Discussion Paper 9: The National Energy Board's Participant Funding Program

about 2 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This is the 9th of 12 discussion papers. For the full list, click here.

This discussion paper talks about the National Energy Board's (NEB) Participant Funding Program.

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 9: The National Energy Board's Participant Funding Program

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are your views on the NEB’s Participant Funding Program?
  2. How could the participant funding process, administered by the NEB, be more efficient and effective in enabling public participation and Indigenous engagement in the hearing process?
  • EP about 2 years ago
    There should be more funding given to the Participant funding program so that it can provide more funding to those that need it.
  • Brian in Mount Lehman about 2 years ago
    1. The NEB's Participation Funding Program is flawed in many ways. Firstly, there is a need to have every applicant judged on a level playing field. The merits of each applicant need to be rated as follows; a. A Directly Affected stake holder in the definition of a individual or group who's property will have an easement and energy corridor must be first and foremost in funding consideration. b. First Nations and Aboriginal Groups already have access to federal and provincial funding not available to non status Canadians. A recent example is the TMEP Hearing process when the PFP funding bank had $3,000,000 dollars available to over 400 Intervenors and 80% of the funding or $2.4 million dollars was awarded to 41 Bands / individuals while $600,000 was made available to the remainder of the qualified applicants. Clearly a reverse discrimination to all Canadians. 2. The Federal Department of Aboriginal and Indigenous Affairs should intercede with support from their specific areas within both departments to ensure adequate participation funding for lands that they recognize as being qualified within the prevue and context of Aboriginal reserve lands. Facts such as industry funding to support the First Nations representation at the Hearing Table also must be taken into consideration. Looking at news reports from Post Media; it is stated that approximately $300 million dollars from Kinder Morgan was gifted to BC's First Nations Bands that wished to voice their sentiments on the expansion process. These were funds not available to non First nations applicants and the NEB PFP adjudicators ought to have taken such factors in to account when decisions of amounts to the Directly Affected were awarded.
  • PeterR about 2 years ago
    1. Absolutely, lopsided, biased and wrong. We are now involved for more than 3 years protecting our OWN land for our generations to come (we only borrow the land) from big energy companies behaving if they can do want they want, backed by big foreign capital AND the NEB. We received only a pittance from the NEB fighting to save our own land from energy companies wanted to dig in our OWN land. It has cost us a lot of money and a lot of time. But.... repeat...: we are not against pipelines, only against the way we are treated.2. NEB: be more honest instead of biased towards energy companies and First Nations, as expressed in Paper #8.
  • Robert Kryszko about 2 years ago
    The Participant Fund Program should include capacity funding as well.