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.

A concern during the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project NEB hearing was that Trans Mountain was offering large sums of money to hearing participants through a "Community Benefits" program.

Communities that were participants in the hearing did accept Community Benefits offers and it is unclear whether those offers may have influenced the participation of some communities in representing the interests of their citizens in the NEB hearing.

Clearwater, BC, registered as an intervenor in the hearing, accepted $390,000 from Trans Mountain and filed no documents in the hearing.

Hope, BC, registered as an intervenor in the hearing, accepted $500,000 from Trans Mountain and filed no documents in the hearing.

Kamloops, BC, registered as an intervenor in the hearing, accepted $700,000 from Trans Mountain and filed only one document beyond their application to participate in the hearing. That document, Information Request #2, made no mention of the fact that the pipeline route runs upstream of and past an emergency water intake that the city is building on the North Thompson River. This despite a December 10, 2014 report to the Chief Administrative Officer from the Public Works and Utilities Department that warned "While unlikely, if there were to be a significant spill in the North Thompson River, it is probable that the City's proposed emergency drinking water source would be compromised."

The City of Chilliwack was a commenter in the hearing and chose not to do a Community Benefits agreement with Trans Mountain until after the NEB hearing was concluded. This was an ethical decision made despite fears of losing $800,000 that was offered by Trans Mountain with a deadline for acceptance before the hearing was concluded. After the NEB hearing the City of Chilliwack negotiated a $1,200,000 Community Benefits deal with Trans Mountain.

Whether Community Benefits offers did in fact influence the participation of any local governments in the hearing, or the work of staff working on behalf of local governments, the facts outlined above demonstrate that an appearance of influence can easily be inferred, and that such deals can be negotiated after a hearing is concluded so as to ensure that no such questions of influence cast a shadow on the proceedings of the National Energy Board.

I submit that offers such as Trans Mountain's Community Benefits program should not be allowed to be made to hearing participants during regulatory hearings.

Ian Stephen almost 2 years ago

KAIROS has shared a document on the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

KAIROS almost 2 years ago

Lynn Perrin has shared a document on the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

Lynn Perrin1 almost 2 years ago

Imperial Oil Limited has shared a document on the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

Imperial Oil Limited almost 2 years ago

The Fort McMurray Métis, Fort Chipewyan Métis, Fort McKay Métis Community Association, the Conklin Métis, and the Fort McKay First Nation have shared a document on the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

Fort McMurray Métis, Fort Chipewyan Métis, Fort McKay Métis Community Association, the Conklin Métis, and the Fort McKay First Nation almost 2 years ago

The NEB needs to change its mandate, policies, and methods to ensure that Canada is making good decisions about our energy needs in the face of dangerous climate change. The NEB must be modernized to accomplish the following:

1) Preventing and minimizing climate change, based on qualified climate scientists' targets and Canada's own climate goals and international commitments (Paris Accord, etc.)

2) Environmental assessments should be done independently from the NEB by qualified, scientific experts in relevant fields.

3 Assessments regarding whether to approve new projects must include consideration of costs and harms of _all_ pollution resulting from building, operation, maintenance, of new energy projects. This includes considering end uses and the health/environmental effects of what comes out of new energy projects, including pipelines.

4) Safeguarding clean land and water for indigenous and non-indigenous cultural uses.
Even further, the duty to consult Indigenous people is based on Indigenous sovereignty. And so, the duty to consult must actually be done in good faith --and not in a perfunctory way to _pretend_ to satisfy International Law! This will change how projects get approved and whether projects get approved in Canada...

5) Human health and substantial protection of ecosystems must be higher priority than it evidently has been. Enforcement of infractions must have real teeth. Downstream effects of energy projects must be monitored and negative changes in human health and ecological heath must be investigated, problem-solved, and, if needed, prosecuted, with money to substantially redress the harm caused.

6) The 61st United Nations' Commission on the Status of Women’s Agreed Conclusions recognize that gender-just methods and strategies must be part of efforts to prevent climate change and its effects. The workforce, management, and leadership for new energy projects in Canada must move towards full equity and inclusion of women. NEB mandates and regulations need to be updated to reflect the growing international recognition of the need for safe, ecologically sound, gender-just transitions to low-carbon economies.

7) The NEB needs to be part of a federal apparatus to help transition our economy off of dependence on oil and fossil fuels. The NEB mandate should require energy projects in Canada to start moving substantially and immediately towards a clean energy economy.

