Discussion Paper 12: Land Acquisition and Compensation

over 1 year ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

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

This discussion paper talks about land acquisition and related dispute resolution for facilities regulated by the National Energy Board (NEB). This paper does not focus on Aboriginal land title rights.

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 12: Land Acquisition and Compensation

Discussion Questions:

  1. How has having a pipeline or powerline on your land affected how you use your land?
  2. What are your views with respect to:
  3. a. Land acquisition agreements, its required clauses and the NEB oversight?
    b. Compensation and dispute resolution processes and the private nature of agreements?
    c. Right of entry process and authority?
  4. In your opinion, are the existing processes described in this discussion paper fair and sufficient? If not, what improvements could be made (e.g., additional tools for land acquisition, compensation and dispute resolution)?
  5. Who should make the final decisions for land compensation disputes?
  6. What are your views regarding the process of determining whether to authorize right of entry?
  7. What are your views with respect to the company’s right of entry without the landowner’s consent if a company and a landowner are unable to negotiate an agreement?
  8. Should there be a more consistent approach for companies to compensate landowners for access to their land (e.g., defined frequency of payment, opportunities for review)? Would policy or regulatory direction from the Government of Canada be helpful?
  • JimmyL farms on Sumas Prairie almost 2 years ago
    Hello, my name is Jim Lamson. I am third generation on my family farm located on the fertile Southern section of Sumas Prairie. I am over 80 years old now and have lived on this land all of my life. Our land is probably considered as being part of the most fertile in Canada. Pipeline and easement has landlocked too much of our farm making it impossible to plan for some crops or other possibilities. In our area land owners are constantly leveling land for drainage and crop essentials.We are land owners but not involved in the Kinder Morgan expansion plans. We are members of CGLAP.Our land contains 2 large natural gas pipelines owned by West Coast Energy aka (Enbridge)Spectra Energy. All natural gas to supply the West Coast is pumped through our land, we are located approximately ½ mile south east of the Kinder Morgan oil line. The pipeline easement has been a burden to our ability to maximize our farm production for close to 50 years.For some time I have been concerned about the effect the two gas pipeline easements and NEB safety zone regulations and the legal responsibility which is always a concern when planning our planting, seeding, ploughing, tilling & harvesting.Our farm is unique and where the pipelines run through our land, the regulated pipeline area is approximately 3,486 ft. distance and 225 ft wide. That is in excess of 18 acres of restricted use. Other issues also complicated by two landlocked pieces which complicates machinery access, as it makes it too narrow for many purposes.We need proper access crossing pipeline 24/7, 365 days per year. Compensation – As owners of any business or personal property, ownership should be or expect to be treated equally or fairly according to fair market value. CGLAP has done a good job of showing general crop and farm problems that affect most farms.I have asked CGLAP Secretary Brian Kingman to post my testimony of my issues living with and thoughts on compensation.
  • EP almost 2 years ago
    4. There should be a well staffed, non burecratic organization that settles these issues.7. Yes- and regulatory or policy guidance to ensure fair compensation would help hold companies accountable.
  • Joan almost 2 years ago
    Re Item 12 Land Acquisition and Compensation. I have an equestrian facility on my land and the pipeline has affected where I can build and even where I can plant trees. Over the past 31 years there have been regular visits by arborists, soil evaluators, ecology evaluators, and many others that I do not even know what they did but they did leave yards and yards of fine metal like string or wires on the land that I had to pick up so my horses did not get injured or ingest. The pipeline also impacts the value of our property. The pipeline was on our land when I purchased it but with the proposed expansion we are going to be faced with huge interruption to our facility, lifestyle and loss of use. The Land agreements are in favor of the pipeline and I feel if the pipe was installed deeper we would not have as many restrictions on what we could do with the land. I do not think the NEB has private land owners interests in mind at all. There should be no right of entry without my consent and if we can’t agree an impartial arbitrator or judge should be available. Definate policy or regulatory agreements from the Government of Canada would help with compensation. Since the easements lasts forever on the land, the compensation should be sufficient to compensate for this intrusion, disruption, and risk of having the product on the land forever!
