my name is linked with this man? He is a reporter for the National Observer in Vancouver BC and I live in Waterloo Ontario. I have not had any communications with the NEB to suggest a connection to him. I've never personally met him but I did previously contact the National Observer regarding information I came across and they advised I email him about but no story was done or anything of that nature. I have not done any story with this reporter.  Why did the NEB believe his name has any relevance to me? If they can't be accurate with my name and address after 7 years as a delegate of 3 NEB hearings why should I have any faith at all with the NEB's ability to oversee details regarding high pressure oil pipeline approvals? 
This brings me to my first question and I specifically request that all of these questions have a response in writing only please 
1. Who specifically filled the Purolator express form?2. Why is this man's name in print on this Purolator express form between my name and my home address?  
If you observe the FOI response on page 3, it features an uncensored version of a prior FOI document I secured a couple of years ago. It is part of the hearing managers meeting as written by an NEB employee named Darcie Harding and it was specific to Enbridge Line 9 NEB hearing. The original document is in the attachments for your reference. Two sections were originally blacked out using section 21(1)(a) but have since been redacted. This raises some questions as to why the original document was edited to begin with. The previously censored information includes these two lines:
Letter Decision to be released today (27 July 2012) - will be made into a blue book at a later time.
Oral statements were not provided as a participation option, which reduced the length of the oral portion of the hearing. 
In light of those statements, I have these questions: 
3.What is the blue book and what is it's function? 4.Does the public have access to view this blue book? If so, please provide details on how I can view it.5.Why were oral statements not provided as a participation option?6. Who specifically decided that oral statements would not be provided as a participation option and is there documentation to support that decision?7. Were delegates including First Nations representatives reasonably informed prior to the hearing that oral statements would not be provided as a participation option? 
8. Was Enbridge allowed or denied the right to give oral statements at the oral portion of the hearing?9. Why does the NEB state the lack of oral statements as a participation option, "reduced the length of time of the oral portion of the hearing"?  10. Is the NEB in the view that saving time is more important than gathering evidence at the oral portion of the hearing? 11. Who benefits from a shorter length of time at the oral portion of the hearing?
In observing this same page you will note the following statements are made:
Under subcategory Conclusions it states: .Crown-consultation - no other federal authorities acting as CROWN; Board process used; oppertunity for AFN to provide information/views and outline concerns
Under the section Successes/Learnings it states:Oral statements were not provided as a participation option, which reduced the length of the oral portion of the hearing.Having only final oral argument and no cross examination worked well in this case, due to the highly technical issues regarding engineering and integrity.
In light of these above statements the question must be asked: How can the NEB reasonably perform the function of Crown Consultation with First Nations representatives without including oral argument or oral statements? This format in my view, is racist and specifically designed to quash First Nation's oral traditional knowledge and participation. 
I was a delegate of both Enbridge Line 9 pipeline hearings and I will testify to the fact we were not informed that the NEB process was serving the duty of Crown Consultation. There was no prior and informed consent regarding that fact. The Line 9 hearings were void of oral debate and exchanges. We had a brief window to send in written questions tp Enbridge prior to the hearing and at the NEB hearing we were directed to stay bound to the submitted written info we previously submitted. I was in the room at the hearings and I witnessed NEB staff telling delegates they could not submit new information beyond the scope of their written submission.   
We sat at the hearings and heard other delegates and had new ideas inspired by that, but we could not speak to it with the Board because it was deemed out of scope. We had no ability to respond to one another's statements and we were denied the ability to do cross examination with the experts. 
We were denied hearing Enbridge's final argument in person during the Line 9B NEB hearings in Toronto.  The NEB said it was because of safety reasons due to the public protests taking place. Instead of giving us a hearing time to witness Enbridge's final arguments in person, all we got was a written statement of Enbridge's closing arguments sent by email. We as delegates had no mechanism to give further comments. We did not see the faces of the people who spoke these words. 
It was not a consultation at all. The process was all based on our written submissions and beyond that there was no mechanism to be heard. It was not an exchange of ideas person to person to foster solutions collaboratively. We were spoken to, not spoken with. Nobody was told how Enbridge would remedy the issues we had raised under oath. 
In a normal planning process you have a list the issues and the company provides a response on how they would remedy those issues. That process did not happen with this hearing at all. There was no communications person to person beyond the scope of presenting the written submissions we were instructed to provide. It made me wonder why they bothered with an oral hearing at all if they were not interested in anything but what was already submitted. This was not a consultation and in my view it wasn't an oral hearing. We were all bound to the scripts of our written affidavits and that was it.  
In retrospect, I wonder who was actually making the decisions regarding this NEB processes. No new statements were allowed except for Enbridge's final response. Why did they get that right to voice new information based on evidence presented at the hearing when others were denied this same right? 
There was no regard for oral communications or oral traditional knowledge for participants at all. As a delegate I've experienced this NEB format three times: Twice with Line 9 hearings and once with Line 10. At all these hearings I submitted sworn affidavit evidence and was always denied the right to cross examine experts or to give final argument. I was denied the right to present my own affidavit to the Board with Line 10. They limited me to written submitted comment only. My voice was never even heard with this process at the hearing. The format is fundamentally inequitable and discriminatory. I am still upset about all this. It is shameful.
Thank you kindly for your time. 

Louisette Lanteigne700 Star Flower Ave.Waterloo ONN2V 2L2 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20180418/75f2d9e2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DarcieHarding.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3683861 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20180418/75f2d9e2/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LanteigneApril162018FOI.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2406466 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20180418/75f2d9e2/attachment-0001.pdf>