N M Wettlaufer almost 2 years ago

I have two comments to add to this review process.
1. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency should be responsible for any environmental assessment of all projects falling under the purview of the Federal Government, including energy projects. The NEB should continue on with its updated mandate, after this review process, as a regulator, but leave the environmental assessment process to the entity, the CEAA, that has the vast knowledge and expertise, and who, up until the changes with the CEAA 2012 had this role.
2. The National Energy Board's Participant Funding Program should not discriminate against individuals who are experts that wish to receive funding for their individual work, after being accepted as intervenors in the process. It appears that the way the system is set up now, any GROUP, whether it be Indigenous, environmental or any interested party as stakeholder, may, on their merit be accepted as intervenors and apply for participant funding. However, an INDIVIDUAL, once accepted as an intervenor, who is considered an expert, may only receive funding if they contract out to someone else the work they propose to do for their participation. This is counter-intuitive to what public participation is intended to do.
C. Doucet

CED almost 2 years ago

Discussion Questions:

1.How has having a pipeline or powerline on your land affected how you use your land?
*I have the TMX on my land; KM/TM has totally ruined my property; they cut approximately 200 trees; half of which were on my property and not within the easement; the others were needlessly cut - they turned a beautiful park into a barren landscape. My property went from beautiful to a pipeline easement scar. This is permitted by the NEB. The NEB has provided no protection or limitations on what the pipeline company can do. They are permitted to wreck havoc and to not have to compensate. They have lied to me from the beginning; they have told me they don't have to pay for any loss of beauty or for cutting of trees / branches on their easement even though it was unnecessary and destroyed the total nature of my property. They did an integrity dig on the adjoining property which has ruined the creek from which I get my well water - it was a clear running creek, now filled with algae and bacteria. KM denies any damage by using environmental companies that are able to provide alternative facts. The NEB will take the documents containing false data from KM over my documentation regarding the damage.
2.What are your views with respect to:

a. Land acquisition agreements, its required clauses and the NEB oversight?
*much too weak; you provide no safety for landowners; the landowner should have access to legal counsel without having to pay for it which we cant afford. The landowner is up against a multi-national corporation that owns the environmental assessment reporting process - the environmental companies will provide alternate facts and data as needed for the KM pipeline company to avoid accountability.
The wording is so weak and vague it is ineffective.

b. Compensation and dispute resolution processes and the private nature of agreements?
*Not in favour of landowners; totally in favour of the pipeline company. The landowner should be provided with legal counsel at the pipelines expense to present their case. KM has lied to me from day one in every interaction they have had with me and with documents provided to NEB. The landowner doesn't have a hope to be compensated fairly for damage done. 100% of my property has been impacted by the TMX project - my water is ruined and the beautiful parklike trees have been cut. Now into the 3rd year and only starting to have KM agree to sit with me. UP to now they have denied all damage and impact; they have refused to give me a copy of the tree assessment report. They use bullying tactics and lies.