  • Dawn Douthwaite almost 2 years ago
    We are land owners involved in the Kinder Morgan expansion plans. Members of CGLAP. As the expansion will profit KM it is only reasonable in todays economy for the effected land owners to have an ongoing share in those profits. It is ridiculous that the pipeline has occupied land for 50 years with no ongoing negotiation or compensation. Periodic reviews of compensation and access protocols are manditory.
  • Brian in Mount Lehman almost 2 years ago
    Discussion Questions; Item 12 Land Acquisition and Compensation1. Having a federally regulated pipeline on our land has affected land in both farming and in depreciation valuation as sited in TMEP Landcor IR submission to the NEB as per article A4S7H5 & B417-27 submitted August 20152. a. Land acquisition agreements are worded in favour of the pipeline company and deflects much of the responsibility of monitoring the easement use to the landowner rather than the pipeline company b.The compensation as it stands now is likend to serfdom and master even though the serf owns the property. The NEB does not act in the interest to the landowner, my belief is that due to the funding that the industry provides to the NEB is cause and effect.c. The NEB regulates section 86 and 97 where compensation is allowed to be determined by the pipeline companies interpretation due to the vagueness of the wording of the sections of the Act.3. I am of the opinion that the existing compensation process lacks clarity. The NEB states it will not get involved in compensation, however it is the agency that sets out the law in this process. The Appropriate Dispute Resolution section of the NEB wishes to do more, but constraints with respect to divulging past settlement precedent. I am of the opinion that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Act and the Canadian Bill of Rights are key documents that enshrine Canadian values. Perhaps when an impasse between pipeline company and landowner; all relevant civic by-laws, Provincial surface rights or agencies such as the BC ALR affecting the lands could super cede and usurp the federal NEB statute in regard to the DPR's.4. A Provincial Court of law with local judge may have a better understanding of the rules of law than an arbitrator assigned possibly by a biased government entity.5. A Right of Entry order may infringe on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Canadian Bill of Rights. A Provincial Court judge should be the individual making the final decision after all Discovery evidence is tested.6.No private company should have the right to force themselves on to the land of a private citizen.7. There needs to be a complete rethink of how compensation is determined. Annual or Periodic payments should not mean the amount settled upon and divided over five years; the payouts must last the duration of the easement that runs with the land. A regulatory federal policy would be helpful.
  • PeterR almost 2 years ago
    1. We have to deal every year with nuisance, damage of equipment due to markers, harassment and arrogant behaviour by pipeline (AND power line) companies, who, are in essence a guest on OUR land and ought to behave as such. Unfortunately, they are backed up in this boring behaviour by the NEB.2.b Compensation is completely inadequate and insufficient to change the behaviour of the landowners. This must change if we ever want to cooperate with these bullies.2.c Every time a power company want to enter OUR land, staff has to be involved to guide this entry, in order to protect crops or animals. This creates cost, therefore compensation is necessary for every entry/inspection.3. The existing process is absolute inadequate. The NEB cannot even explain properly its own rules about compensation.4. The landowners/farmers/affected groups in an open and honest dialogue with the NEB.5. Only the landowners/farmers/affected groups can determine this. To elaborate: they know their land, crops, animal, waterways, protected sites like burial places etc.6. This is very wrong. The energy company do not have any clou about the crops, animals, waterway, biosecurity, burial places etc. Unfortunately, and again, they have the NEB on their side, which is very wrong.7. We insist on a entry fee by the power company every time upon entry. We, as landowners/farmers have to spent time (and incur cost) to guide these visits in order to protect crops, animals, enforce biosecurity, waterways, compaction issues, etc
  • almost 2 years ago
    Trans Mountain pipeline crosses our land diagonally, with the increase of the new prescribed area the square footage of affected area has tripled. This greatly effects the future of our land and will most likely devalue our property. We are close to the freeway, local to an industrial park which had potential to subdivide now with the prescribed area tripling the future for our property has diminished. We receive no compensation for this act. How is this fair? The NEB made this ruling and Trans Mountain/Kinder Morgan do not take any responsibility for the extra land easement. The government of the people has failed us. Landowners should receive monetary compensation yearly for the use of their property by the pipeline companies, with regular reviews every 3-5 years. Landowners should receive monetary compensation as the new pipeline is constructed through their property. Forty eight hour notification when entrance to property is needed. (Unless an emergency, ie pipeline leaking), with an entrance fee paid to landowners. Prior to the planning of the new pipeline you could not receive any help from Kinder Morgan......but because of the new pipeline they have become more helpful. Once the pipeline is complete will they revert back to their old ways. A mug or flashlight at Christmas time? Trans Mountain/Kinder Morgan must be held accountable to a higher standard of treatment to the landowners, they should consider us partners with compensation. The government (the NEB) should be working for the people. We attended one of the NEB public meetings and felt it was very unprofessionally run. One of the NEB panel were not there, made it seem we were not important, that there decisions were already made and that they were only going through the motions as this was what was expected. We were very disappointed. Also for working people, 1:00 pm mid week is a difficult time to attend therefore very poor attendance. Yes there should be a consistent approach for companies to compensate landowners, for access, for continued usage (paid on barrel flow daily through the pipeline) and compensated for the new "Prescibed Area" that has claimed more of our land.
