ARCHIVED – Land Matters Group Advisory Committee (AC) Minutes – 22 May 2019

Meeting at Le Germain Hotel (Twin A Room)
Wednesday, 22 May, 2019
8:00 am to 4:00 pm (MST)

In Attendance

In Attendance

Tracy Sletto, A/Chair & Executive Vice Chair Transparency & Strategic Engagement, NEB	Bridget Oliveira, (Engagement Specialist and LMG Project Manager), NEB
Lynn Jacobson, Canadian Federation of Agriculture	Larry Yurkiw, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association / Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
Alisha Bhura, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association	Melissa Mathieson, (Guest), NEB
Lisanne Bazinet, Natural Resources Canada Via teleconference	Isabelle Bouffard, Union des producteurs agricoles
Anne-Marie Erickson, (Technical Leader, Land Matters), NEB	Paul Georgison, (Technical Leader, Stakeholder Engagement), NEB
Michael Benson, (Guest), NEB	Rebecca Vanderspiegel, (Guest), NEB
Carey Patterson, Alberta Energy Regulator	Beatrix Gokey, Natural Resources Canada, (Guest)
James Stevenson, (Guest), NEB	Judi Leeming, BC Farmers' Advocate Office
Brodie Allen, International Right of Way Association	Albert Louie, NEB, (Guest)
Graeme Wright, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association / TransCanada	Marc Drolet, NEB, (Guest)
Laura Randall, NEB,(Guest)	Suchaet Bhardwaj, NEB, (Guest)
Patrick Sprague, NEB, (Guest),	Calen Henry, NEB, (Guest)
Alison Taylor, NEB, (Guest)	Alasdair Stuart-Bell, NEB (Guest)
Joanne St-Onge, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Guest)	Stephanie Lane, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Guest)
Joel Allan, NEB, (Guest)	Chantal Briand, NEB, (Guest)
Frank Annau, Canadian Federation of Agriculture (via teleconference)	Sandra Elliot (Administrative Support), NEB

Meeting Items

1. Welcome/Introductions

• See list of attendees

2. Review of 20 February, 2018 meeting minutes and agenda

• 20 February meeting minutes approved
• Agenda approved

3. Current priorities – Roundtable

• Roundtable: Updates were received from all participants

International Right of Way Association (IRWA)

• Explained they are membership driven with approximately 2000 members in Region 10 and that professional development is a priority for their organization. As part of this Committee, the IRWA is looking to strengthen their relationship with the NEB, their Canadian Pipeline course is in draft and currently being piloted. They are holding their Annual Education Conference in June 2019 in Portland, Oregon and between 12,000 – 15,000 members are expected to attend. The IRWA’s elections are coming up soon with new appointees as early as next year.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture

• Indicated that the CFA has been experiencing trade issues, i.e.: China.
• Bill C-69 and Bill C-49 are top of mind and they have been very active on these files.
• Pipeline Abandonment is also a concern.

BC Farmers’ Advocate Office

• Indicated that their office’s contract was extended for 3 months and they are waiting for further information on funding approvals from both the provincial and regional governments.
• They have been busy dealing with the Coastal Gaslink Project in relation to commercial recreation areas, as well as jurisdictional issues that have arisen around who regulates what.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

• Deferred to CEPA to provide an update.

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA)

• Bill C-69 and updates to Regulations are a priority for CEPA, including providing feedback on the Bill and Discussion Papers both inside and outside of this Committee.

Union des producteurs agricoles

• Indicated that with the increased need to utilize gas in the agricultural sector, the Quebec government’s renewable energy agenda has had many implications for this sector.
• The proposed “Gazoduc” project in Ontario and Northern Québec is significant to them and they will be monitoring this project closely given its implications for the forestry and agricultural sectors.
• Indicated they are very active with Modernization initiatives related to Bill C-69.
• Questions were raised about the timing of the Bill’s passage and the upcoming elections, and the possibility of the Bill dying on the order paper and implications to all of the work that the NEB is currently involved in.

