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.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide input into the NEB modernization process. I have worked in the environment field for many years but I have never appeared before the board. However I have colleagues with some knowledge of Provincial energy regulators, through discussions with them and by following the large number of articles written I have developed and interest in the NEB modernization process.

the NEB considers itself a scientific organization, but based on the board bios, I don't think the organization can claim science and the environment as a strength, as there are not many board members with backgrounds in either science or the environment. Instead, they are lawyers, government types and industry insiders. This science gap needs attention by government during any future staffing actions.

Similarly indigenous and female representation is limited, I think there are four females board members. Its well established that corporate board decision making is enhanced with greater female participation.

Maybe like the new senator selection process an independent appointments committee needs to be created to assess appointments to this and other boards

T.E. Dowson over 2 years ago

many reports about the NEB are negative in tone and content and over time they have impacted public perception. Many Canadians have read about the NEBs troubles and they question the NEBs competence and ability to make decisions about energy development on behalf of Canadians.

It's difficult to see how the regulator can remain as is, given what has been written and what has been said by the current government itself. Minor changes won't wipe the slate clean or regain public trust, Mr. Trudeau and Mr Carr have both said trust has been lost. Even if the NEB was not broken, there is a perception that something is amiss, where there is smoke there is fire.

T.E. Dowson over 2 years ago

relocate the energy board to Ottawa. For most Canadians the single biggest part of their personal wealth is the value of the family home. Calgary real estate is driven by oil and gas, so every one working at the NEB in Calgary has a vested interest in supporting that sector.

How can a regulator comprised of people whose personal wealth is tied to the industry they regulate be expected to make decisions that are not in their personal interest? Review the NEB approval pipeline approval record and then ask if the organization is captured by industry?

T.E. Dowson over 2 years ago

In a recent national observer article Marc Eliesen suggests all board members should resign. While that is unlikely to occur it does raise questions regarding how and when to remove commissioners in a modernized board.

In a series of articles by the national observer, it appears the energy east disaster was the result of bad decision making by board leadership. Given the loss of trust arising from this incident it is surprising someone did not lose their job. Instead it appears the government added new members.

an independent oversight body for agencies such as the NEB should be created. This organization would deal with allegations of misconduct with processes for board member removal. the modernization panel might consider this as a means to re-establish public trust in the NEB.

Samuel Cobb over 2 years ago

I have been a participant in NEB hearings and have always come away feeling that the project will be given the go ahead because it is ALWAYS in the "public interest" as far as the Board is concerned. I would like to see this change so that public participation will be revitalized., so that the public really feel there is a chance that the energy project may be rejected if it is not ecologically sustainable.

I have the following thoughts for the Panel:
The "litmus test" for public interest must be ecologically sustainability. This must be a key element for approving or not approving the energy project.
The NEB must look at energy projects and require implementation of federal policies to reduce greenhouse gases and support transition to a low carbon future.
Indigenous peoples must be consulted and their words be given weight--they are the people of the land, they know what the ecological consequences of projects will be.
Environmental assessments for energy projects must be completed by independent panels.

I hope you will give weight to these comments and that they will generate change in the NEB.


B Collier over 2 years ago

Will my comments generate insightful change or will they be disregarded? These are the thoughts that run through the minds of anyone these days participating in events, submissions which "seek" one's input. Conglomerates, often offshore, seem to be the decision makers in our country. The National Energy Board needs to be designed to prevent this from occuring. All too frequently, participatory options such as what I am responding to today, are simply attempts to appease and distract from the fact that ordinary citizens are at the bottom of the pyramid of factions who are listened to. However, here I go. Stop pipelines and fracking. Pipelines are committing daily crimes with leakages that mostly go un noticed and unreported or without consequence to the companies who build and supposedly maintain them. We need to kickstart alternate energy generation and when it commences to oversee it without conflict of interest as has been the agenda of the current NEB and its all too cozy relationship with Big Oil. This technology is on the way out and while many nations worldwide acknowledge this and have changed their association with it in favour of more earth-friendly technologies, in Canada and the U.S. we are witnessing a last minute power/energy grab to scramble for profits before the big wave of reality hits. Board members need to be completely free of conflict of interest purposes. First Nations' needs adequate representation. Kinder Morgan is a prime example of all of the points I have made. It is a multinational Houston-based corporation exchanging their profit for our risk while exporting raw and unrefined oil in risky conditions. Enron execs are still a part of Kinder Morgan and too many names were a part of Enron. Their is a all too cozy relationship with these individuals and the NEB. WATER is our life-giving resource that we cannot afford to waste and destroy and yet the oil industry with leaks and fracking is poisoning that resource while government watches and does nothing. Well, we are watching. Make changes to the NEB and make them worthwhile or you might just as well not bother to waste my time.