  • Dave almost 2 years ago
    Having the pipeline on our land has prevented my business from having normal routine operations completed. We have always played by TM's rules, with notifications etc. It is sometimes over the top however; a helicopter called in an emergency crew to investigate my hand-digging a 6" Big O drain line. Really? In my view, the expanded Prescribed Safety Area is like expropriation without representation, and it makes me very upset. It devalues my property, and will prevent me from developing it further. I feel strongly that I deserve to get compensated for this egregious new regulation put in by the NEB, seemingly at industry's behest. Final decision for land compensation disputes should reside with the Supreme Court. Regarding entry, the company needs to notify the land-owner- it is still private property. I don't think reasonable requests should be denied, but showing up unannounced and adversely impacting one's business can't be tolerated. Policy and regulatory direction from the Government has been lacking, and needs to be improved. Overall, I am not opposed to the pipeline. I am very upset however at the lack of regard for private property rights, the expanded safety zone (basically expropriating value) and the process to date. It is very complicated, and the average property owner has no way to know his rights vs the NEB and the pipeline company, without having to hire legal help.I believe I should be compensated on an annual basis, for the loss of the use of part of my land, and for the devaluation the easement and right of way causes. Haven't received a penny to date....
  • darshan randhawa almost 2 years ago
    Disagree Submit Comment Text Share darshan in Abbotsford , about The TM pipeline crosses our land diagonally, removing a great deal of our land from our direct control. Although we own the land and pay annual taxes on it, we have very little say about what happens on it. If we wish to do anything more than mow grass or cultivate the soil on this area, we must involve Trans Mountain staff. We cannot plant trees, put post for irrigation build, dig or even spread soil without permission. There is also a no privacy involved with being on the pipeline corridor: we never know when the helicopter will patrol our land or the TM staff will show up. We are not given advance notice, which should be provided at least 48 hours in advance, we feel. We also cannot do anything about stopping pipeline personnel from walking onto and working on our property if they access it from someone else's property, remaining on the right of way and moreover so called safety zone added that will restrict our farming on three time more land without any compensation without any consultation with farmers and it will lower valve of the land big time so it should be compensated as much easement of pipe line as much additional area added . This seems odd and I have received any map for new pipe line yet. We are the ones paying taxes! We are the ones who know what is growing on top of the pipeline! We should be able to say who walks and works on our land however they enter! (This way of doing things by TM personnel, of course, cuts down on the property entry fee that the company has agreed to pay owners. This may meet the letter of the law but in no way meets the spirit, particularly when they go ahead without permission to do work that directly affects (e.g. destroys) what the owner is growing.) as 2010 TM destroy my crop and paid me little compensation after five years and I gone through lot of harassment and threat from their personals and I almost forced to suicide. The last time an owner of our property was compensated for the pipeline running across the land was when the TM pipeline was first built in the '50s. It has been said the amount was approximately over $100.00 , a one-time payment. This wasn’t even a lot of money back then! Subsequent owners of the land haven’t seen a penny. Though they have paid yearly property taxes and all other costs associated with purchasing and maintaining the land above the pipeline, and they have been faced with ever-increasing strictures on the use of their land (imposed by both the pipeline company and the NEB), Canadian land owners have never been compensated in any way by Kinder Morgan, owner of the TM, which posts healthy yearly profits (and pays very little tax to the Canadian government). Let us not lose sight of the fact that