Discussion Paper 4: Decision-Making Roles on Projects

over 2 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This is the 4th of 12 discussion papers. For the full list, click here.

This discussion paper talks about the roles and responsibilities for making decisions 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 4: Decision-Making Roles on Projects

Discussion Questions:

  1. What principles should determine who should make the final decisions for the following projects and why:
    1. Major international and interprovincial pipeline projects (i.e., greater than 40 km in length)?
    2. Smaller international and interprovincial pipeline projects (i.e., 40 km in length or less)?
    3. International and designated interprovincial power line projects?
    4. Import and export licences?
  2. What is the role of government policy in guiding NEB oversight and decision making?
    1. As the lead Minister of the Crown, is there a role for the Minister of Natural Resources to clarify policy outcomes that are expected?
    2. How should the NEB incorporate and reflect “whole of government” policy direction, such as the new Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada and Canada’s Mid-Century Long-Term Low-Greenhouse Gas Development Strategy, when setting out hearing orders, lists of issues, and ultimately, recommended decisions and conditions?
  3. What are your views with respect to the role(s) of other parties in the final decision-making process, such as Indigenous groups, provinces/territories or municipalities?
    1. Do you see an enhanced role for some or all of these parties? If so, please describe what these roles should be for each, with a short rationale for why.
  4. What are your views with respect to the current three options available to the GIC when making its decision for pipelines greater than 40 km in length? What can be improved?
  5. What are your views with regard to the legislated timelines for project reviews (i.e., 15 months for NEB recommendation and 3 months for a GIC decision)?
  6. What are your views with respect to NEB’s discretion to hold hearings for export licences?
  7. In determining whether an export licence should be issued, what are your views with respect to NEB’s obligation to only consider whether the exports would be a surplus to Canadian requirements (see footnote 7)?
  8. What are your views with regard to the land acquisition process and dispute resolution? What are your views with respect to the responsibility of the pipeline company to negotiate with landowners regarding the amount of compensation?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
  • EP about 3 years ago
    2.1. The minister should provide clear, consistent direction in terms of what policy outcomes it expects. 2.5. The timelines should depend on the project itself and should not be based on a legislated timelimit. It should depend on the complexity and nature of the project.
  • PeterR about 3 years ago
    1. 1, 1.2, 1.3: Engage the affected groups by these pipelines 1.4: Government 2. Yes that all parties are treated fairly, and not a few big companies adding to their bottom line as overriding decision. This sounds honest and right, but the outcome so far is hollow and integrity is far. 3.There is one group glaringly missing: the landowners. Of course province, municipalities, and indigenous groups should be involved, but this question shows the glaring disrespect demonstrated by neglecting to even mention this important group of landowners/farmers! 3.1 Are we even listened to with all the effort we have been putting in these last 3 years? 4. don not understand this question 5. same 6. and 7.no comment 8. A separate chapter about this is on the list. We will comment in that chapter.
  • Robert Kryszko over 3 years ago
    The final decision must be done by the new NEB members consisting of 9 Canadians (federal) representation and 9 Indian representatives; this will be a shared responsibility under the new NEBA. If granted exclusive jurisdiction; the role of the government should be on request by a majority vote of the NEB. Decision making should be solely done by the new NEB members (9 Indian and 9 Canadian).Also, the quorum must be increased.
  • isabel over 3 years ago
    GIC approval should be required on all projects and licences. Environmental policy should be prioritized by the NEB when making decisions and recommendations. Provinces and indigenous groups should have veto power on all projects that concern them. Hearings should not be discretionary; they should be required. The NEB should be obligated to consider a wider range of issues when making decisions on export licenses. Companies should absolutely have to negotiate with land owners, and binding arbitration should not be required; only mediation. Indigenous groups must be able to refuse projects on their land and sale of their land.