Caring Resident over 2 years ago

In modernizing the NEB, first and foremost we need to see as citizens that this board is sitting to review energy projects that have the best-interests of all Canadians in mind: currently it appears that this board has ties to the fossil-fuel industry and other energy industry proponents. The optics of the make-up of sitting board members frankly makes this citizen consider the possibility that this board may well be a corrupted institution.

I support the views of Marc Eliesen:

"Remove all current board members and replace them with people that reflect a broad range of background and expertise, not just the oil and gas industry. And secondly, relocate the NEB’s head office back to Ottawa."

This board needs to serve the best interests of all Canadians, therefore, the location of offices in Calgary, again, sends this citizen the message that the board may be corrupted, and that current members are sitting on the board to service the needs of their funders-industry proponents.

I would like to see this board established with sitting members who are energy and energy-technology experts. I'd like to see a cross-section of individuals who understand the need for Canada to transition away from reliance economically on the fossil-fuel sectors of the energy industry. I'd like to see this board empowered to work proactively and to act as a watchdog of Governments.

I'd also like to see representation on this board by a First Nations person who has a background and who is environmentally conscious.

I'd like to see the board engaged in drafting a strategy for energy in Canada that defines a standardized process for both settler and First Nations consultation on projects, and I'd like to see more opportunities for citizens to input directly to the board when projects are under consideration.

Modernizing the NEB, I believe, walks in hand with any efforts we wish to make towards modernizing our democracy on-the-whole. Citizen engagement is improving, with opportunities such as this acting as evidence to support that our Government values citizen input into decision-making; however, we've a long ways still to go before we witness a truly functional, citizen-engaged democratic process in Canada.

Such modernization is required for this board, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as well.

All who sit in these systems in representing Canadian Citizens and the best interests of all Canadians need to be Canadians who's reputation, integrity, and objectivity are unquestionable.

As it is with Canada's Senate, so I see these boards, including the NEB:

These should be Citizen Boards, either elected or appointed, or positions filled through application. Those with merit, meaning those with impeccable backgrounds and who carry a strong background in knowledge of our energy sector on the whole, who are committed to a transition away from fossil-fuels towards a clean energy environment and a clean energy economy are who this citizen wants to see Canadians represented, and this must include First Nations representation, with modernization of the board inclusive of the principles of reconciliation on which I believe all decisions made in Canada currently must first rest.

DMG over 2 years ago

Though, it is understood that expertise and experience in the energy industry is essential to any regulatory board, it is just as essential to have expertise and experience in the resulting impacts of energy development upon regulatory boards.
It would be good to see less industry blind supporters and more, well-reasoned critics, who know both the value of our energy industry, as well as the importance of our nation, itself to be on these boards.
More oversight, less rubber stamping.

Mdburchell over 2 years ago

Wayne Olson has shared a document to the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

W. Olson over 2 years ago

On January 26, 2017, the National Energy Board gave approval to a 35-kilometre pipeline expansion project across rural lands from the village of Westover to the Enbridge junction at Nebo Road. This Line 10 project lies entirely within the city of Hamilton, Ontario.

The installation of such new fossil fuel infrastructure is directly opposed to the scientific consensus demanding rapid reductions in the burning of fossil fuels. This will be challenging, but the absolute minimum first step required of all governments is to stop making the climate crisis worse. That requires opposing all new fossil fuel infrastructure – including both extraction and transportation.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals agreed that the National Energy Board process was broken and promised to replace it. Justin Trudeau specifically pointed to the failure of the NEB to consider climate change, and to respect indigenous rights. That remains the case today, both generally and with respect to its review and approval of the Line 10 project. And this is despite the fact that this proposal was only accepted for review by the NEB several months after the Liberal government assumed office.

The Prime Minister should overrule the NEB decision and stop the Line 10 project. It should not be reconsidered until the reformed NEB and CEAA processes are in place, including a science-based evaluation of the impacts of this project on climate change, and appropriate treatment of indigenous rights.

NEB reforms may be too late for Hamilton and its residents. The old broken process is what the NEB used to approve the Line 10 project. This is unreasonable. Climate impacts were not considered. The broken indigenous consultation process was denounced by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute. And the highly restrictive public participation rules imposed by the previous federal government prevented appropriate participation by residents.