Trans Mountain and KMI are not Canadian Companies. They are not Canadian assets benefiting Canadians, yet their profits are built on the backs of Canadians.We, as owners of land affected by the TM pipeline, have long requested that we be paid a yearly lease for this land. We do not believe it fair to us and subsequent owners that a lump sum, lifetime payment be made to one owner. The pipeline is an on-going concern. Land values change as do pipeline/safety boundaries. With the twinning (and more) of the pipeline, the risks to the owner and the land increase substantially, as does the burden. A one-time payment is not the answer, particularly since the presence of this right of way and the restrictions imposed by it have a negative effect on our land values. Instead, a lease, renewed at least every 5 years, is the only way that owners can get just compensation. We are also open to some healthy profit-sharing! The new NEB directed Safety Zone has made our land even less accessible by us, the owners, than in the past. This must be revisited, particularly in view of the fact that the pipeline in question is not owned by Canadians but uses Canadian land and its owners shape Canadian law to achieve their goals. Another thing that concerns us about the rights of the oil company over the owner is that it is exempt from municipal laws that we must abide by. For instance, we have been informed that it will be cutting down several trees while building the new pipeline, even trees that are not on the right of way or safety zone. They are just inconvenient to the machinery that will be used. The city, which is usually anal about leaving trees in situ, says that the pipeline is exempt from its rules. We also fear that the construction process will leave us with a swath of fairly unusable soil (the higher temperature of the pipeline already leads to mushy soil above it), which doesn't help those who farm the land or have gardens. Should we, as owners of the property, to approach the city about doing the same kind of construction that KMI is about to undertake, we would have to meet municipal requirements. We can only hope these are not waived and that the oil company is required to leave our soil and our land in equal or better shape than it was. But wait! The documents we have seen absolve the oil company of this responsibility! We expect our Canadian governments—municipal, provincial and federal—to require more from a company than from the individual owners. We have spent years landscaping, preparing our soil to give us maximum yield, establishing our business on our land. In the end, we are the only ones who have no say about our property. The NEB and the oil company can do whatever they want. If they don't like what the owners do on their land, they exact consequences. The oil company seems to respond to owners trying to preserve their rights to the land by crushing them in small, vindictive ways (harassment) and more serious ways (reporting them to the NEB, taking them to court, etc.). Surely, if Trans Mountain and KMI truly want a say in the use of our land, they should lease/rent the land and pay yearly property taxes on the land they want to protect from its rightful owner rather than requiring the Canadian government to create the law the way they want it and taking what they want. At this point, there is a poor relationship between the oil company representatives and many land owners. Land owners feel helpless before the juggernaut that has been created through the marriage of the oil company and the B.C./Canadian governments (and/or their representatives). We wish that we could hope for and expect a spirit of cooperation from the oil company, a sense of gratefulness that because of us it can be the economic and political force that it is. Until Canadian land owners are taken more seriously, their rights and goals for their land respected a great deal more, the schism will undoubtedly remain. We are not necessarily trying to stand in the oil company’s way. We simply want our ownership to be deemed paramount in the discussion on how the land is used and how we are recompensed for its use. We therefore challenge our governments—local, provincial and federal—to listen closely to the many small voices of Canadian landowners over the deafening voice of one foreign oil company and to realize that those small voices are the sound of the People of Canada, those whom these governments represent.
