-----Original Message-----
From: beaudry, raymond [mailto:wrf@manitoulin.net]
Sent: April 3, 2012 10:22 AM
To: BoardSec
Cc: Michael Millar; Edik Zwarenstein; James C. Sidlofski NP Law; Gordon Potts NP; Art Jacko; wrf@manitoulin.net; cbayne@bayniche-conservancy.ca; action@lsarc.ca; neoskwes@hotmail.com; gusland@amtelecom.net; cbell@amtelecom.net; johnnicolesmith@xplornet.com; kodaisl@rogers.com; jane.wilson@ripnet.com; parker.gallant@sympatico.ca; ashnee52@hotmail.com
Subject: EB-2011-0394 MCSEA Correspondence April 3,2012

Dear Ms. Walli, April 3,2012

The purpose of this letter is to provide the Board with submissions on
appropriate scheduling for the next phase of EB-2011-0394.

In response to early submissions requesting an oral hearing, the Board
ruled in Procedural Order #1 that, "The Board is therefore not prepared
at this point to establish a process for an oral hearing. However, the
Board may reconsider this issue after the interrogatory phase of the
proceeding is completed."

The Applicant filed its responses to interrogatories on March 30th. We
note that no hardcopies have been received to date, and hope that the
applicant will be able to supply those soon.

Having completed an initial review of the interrogatory responses
provided, MCSEA has a number of concerns about the completeness,
consistency, and clarity of the responses provided to MCSEA's
interrogatories.

Examples include but are not limited to the location of the transmission
line routing relative to existing LDC facilities, inconsistent dates
related to the actions of MMP, details related to the transition station
and Goat Island routing.

Before burdening the Board with these concerns, MCSEA would ask for an
opportunity to raise our concerns with the applicant. We are seek an
opportunity to negotiate a satisfactory completion to the interrogatory
process. Success with these negotiations would assist the Board by
completing the record without MCSEA having to pursue cumbersome motions
that would consume the Board's time.

Once the interrogatory process is complete, MCSEA would ask for the
opportunity to respond to the Board's direction in Procedural Order #1
quoted above with respect to reconsideration of the benefits of an oral
hearing. Our intention is to identify aspects of the evidence responsive
to the Board's mandate that give rise to considerations necessitating
cross-examination.

Proposed dates for this process would be for a completion of the
interrogatory record by April 6 with submissions on an oral hearing the
next week. We are sensitive to the importance of not conflicting with
Easter from April 6-9, 2012 and Passover which occurs April 6-14, 2012.

Therefore we suggest a timeframe that would allow sufficient time for
McLean to respond to our clarification requests.

Thank you

Raymond Beaudry
MCSEA