c. Right of entry process and authority?
*No payment for the landowner when I have to give up my time and day to host the entry onto my property unless they are actually digging. I can be hosting a dozen KM/TMX contractors and staff on my property and be the only one that is not being paid. I have been lied to by KM/TMX regarding my rights for contact and payment for entry process. KM/TMX regularly lies to landowners to avoid paying out for damages and costs as per landowner obligations
3.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)?
*It is not fair nor sufficient. The landowner is left on their own to try to find out their rights while KM/TMX lies to the landowner providing alternative facts. The guidebook is barebones and insufficient.
*The landowner should have access to legal counsel paid for by the pipeline company to participate in the negotiations. The landowner has to negotiate against a multi-national company that has a legal team, and knowledge of the process and settlement offers. The landowner comes into the process completely naively not knowing that the KM pipeline company is providing misinformation to them as to landowner rights.
*the information provided is so vague that it has taken me weeks and numerous requests to get an answer to the simple question as to where on my property does the pipeline company 'trespass' and what my rights are to my land - all the guidebook does is tell me what I cant do on the zones outside the easement - but it doesn't say what the pipeline company can and cant do. Can they cut down a tree on my property? can they allow me not to plant anything on the easement? can they mow everything down on the easement? They have paid a sum total of $21.82 for the past 50 years for the easement - including all the damage they have done to it in preparation for the pipeline expansion.
4.Who should make the final decisions for land compensation disputes?
The landowner. I am the one that knows the damage, has the accurate information, and knows the amount of the damage. The pipeline company has vested interest to pay as little as possible. I should have legal counsel and funding for the scientific reviews that document the damage. How do you expect a pensioner to pay for the costs needed to prove damage to a pipeline company that has deep pockets, its own environmental people that write whatever they are told to write; and a legal team...? My costs should be covered to prove accurate compensation. They don't damage one little bit of a property - they damage the overall value of the property. They should pay for the devaluation or purchase a property if it is damaged to the point of not being able to be remediated - how are they to return a property with 25-50+ year old trees cut down to the same or better condition prior to the pipeline.?
5.What are your views regarding the process of determining whether to authorize right of entry?
*they should not have right of entry without payment to the landowner unless in the case of an absolute emergency. I have had my gates left open so often that I had to shut down my dog boarding facility - I have been threatened with liability risk; they take my time; I have to accommodate each of their entries - they get paid for their time; I don't. If I'm needed to be present, they should pay me for my time.
6.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?
*they have been on my land about 50 days and I haven't been paid a penny because they lied to me; saying they didn't need to pay me for entry and had 7/24 right to come onto my property at anytime. KM lies. KM avoids paying landowners. The landowners document is vague and poorly worded and does not fairly give landowners the information they need ot stand up against a multi-national company that hires staff that provides alternative facts to landowners. They should have to pay $500/day for right of entry if I need to be present. I need to be present as when I don't monitor what they are doing they leave my gates open and cut down vegetation on my property.
7.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?
*yes, please start protecting landowners. I want to know how it is that a pipeline company has had the right to totally destroy my property - and devalue it - and come onto my property at anytime and never pay me a penny. If they devalue the whole property they should pay for it - not just for the area of the 'easement'. If I walk into a china shop and break or chip a cup - I am obligated to pay for the whole cup/saucer - not just glue the chipped bit back on.
*property in the fraser valley/Vancouver area is valued in the millions of dollars - it is a major need of landowners to be protected by the devaluation done to landowners property by the pipeline company works. I am going to be destitute - I purchased a beautiful park like property with a clear running brook - due to works by KM/TMX I no longer have drinking water or the beautiful parklike treed' property. It is worthless. KM/TMX is using all the professionals they 'own' to tell me they have no obligation to pay me anything for the damage as it is all permitted by the NEB. Why do I as a landowner have to suffer a million dollar plus loss of the value of my home to a multinational company so that their shareholders make more profit? Why is it that I have no protection from my federal govt and the NEB? Shame on you all.

Barbara Gard almost 2 years ago

Only the people have the power to decide on how the land they live on is used.

This means that the interest should be defined by those people themselves, and not have it defined for them by the NEB as in the NEB's proposed mandate. It would infringe on rights, and diminish participation.

The NEB should not and cannot define anyone's interests or wants.

Philip L almost 2 years ago

The Kinder Morgan Pipeline has devalued my property and negatively effects the daily use. I can only use the land for grazing, I cannot fix my own fences without approval, and I cannot drain the land in an exceptionally wet area to make it more useable for my cattle. The helicopter patrols my property on a regular basis which is a noise nuisance to my farm animals, and Kinder Morgan employees access my property without permission (which could be a hazard to their own personal safety with farm animals about). When there has been repairs to the shut off valve at our property line they chose to discharge the pumped ground water onto my land, thereby causing trespass with no consequences to Kinder Morgan, just a ruined pasture for the summer which I was negatively affected by.
I believe that when the pipeline was installed during the 1950's initially it was done under the goodwill of the property owner for the greater good of North America and Canada's national security. During that time the Korean war was occurring and oil was a necessary commodity to supply the Canadian and US navy. The pipeline today is benefiting a company that isn't even Canadian. I understand the oil needs to be transported somehow, but I should be compensated for my land value being decreased and also for having a second ROW on title. This compensation should benefit the land owner not only during the initial transaction but annual compensation indefinitely. I have not been informed of any funds which have been set aside for when the pipeline eventually becomes decommissioned. This is of the UTMOST importance to the land owner. There needs to be a public monetary trust in place for the eventual demise of fossil fuels and the disposal of the piping in the ROW.

Ian Cooke 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 DO NOT SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT STRIP OF LAND THEY WANT...WHEN THEY WILL WANT IT....OR FOR HOW LONG.! How am I supposed to determine what is fair compensation for such a open-ended, nebulous deal. ? Even the markers for the present pipeline cannot be used as they say they MAY be inaccurate. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, that Kinder Morgan ''GO AROUND MY PROPERTY'' /

WADE almost 2 years ago

You are mandated to regulate cross-border energy transmission in the public interests, to benefit Canadians socially, economically and environmentally, so why are we doubling down on bitumen and gas? Climate change is real, it's now, it's us, it's bad and we can change it, but we need to start immediately. Live up to your mandate and stop aproving polluting fossil fuels.