  • WADE almost 2 years ago
    Kinder Morgan wants to use some of my land. They want me to agree on a set amount of compensation. They have NOT INDICATED THE EXACT AREA THEY WANT TO USE, WHEN THEY WANT TO USE IT, OR FOR HOW LONG THEY WANT IT FOR .How can I determine what is fair compensation for such a open ended agreement? Even the markers for the existing pipeline cannot be used as THEY MIGHT BE INACCURATE1...I n the light of all this, i suggest that Kinder Morgan ''GO AROUND'' my property
  • Christina in Abbotsford almost 2 years ago
    The TM pipeline crosses our land diagonally, removing a great deal of our land from our direct control. Although we own the land and pay annual taxes on it, we have very little say about what happens on it. If we wish to do anything more than mow grass or cultivate the soil on this area, we must involve Trans Mountain staff. We cannot plant trees, build, dig or even spread soil without permission. There is also a significant lack of privacy involved with being on the pipeline corridor: we never know when the helicopter will patrol our land or the TM staff will show up. We are not given advance notice, which should be provided at least 48 hours in advance, we feel. We also cannot do anything about stopping pipeline personnel from walking onto and working on our property if they access it from someone else's property, remaining on the right of way. This seems odd. We are the ones paying taxes! We are the ones who know what is growing on top of the pipeline! We should be able to say who walks and works on our land however they enter! (This way of doing things by TM personnel, of course, cuts down on the property entry fee that the company has agreed to pay owners. This may meet the letter of the law but in no way meets the spirit, particularly when they go ahead without permission to do work that directly affects (e.g. destroys) what the owner is growing.) The last time an owner of our property was compensated for the pipeline running across the land was when the TM pipeline was first built in the '50s. It has been said the amount was approximately $100, a one-time payment. This wasn’t even a lot of money back then! Subsequent owners of the land haven’t seen a penny. Though they have paid yearly property taxes and all other costs associated with purchasing and maintaining the land above the pipeline, and they have been faced with ever-increasing strictures on the use of their land (imposed by both the pipeline company and the NEB), Canadian land owners have never been compensated in any way by Kinder Morgan, owner of the TM, which posts healthy yearly profits (and pays very little tax to the Canadian government). Let us not lose sight of the fact that Trans Mountain and KMI are not Canadian Companies. They are not Canadian assets benefiting Canadians, yet their profits are built on the backs of Canadians.We, as owners of land affected by the TM pipeline, have long requested that we be paid a yearly lease for this land. We do not believe it fair to us and subsequent owners that a lump sum, lifetime payment be made to one owner. The pipeline is an on-going concern. Land values change as do pipeline/safety boundaries. With the twinning (and more) of the pipeline, the risks to the owner and the land increase substantially, as does the burden. A one-time payment is not the answer, particularly since the presence of this right of way and the restrictions imposed by it have a negative effect on our land values. Instead, a lease, renewed at least every 5 years, is the only way that owners can get just compensation. We are also open to some healthy profit-sharing! The new NEB directed Safety Zone has made our land even less accessible by us, the owners, than in the past. This must be revisited, particularly in view of the fact that the pipeline in question is not owned by Canadians but uses Canadian land and its owners shape Canadian law to achieve their goals. Another thing that concerns us about the rights of the oil company over the owner is that it is exempt from municipal laws that we must abide by. For instance, we have been informed that it will be cutting down several trees while building the new pipeline, even trees that are not on the right of way or safety zone. They are just inconvenient to the machinery that will be used. The city, which is usually anal about leaving trees in situ, says that the pipeline is exempt from its rules. We also fear that the construction process will leave us with a swath of fairly unusable soil (the higher temperature of the pipeline already leads to mushy soil above it), which doesn't help those who farm the land or have gardens. Should we, as owners of the property, to approach the city about doing the same kind of construction that KMI is about to undertake, we would have to meet municipal requirements. We can only hope these are not waived and that the oil company is required to leave our soil and our land in equal or better shape than it was. But wait! The documents we have seen absolve the oil company of this responsibility! We expect our Canadian governments—municipal, provincial and federal—to require more from a company than from the individual owners. We have spent years landscaping, preparing our soil to give us maximum yield, establishing our business on our land. In the end, we are the only ones who have no say about our property. The NEB and the oil company can do whatever they want. If they don't like what the owners do on their land, they exact consequences. The oil company seems to respond to owners trying to preserve their rights to the land by crushing them in small, vindictive ways (harassment) and more serious ways (reporting them to the NEB, taking them to court, etc.). Surely, if Trans Mountain and KMI truly want a say in the use of our land, they should lease/rent the land and pay yearly property taxes on the land they want to protect from its rightful owner rather than requiring the Canadian government to create the law the way they want it and taking what they want. At this point, there is a poor relationship between the oil company representatives and many land owners. Land owners feel helpless before the juggernaut that has been created through the marriage of the oil company and the B.C./Canadian governments (and/or their representatives). We wish that we could hope for and expect a spirit of cooperation from the oil company, a sense of gratefulness that because of us it can be the economic and political force that it is. Until Canadian land owners are taken more seriously, their rights and goals for their land respected a great deal more, the schism will undoubtedly remain. We are not necessarily trying to stand in the oil company’s way. We simply want our ownership to be deemed paramount in the discussion on how the land is used and how we are recompensed for its use. We therefore challenge our governments—local, provincial and federal—to listen closely to the many small voices of Canadian landowners over the deafening voice of one foreign oil company and to realize that those small voices are the sound of the People of Canada, those whom these governments represent.
