Participate

There are three ways to participate:

  1. Register for a Session in Your Region/City
  2. Read and Provide Input on up to 12 Discussion Papers
  3. Provide General Comments

This review is an opportunity to strengthen the regulatory process and ensure that Canada continues to have a modern, efficient and effective regulator.

Specifically, this review will focus on:

  1. Governance and structure
  2. Mandate and future opportunities
  3. Decision-making roles, including on major projects
  4. Compliance, enforcement, and ongoing monitoring
  5. Engagement with Indigenous peoples
  6. Public participation

Background information on these issues will be posted to this website throughout the review process.

Provide Comments

The Panel is interested in your thoughts and opinions on modernizing the NEB. We encourage you to provide your comments in the space below or by attaching a file. The deadline for submitting comments is March 31, 2017.


There are three ways to participate:

  1. Register for a Session in Your Region/City
  2. Read and Provide Input on up to 12 Discussion Papers
  3. Provide General Comments

This review is an opportunity to strengthen the regulatory process and ensure that Canada continues to have a modern, efficient and effective regulator.

Specifically, this review will focus on:

  1. Governance and structure
  2. Mandate and future opportunities
  3. Decision-making roles, including on major projects
  4. Compliance, enforcement, and ongoing monitoring
  5. Engagement with Indigenous peoples
  6. Public participation

Background information on these issues will be posted to this website throughout the review process.

Provide Comments

The Panel is interested in your thoughts and opinions on modernizing the NEB. We encourage you to provide your comments in the space below or by attaching a file. The deadline for submitting comments is March 31, 2017.


The Panel is interested in your thoughts and opinions on modernizing the NEB. We encourage you to provide your comments in the box below before clicking the Submit button. You can also share your views by uploading a file by clicking the Share a Document tab above. Please note that your screenname and comments typed into the box will be made public. Please consult the Privacy Notice for more information.

If you wish to make a private comment, please upload a document by clicking the Share a Document tab above and choosing the option to not have your submission posted to the Panel’s website.
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Since the Canadian Oil patch is in Headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, why is the Panel not having a session in Calgary where the industry that uses the NEB the most is located?

Calgary is missed? almost 3 years ago

Not a single session in northern Ontario. So how then should we interpret the direction to "Register for a session in your Region/City" when there are NO sessions in our region or cities?

Northwatch almost 3 years ago

Mike Ridsdale, on behalf of the Office of the Wet’suwet’en has shared a document to the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel. To download it, click here.

Office of the Wet’suwet’en almost 3 years ago

Dear Sir,I participated in and kept up with the two reviews that were held in Alberta a few years ago, namely the Royalty Review and the Climate Change Review. Please note these two efforts had very different feels to them.1. Royalty Review - posted early on their website was an outline of the process to take place. The agenda was set very early for stakeholder sessions, one of which I attended. Dave Mowat was actually there, and he gave great perspective on the whole process. He was very down to earth and pragmatic. Along the way, I received numerous email updates as I had signed up for them. They were short and summarized the gist of how the comments were looking, with a diverse range being shown. First it was weekly, then bi-weekly when almost everything was done. We saw summaries of the comments on their website also, ie. they did the work for us of reading long articles etc and the dumbing it down, ie in plain language. I got a notice when final product was complete as well. While I didn't write the policy, I could at least see the logic and reason behind it, and my questions were answered when asked.2. Climate change committee - they solicited input. I sent in my info and ideas, and signed up for updates. Didnt hear from them for months. I sent another email and they said thanks, you will hear from us when the finished product is spit out the other end. Voila. No early warnings of how it would look, no government summaries etc. The submissions were posted on their website but there were dozens and not summarized at all. Quite useless.I outline this to suggest to you that your result may be better received if you make a concerted effort to communicate transparently and in plain language along the way. This is critical to get it right, and you have set a very short timeline. It may not change the outcome but it might change how it is received, which is, after all, what it is all about.Karen Spencer, P.Eng.Bragg Creek, Alberta403-680-4285

Karenspencer11 almost 3 years ago

Ken Whitehurst, on behalf of Consumers Council of Canada has shared a document to the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel. To download it, click here.

KenWhitehurst almost 3 years ago

Karenspencer11 has shared a document to the National Energy Board ModernizationExpert Panel. To download it, click here.

Karenspencer11k almost 3 years ago

The NEB must require more closely monitored current in-ground pipe lines, demand the replacement and mapping of old pipelines. There needs to be a demand that steel produced for said pipelines is made here in Canada under close scrutiny with minimum standards. Furthermore the NEB should consist of at least one representative from the federation of Indian Nations. We in Canada will no longer tolerate the exclusion of our indigenous sisters and brothers who have long been the protectors of our lands, their treaty rights must be respected. We need to implement wind, solar, water and nuclear power supplies and end our reliance on power that smothers our atmosphere, makes our water poisoning and ultimately results in the destruction of our planet. The NEB must have independent scientists, environmentalists and protectors of our earth