The Line 10 expansion project is part of a 143-km pipeline running from Enbridge’s Line 9 hub in the Village of Westover across the Niagara River and international boundaries to New York State. By conducting its expansion of Line 10 in pieces less than 40 km in length, Enbridge avoided examination of its project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This avoidance loophole must be corrected as part of the reforms the Liberal government has promised to CEAA.

Neal Bonnor over 2 years ago

Dennis McConaghy and Harold Kvisle have shared a document to the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

DJM and HNK over 2 years ago

The Q’ul-lhanumutsun Aquatic Resources Society has shared a document to the National Energy Board Modernization Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

QARS over 2 years ago

David Huntley has shared a document to the National Energy Board Modernization
Expert Panel website. To download it, click here.

David Huntley1 over 2 years ago

The new National Energy Board members MUST be made up of individuals that have NO CONNECTION to the oil and gas industries, but have an extensive knowledge of environmental practices, First Nations rights and attitudes and knowledge of sustainable alternative energy technologies that WILL REPLACE the oil and gas industries if Canada is to reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals by 2030. If nothing changes there will be further degradation of land and marine ecosystems and global warming that will result in $Trillions of drought, famine, flooding, wildfires, and other severe weather anomalies.

Mr. Rafe Sunshine over 2 years ago

The panel had two meetings with the National Energy Board, six meetings with other groups and one meeting with an individual before any of the public sessions. Could you please post all of these submissions.

David Huntley over 2 years ago

Stop ripping off Canadians Nationally with Energy by a rogue Board fancying greed off the public obviously not doing their jobs based on Acts, Legislation and Laws! DO YoUr JObS aS MANdatEd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CookinNBakin over 2 years ago

There is only one way to modernize the NEB- prioritize renewable technologies, and stop building pipelines, and stop fracking. Anything else, given the history of pipeline rupture into our waterways, lakes and rivers- is nonsensical.

Please research geothermal in Iceland, and solar in California, and take the best practices of renewable technologies internationally as the basis of ending pipeline building to the tar sands in Canada. We are destroying our land and water to profit other countries.

Also, please stop denying that the forest fires in Fort McMurray were not created by tar sands emissions. There was no snow pack in the forests to stop these fires from spreading, as there has been historically before these companies were built, and the causation of heat from the emissions from the tar sands companies in this area drying this ground to permit this vast area of the fire is obvious.

Elizabeth over 2 years ago

When will the Feb 8/9, 2017 Vancouver sessions comment link be online?

Lynn Perrin over 2 years ago

As far as future mandate is concerned the NEB should be promoting and researching renewal energy. In particular it should support and study the viability of deep borehole geothermal energy than NRCAN has stated could provide base load electrical power generation for all of Canada's needs. In this undeveloped power source deep hot brine from the Western Canadian Sedimentary basin is pumped to the surface and passed through a heat exchanger. The withdrawn heat is used to power a turbine in a secondary loop using an organic fluid with a low boiling point.

DennisL over 2 years ago

All National Energy Board reviews must address Canada’s climate change targets and related international obligations around reducing GHG emissions. Science-based GHG targets and doing our fair share to reduce emissions must be part of the consideration for approval of any new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Project assessments should question the extent to which energy infrastructure either helps achieve or hinders our federal commitment to the Paris agreement and the pan-Canadian climate framework.

The NEB needs to consider, and draw decision makers attention to, the degree to which a project approval will increase total Canadian GHG emissions.

The economic viability of projects needs to be better assessed, taking into consideration the overriding goal of the government and Paris signatories to transitioning off of fossil fuels. It makes no sense for the NEB to approve projects that put us on a path to either furthering dependence on fossil fuels, or building mega-projects that will soon become stranded assets.

To ensure that data used for decision making is science based and unbiased, the NEB must use experts other than the proponent to provide key information.
The legitimacy of the NEB modernization process hinges on the extent to which it can ensure the full participation of diverse Indigenous groups and lo0cal communities in the modernization review. The NEB should actively support involvement of all interested parties and the public as a key component of evidence gathering, decision-making and monitoring. Interested parties should have access to the information, resources and expertise required to present their interests and cross-examine proponent information.

Energy regulators should ensure frequent and credible life cycle monitoring and oversight of projects it approves. The NEB should work closely and cooperatively with the EA process.

joleary over 2 years ago