  • Brian in Mount Lehman almost 2 years ago
    Thank you for this opportunity. I had occasion to speak to the Expert Panel in Vancouver on February 8th, 2017. I spoke about many aspect of living and farming with the pipeline over the years. This message will be with respect to topic #12. This is my testimony of living and working with a federally regulated pipeline. Our family has hosted the Trans Mountain pipeline since August 8th 1952. At that time we were paid $84.73 to allow transit over approx. 445 m (1,500') of our farm. That resulted in a two acre SRoW easement which has an enormous impact on our farming capability. In later years as the farming machinery we have grew in size and horsepower, we noticed even more of an issue as the pipe was supposed to be buried at .08 m but in places, measured at .65 m ( 2'4") far and away too shallow to conduct proper tillage. There was also much neglect on our property as well. In 1953, when construction was nearing completion; several massive West Coast Cedar stumps were buried and in the late 1990's, large depressions began to appear where the rotting stumps were placed. Thus some deep craters began to form. I contacted the owners of Trans Mountain at that time and was told it was not their responsibility to fix. I had the NEB involved in 2003 and even they could not convince the pipeline company to remedy the situation. In 2012, Kinder Morgan did remedy the situation and I have to believe the TMEP project had a good deal to do with the change in attitude. 65 years without compensation is not good enough. Now in 2017 we are about to host the second larger pipeline. This line will be at 1.2 m of depth of cover making it a much more tolerable line that should not interfere with normal farming practices. The landowner advocacy group CGLAP, of which I am an executive member, has done a great deal through the Intervenor process and collaborative actions with the Trans Mountain pipeline ULC. Compensation must evolve into the twenty-first century, Annual payments under the provisions of the Pipeline Act section 86 must be clarified by the NEB to mean "annual or periodic" for the life of the pipeline. Another very disturbing aspect of the pipeline and how it affects the landowner is the 60 m (200') PRESCRIBED AREA; once known as the Safety Zone with an inception dating back to 1988, this area that mirrors a SRoW easement, came into law June of 2016. Now a federally legislated encumbrance that, for a lack of a better word, is draconian and does not fit with Canadian society. A law that was imposed on the affected landowners without consultation with the very people who are directly affected. From the beginning and up until last June, we had two acres of easement, with the advent of the Prescribed Area, we now have over 7 acres of restricted land use on and adjacent to the pipeline easement.The Damage Prevention Regulations contained within the Pipeline Safety Act clearly describes this area as a restricted piece of property that meets all of the criteria of an easement; except for the fact that it is not registered on land title. That appears to be the only difference. I for one, see this land grab as being only to the benefit of the pipeline company and puts the onus on the land owner to monitor the activities on his/her land rather than a responsibility that should lay with the pipeline company. There are many serious questions that need to be answered, and should have been prior to this legislation passing into law. For example, if a person as a land owner does not have the SRoW that contains the pipeline of record on their land, but due to the width of the Prescribed Area, finds that there land is touched by this encroachment, why do they have the same restrictions as a person who has the SRoW easement. Then there is the what ifs' What if my house burns down that is located on the Prescribed Area, can I rebuild? What if the Prescribed Area increases my home insurance due to the proximity to the SRoW, for these reasons and others, the Prescribed Area must be included in a compensation settlement too. The Prescribed Area has even affected civic government. I am aware that the City of Surrey and the Township of Langley are now speaking with the NEB on the "wait to work" times that are contained within the DPR's. Clearly, unionized civic workers need to be sent to a job site and conduct their duties without waiting for a pipeline OK to go, especially on the Prescribed Area. Best practices as described in CSAZ662 are all well and fine, except in reality. Having the NEB, a government regulator manipulated by three Non Government Agencies such as the Canadian Standards Association, the Canadian Common Ground Counsel and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association is in this case, not in the best interest of the Canadian public. In my personal opinion, I do see a Charter of Rights and Freedoms violation in this legislated Prescribed Area.Thank you for allowing me this venue to express my extreme displeasure of the Prescribed Area and the comment on a clear definition of the section 86 (a) of the compensation portion of the Pipeline Act.