Julee almost 3 years ago

The Board must be able to operate independently for the LONG term good of the country. Likewise, it's board should be a policy and compliance board and non partisan. It should hire fully competent operational staff with energy experience, finance, environmental, legal to advise. It's appointments should have a fixed term with no more than one third of its members replaced every two years. Because of the portfolio and long term nature of large capital projects, it must not be changed at every change of government or all investment or environmental standards will be jeopardized.2. As Canada is a confederation of provinces, it must see to interprovincial free trade and safe, cost effective free flow of goods across the country, so the country can be most productive and globally competitive. It should promote and advance domestic energy first rather than foreign imports where there are abuses in environmental, poor labour standards, and poor human rights. The policies should be clear on the minimum and maximum standards of consultation and hearings and ensure this is adhered to. It is NATIONAL at heart, not self serving local jurisdictions, but must ensure a fairness and equitable treatment among first nations, landowners and industry and provinces.3. The operations team with all competencies should make the full assessment and recommendations to the Board. The Board must ensure that all policy has been complied with to make decisions. The Board speaks as one voice. Board publishes findings, final hearings take place and decision is made. No insider info. Board business must be kept confidential because of the effect on the markets and potential for corruption. The Board sets consultation policies min and max. for various scenarios with the stakeholders that operation's committees must adhere to. Policy shall dictate that operations performs cost benefit analysis of energy delivery by stakeholder consultation and research.

FortheloveofCanada almost 3 years ago

Any regulatory body that does not maintain a visible distance from the industry it regulates will appear to be in bed with that industry. The National Energy Board of Canada typifies this perception. The government of Canada is now on the spot to either paper over this idiotic situation, or to sincerely seek to correct it. Which will it choose?The National Energy Board will continue to lack credibility with the watchful public until it takes to heart these things:1) The public is weary of empty image management and marketing campaigns (forget the idiotic attempts at perception manipulation underlying the Charest meeting). Thus the Brexit and Trump responses to the politics of globalization as an empty promise to promote local economies. Only genuine commitment to public good will suffice.2) A corollary to 1) above is that claims of job creation projections are demonstrably unsound, never post-audited, and qualify only as spin. They must carry NO weight in NEB reviews or government approvals.3) Erecting fences around the subject matter under review, so as to exclude obviously related issues (such as both up and downstream emissions related to pipeline decisions) only inherit outrage from informed citizenry. It is not responsible. It is disingenuous. While NEB board members (and the largely fossil fuel industries they too often derive from) may feel somewhat insulated from public reactions to this, the politicians who appoint them are not, and the public reactions once arriving at the regulator can only become more savage, if they haven't noticed yet. There is no place to hide.4) Financial stress testing of applicants undergoing NEB review is an obvious requirement for ensuring that the applicant is sufficiently sound to honour any commitments required through the regulatory decisions. If it is good enough for the banking sector, it is good enough for the energy sector, not least because of the exposure of the banking sector to energy sector irresponsibility. Without it we wind up with the outrageous situation in which failed energy companies abandon toxic sites and provincial premiers (who insist on their ownership of the resource rights) cannot afford to pick up the slack and so whine about needing national financial support. A blank cheque delivered to the energy industry, drawn on taxpayers across the country. Clearly, the business cases upon which their applications are based must be demonstrably sound. It is hard to imagine new pipeline projects today, in an environment of massive crude oil oversupply and diminishing demand on the horizon, escaping such a requirement without substantial scrutiny.5) Major refocusing of the NEB, as envisioned here, cannot be confidently achieved if NEB board membership has the spectre of an old boys club from the energy industry. Membership must be thoroughly diversified. 6) The principle mandate of the NEB must be clearly set out as the future energy needs of the people of Canada. The future well being of any particular industry sector must clearly be outside the interests of the National Energy Board.Thank you for your attention.

Dr. David Paterson almost 3 years ago

We need to move our energy systems away from large centralized projects, to a diverse and spread out system. Micro projects for wind, solar and water for individuals should be the focus moving forward. At the same time, we must avoid trying to force everyone to tie into the grid as there are inherent costs to doing so that harm low income individuals from moving towards more energy sustainability.

THCrinstam almost 3 years ago

I would like to know if there are policies in place that hold accountable the energy companies for any and all environmental clean up and mitigation should their projects run out of funding ahead of their intended life span or when the resources lose value or run out. If there aren't policies in place, why not. I'd also like to know if the Canadian government at any level is subsidizing resource development while at the same time pledging to reduce carbon emissions and move forward with sustainable energy solutions for Canadians, and if the NEB plans to resolve these conflicting ideas.

ConcernedVoter about 3 years ago

The process of reviewing and approving Canada's resources industry needs to be balanced, transparent and timely however paramount to the process is the fact that not all participants and Canadians will agree to resource development and the transmission of these resources. We need to ensure this process reflects opinions for the silent majority and not the outspoken and many times factional few.

FwPatty about 3 years ago

The NEB must formally and in practice recognize and respect the rights and treaties with First Nations. The NEB mandate needs to include all forms of public and private energy extraction and transportation, as well as new uses. The Board should not be composed of people from the industries being regulated. That expertise can advise the Board but should not be the decision-makers. The Board must evaluate all climate change implications of projects including not just construction/operation but also upstream AND downstream emissions from both extraction and use of transported materials. The mandate should specify that the Board seek to minimize climatic impacts. Projects should be subject to full environmental assessments carried out independently be CEAA or other similar agencies, not by the Board. Hearings should be open to the public. There should be no restrictions on written submissions. Oversight of imposed conditions should be publicly reported on a regular basis.

Don about 3 years ago

Looking forward to knowing more about the plans of the panel.

JoAnn about 3 years ago