Alberta Energy Regulator

• Mentioned the Provincial elections being complete and the fact there is much work to do given the new government’s priorities.
• The recruitment for the AER’s CEO is still underway and they have extended the interim CEO’s appointment.
• Much work is underway in relation to abandonment and liability and lenders in an effort to rebuild confidence in the energy industry in Alberta.
• Indicated that they are also working on a big initiative called the Integrated Decision-Making Approach that will allow for a more holistic and broader view of project reviews.

TC Energy

• Highlighted the name change from TransCanada to TC Energy to better reflect markets.
• Mentioned they are involved in applications at every stage of projects.
• Indicated that many of their projects face jurisdictional challenges.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

• Updates were provided, on the following matters: GIC appointments and TMX are priorities, Bill C-69 implementation, providing advice to Governor in Council on the Nova Gas 2021 extension project and familiarizing themselves with the Gazoduq project.

National Energy Board (NEB)

• An update on Bill C-69 was provided including the review stage before the Senate, proposed amendments, and next steps including the possible coming into force this summer.
• Briefly discussed the recruitment process and new leadership selection for the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), including independent commissioners, the Board of Directors (BOD), and eventually the new CEO, which would occur after the BOD has been established.
• Mentioned the initial terms of coming into force, including the Transition Provision under the proposed Bill and continuation of projects.
• Mentioned that much work is underway to ensure the effective implementation of the Bill by advancing on Regulations which will in turn ensure certainty and predictability.
• Provided a brief overview of the Discussions Papers released in early May, including: Time Management Regulations; Power Line Damage Prevention Regulations; and Indigenous Knowledge., Other Discussion Papers will be released in early June on Cost Apportionment and Designated Officers.
• Mentioned the existing political framework and the importance of Indigenous principles, best practices and knowledge.
• Reiterated that all of the work that is underway including comments and suggestions are being noted regardless of whether Bill passes.
• An opportunity for LMG AC members to ask questions was provided. One of the questions pertained to what happens if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent. There was mention that a strategy would be put into place on how to move forward in this situation.

4. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) Modernization Secretariat

• An update on Bill C-69 was provided including the review stage before the Senate, proposed amendments, and next steps including the possible coming into force this summer.
• Briefly discussed the recruitment process and new leadership selection for the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), including independent commissioners, the Board of Directors (BOD), and eventually the new CEO, which would occur after the BOD has been established.
• Mentioned the initial terms of coming into force, including the Transition Provision under the proposed Bill and continuation of projects.
• Mentioned that much work is underway to ensure the effective implementation of the Bill by advancing on Regulations which will in turn ensure certainty and predictability.
• Provided a brief overview of the Discussions Papers released in early May, including: Time Management Regulations; Power Line Damage Prevention Regulations; and Indigenous Knowledge., Other Discussion Papers will be released in early June on Cost Apportionment and Designated Officers.
• Mentioned the existing political framework and the importance of Indigenous principles, best practices and knowledge.
• Reiterated that all of the work that is underway including comments and suggestions are being noted regardless of whether Bill passes.
• An opportunity for LMG AC members to ask questions was provided. One of the questions pertained to what happens if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent. There was mention that a strategy would be put into place on how to move forward in this situation.

5. Governance update including an overview and approach to onboarding GIC appointees

• The CER governance structure and approach to onboarding GIC appointees was discussed.
• The CER Act introduces a new governance structure which includes: A Board of Directors, led by a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson; a Commission, which is led by a Lead Commissioner and Deputy Lead Commissioner; and a CEO.
• Trust, transparency and a collaborative environment were identified as key components.
• Input was received on the proposed approach and the following feedback was provided: Members highlighted the importance of experiential learning for GIC Appointees including visiting landowners and hearing firsthand the issues they have. This was affirmed as a necessary part of any onboarding plans. There was also mention of the need to avoid overloading new board members and commissioners with information. Technical excellence was also raised as an important consideration in the selection process. More specifically, when dealing with certain issues, it may require a specific type of expertise, but this is not always readily available.
• Input was also received on clarifying and simplifying the draft diagram of the proposed governance structure, so it may be used as a public communications and educational tool.