  • Robert Kryszko almost 2 years ago
    Discussion Paper # 12 answers to questions in: Land Acquisition and Compensation:1. I am not really worried about power-lines. However, pipelines I am worried about, because pipelines that carry oil for instance will have great potential in destroying the land I hunt, fish, and gather on2(a) Aboriginals/Indians not under a final modern-day-treaty or bilateral/trilateral land agreement are not subject to any Land acquisition agreement, unless they adopt it. Therefore, the required clause cannot and should not be recognised by Treaty Indians that have not ceded their traditional lands., or Indian modern-day-treaties that did not include the so called "required clause" in their framework, and any Aboriginal group, organization, or entity that have not agreed to the "required clause". 2(b) Compensation, such as an accommodation agreement can be achieved; only if proposed project meets environmental assessment, and only if proponent and government agrees to compensate Indians as soon as any environmental hazard should occur on their un-ceded traditional lands or lands that are identified and Indian hunting and fishing grounds, sacred sites, and air/water quality. 2(c). The right of entry process and authority must be a shared responsibility between the crown and the Indian people/authority. 3. In my opinion, the existing process described in the discussion paper is flawed. Throughout the entire document there is absolutely no mention of Treaty Indians, not modern-day treaty Indians, but historical Treaty Indians that haven't ceded their traditional lands. These Indians solely rely on their original Treaty Rights, which was signed prior to confederation. This is expected because there is no Treaty Indian representation on the NEB modernization expert panel. In addition, there is no mention of international project for Aboriginal/ Indian participation or decision making powers. Finally, in the Indigenous Engagement section under the NEB expert panel's Terms of Reference document it clearly does not mention the enhancement of Aboriginal/Indian decision making powers within the NEB itself. 4. The final decision maker for land compensation disputes must be a shared responsibility between the crown and the Indians; however, the Indians must have more say in areas that are identified as traditional Indian lands; in addition to Indian/Treaty lands that were not ceded5. My views on the process of determining whether to authorize "right to entry" can be applied to the Euro-Canadians or Canadians under the constitution. However, when it comes to Indian Traditional land or lands not ceded by the Indians, the only process for the "right to entry" lies solely with the Indian authority in that particular area. As stated in principle # 26.1, 26.2, and 26.3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 6. For Euro-Canadians the company's right of entry without the landowner's consent is justified within the Act; however, for Indian traditional lands or Indian traditional lands not ceded is a different story. The company's right of entry clause is not recognised by Indians. The only time the company's right of entry clause can be activated is by the consent of the Indian people who may be affected in that particular area.7. It is up to landowner to accept compensation; however, if the landowner does not want the company to access his/her land , then the company must request from the government of Canada for an application to expropriate. Additional comments: We want inclusion of Aboriginal/Indian decision making, we want to integrate with and strength regulatory processes in the NEBA; in addition to being part of the NEBA's structure. role and mandate to modernize the NEBA. Aboriginal/Indian groups want inclusion (at a federal level) in all parts of the potential legislative amendments, and have more Indian people on the NEB board itself. Also, the quorum of the NEB should be increased from 3 to 9. We, as Indians are stakeholders of the NEB as well, and Indian groups must have appropriate decision-making roles as well, especially towards projects (such as an oil pipeline) which can adversely affect Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Indian traditional land. Therefore, the current NEB approach must be revised to include Indian decision-making roles as well. By doing this it is a great step forward towards reconciliation and it shows that the federal government is serious about its reconciliation efforts with the Indian people.As stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 18 states: "Indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representation chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions."Article 29(1) states: " Indigenous people have the right to conservation and the protection of their environment....."As you may know, Indians are the Protectors of the Land.
  • isabel almost 2 years ago
    Companies should not have the ability to gain access to privately held land or indigenous land for the sake if pipelines. This poses an undue risk to the land owners, and may destroy their ability to use the land as they wish. If land owners choose to give access to their land for pipelines, the final decision regarding compensation should rest with the land owners. For power lines, if there is no way to reroute onto land that is freely available, land owners should be compensated through standardized system.