Discussion Paper 11: The Hearing Process

over 1 year ago

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This is the 11th of 12 discussion papers. For the full list, click here.

This discussion paper talks about the hearing process at the National Energy Board (NEB) under the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act).

We look forward to reading your answers to the questions below and any comments you may have after reading the discussion paper below. The deadline to submit comments is March 31, 2017.

Download Discussion Paper 11: The Hearing Process

Discussion Questions:

In your view, what core principles and elements should be reflected in the hearing process?
Not all applications currently have to undergo a public hearing process. Which applications do you think should have a public hearing process?
What are your views with respect to the basic steps of the public hearing process? What are the areas that can be improved?
How could the NEB enable public participation in hearings in a less formal way?

4 comments

Recently active Posted first

EP almost 2 years ago

4. Have hearings in a less formal setting (sitting at the same level, sitting in a circle). Have hearings on reserve or in communities.
PeterR almost 2 years ago

We were looking forward to the hearing process, being prepared very, very well, with a lot of effort, intelligence, fairness, reasoning and money spent together with legal advisors. The result was not as expected. We were heard but not listened to, with the exception of a few points. We had one of the best preparations, therefore very disappointing. We are protecting our own land for our generations to come, and protecting against outsiders wanting to dig in our own land without any considerations, while we are offering a partnership.
Jenna Sampson almost 2 years ago

A colleague who previously worked for the board relayed some interesting non confidential info. I would suggest the panel explore whether this is accurate as it seems rather important. During any hearing process public , oral or written a significant amount of advice possibly even evidence is provided by staff to the decision makers. This all occurs off record behind the scenes. Not subject to cross examination or review by other parties. I dont think this meets any test of transparency. May be a way to increase public trust would be to have this info provided on the record. Possibly even arms length by increasing separation between technical staff and the board members
Robert Kryszko almost 2 years ago

Discussion Paper # 11 answers to questions in: The hearing Process:1. The core principle that must be reflected in hearing process is the principles found in Article 18, 26.2, 26.3, 27, and 29(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 2. Applications that need a public hearing process is projects that have potential to majorly affect Aboriginal/Indian Rights, Aboriginal/Indian traditional lands, Aboriginal hunting and fishing areas, and sacred sites; in addition, polluting our air and water will need public hearing process as well.3. The basic steps of the public hearing process are sufficient; however, more time is needed to complete an detailed description of the particulars of proposed project.4. The NEB can enable public participation in hearings in a less formal way by creating an "open door" policy, and all participants attending the hearing will sign in.