Kent almost 2 years ago

Decision-making: Draw up 5 year plans to guide development in the best direction. Set up a branch of Canadian Standards Association to establish guidelines and regulations, using their system of expert input, review, consultation by email telephone and meetings across Canada. Major decisions e.g. over 45 km. of pipeline, independent of adjacent pipelines, are to be directed to Parliament for approval, rejection, or approval subject to provisions.

Legislative Tools: Translate information into the languages spoken by the people within 200km, and who are related to the lands involved. Enforce emergency protocols: emergency preparedness, contact info, double encasement of pipelines, and inspections by independent inspectors.

Indigenous involvement: Demand parliament sign UNDRIP. Organize community meetings to discuss 5-year plans and proposed projects. Lower the price for renewably generated electricity for remote communities.

Public participation: Require inclusion of BAPE recommendations in decision-making. Consult similar to the Office of Consultation Publique de Montreal.

Claire Adamson almost 2 years ago

NEB Modernisation
Submitted by Claire Adamson, retired Architect in Montreal

Most important, Stop order on Energy East, and all pipelines, dams, and energy installations until after results from modernisation consultation input is accommodated.

Governance: Replace the NEB with a proportionately represented elected Sustainability Council. National office to be in Ottawa, with neighbourhood councils throughout Canada. Communication by website, email, written, telephone, and in person. Establish a Canadian Science Adviser and require a report by the adviser for 5-year plans, projects, and as required.

Mandate: All factors involved in sustainability: reducing climate change, healthy lifestyle, food security, innovation, employment, world affairs. Ask 1st Nations to define zones of serious consequences, HCAs, so that energy planners have clear information about routes, before construction plans are started.

Claire Adamson almost 2 years ago

I feel we are potentially asking the wrong questions here. I feel your Discussion papers are quite well done, but from comments here it appears the majority of Canadians do not clearly understand either the mandate of the NEB versus the GIC, nor the statutes that govern both. Many of the comments ask for changes that are impossible, or at least not within the purview of the NEB by itself, some in conflict with various constitutional clauses.
I feel the key problem to be solved or worked on first is communication between the public, government and industry. Because of social media, we have more tools but are challenged to be more thorough and at a more down-to-earth level of discussion to enable a better conversation to be had.
I think the last point to note that is not understood at all by many commenters is that the purpose of government is to make tough decisions that not all will ever agree with, but will hopefully improve the welfare of most Canadians. We cannot and do not live in a country where consensus decisions are made by government. It is not practical to have 35 million people vote on a pipeline decision, and as we saw with previous hearings, it is quite impractical to even hear about 3,000 people comment on a pipeline decision. In any event, all Canadians need to trust in government decisions and follow them, even if they don't agree with them. We need to work on a communication plan to help with that first, regarding both the NEB and any other significant work the government does.
Best of luck with your work, I look forward to seeing the results.

Karenspencer11 almost 2 years ago

NEB needs to stop simply approving big energy proposals to increase rates on paying clients/ consumers!!
There should be public concensus .... frequently hydro, enbridge etc big energy companies ask NEB to raise rates by per xxx because they need to generate/make xxx amount - but frequently what the reality is, is that these companies CAN deal with costs of operating, expanding if they stop wasteful the excessive frivolous spending, cease constant excessive expensive perks/travel/lavish hospitality for social networking that consumers never benefit from and deal with over bloated salaries and bonuses of management instead on placing the recoup of spent/lost money on consumers!
NEB has a duty of care and responsibility to us to not allow for us to suffer while others reap even MORE benefits at consumers exspense - NEB has totally failed consumers in this regard, as you participate and operate in the same mannerism as those wealthy companies who just get wealthier because of what you allow and approve on the breaking backs of the people!!!

cd almost 2 years ago

NEB should have at its disposition drones to enhance its review process and the assessment of certain pipeline sections or issues;, facilitate Panels' (and Intervenors') viewing of critical areas of interest or potential impacts; such drones could also be used during construction and operation oversight to assist with compliance verification or inspections for example. Alternately, it could be required of proponents of major projects as filing requirements to enhanced its project submissions of certain areas or sections with visual such as videos / images captured by drones; or to enhanced any condition compliance filings. This would enhance transparency and possibly assit in building trust and confidence in pipeline construction and operation.

Katou175 almost 2 years ago

It is absolutely essential that the Board be able to work independently and that measures are in place to make its operations and determinations transparent.

Marilyn McKim almost 2 years ago

Doig River First Nation has shared a document on the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

Doig River First Nation almost 2 years ago

Polaris Solutions Inc. has shared four documents on the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download them, click below:


Document 1


Document 2


Document 3


Document 4

Polaris Solutions Inc. almost 2 years ago