6. Continuity Update including an overview of the approach to transition the NEB to the CER

• An overview of the approach to NEB-CER continuity was shared with members to provide an opportunity for feedback.
• Feedback included: the importance of providing clear and consistent information to the public, regulatory certainty, multiple platforms to communicate change and to ensure updates are provided.
• There was mention that many things would remain the same for landowners and how they interact with the NEB/CER.
• One main change includes the creation of the Land Matters Advisory Service, which will provide a one-window approach for landowners to engage with the CER.

7. Communications and Engagement Update

• It was noted that if the Bill received Royal Assent, there would be a commitment to communicate more actively. Methods will include a new website and traditional engagement channels such as email will continue.
• The Committee was asked to provide feedback on NEB/CER communications methods and products. Input included the need for information packages, handouts or one pagers for distribution, ensuring all publications are updated and include consistent information. Committee members noted that it is important for stakeholder groups to be provided with key messages relating to updates and changes that they can in turn communicate directly to their members in a plain, simple manner without causing confusion and information overload.

8. Assessment Initiatives

• An overview of assessment initiatives was provided, including a presentation of the draft early engagement guide for companies.
• Feedback was sought from the Committee on how to facilitate broad public participation while meeting established timelines. Areas of focus included: ensuring that those impacted by the project are meaningfully engaged; challenges and benefits with automatic intervenor status for impacted individuals and groups; and opportunities for digital or other innovations for participation.
• Input received included the need for:
  • transparency in early engagement, including how compensation and land acquisition will be dealt with at the forefront;
  • clarity on the difference between pre-qualification for intervenor status vs. automatic intervenor status;
  • clear rules and expectations around notifications;
  • consultation to be done properly and clarity on expectations on consultation;
  • to clarity the roles and powers of Designated Officers vs. Commissioners;
  • predictability and firmness with regard to timelines;
  • a better explanation on the weight given to a comment letter vs an intervenor letter taking into account the risks of doing so;
  • consider the weight given to possible future harms;
  • creativity around how we can improve existing tools and;
  • ongoing discussion and consultation on the aforementioned assessment initiatives.
• An update was provided on the follow-up work done so far in response to the feedback provided by Committee members at the 20 Feb. 2019 workshop.”

9. Presentation from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

• An overview of the Discussion Paper on the Proposed Project List and the Discussion Paper on Information Requirements and Time Management Regulatory Proposal was provided.
• Committee members inquired as to whether there is a definition of undisturbed areas for oil and gas projects.
• Feedback was provided on the need to ensure that the concept of right of way is clear given that this is new under the Impact Assessment Act.
• Clarity was sought around the change from 40 km to 75 km and whether there are any implications related to existing trade agreements.
• Concern was noted around companies segmenting projects to get approvals.
• Clarity was sought regarding time-out criteria, and whether the proponent has the opportunity to comment on a time-out request.

10. Updates from NEB Regulatory Groups

• An overview of the Consultation Paper on CER Time Management Regulations was provided.
• Committee members suggested a tool that cross-references NEB Act sections (such as sections 52 and 58) with the associated sections under the new CER Act.
• Regarding the new 40 km threshold, concerns were raised about this being used as a measure of impact rather than the actual impacts on landowners. Clarity was provided that this threshold determines the decision maker rather than the degree of scrutiny applied.
• An overview of the Consultation Paper on Power Line Damage Prevention Regulations was provided.
• Committee feedback included questioning the need for the same definition of ground disturbance for power lines as there is for pipelines. Unless the power line is buried, it was suggested that there be no restrictions for ground disturbance.
• Questions were raised about the implications for landowners moving vehicles and mobile equipment across (underneath) power lines.
• Concern was also raised about increasing complexity and confusion for landowners regarding the damage prevention regulatory regime, especially when provincial regulatory requirements may also be in place.
• In response to this feedback, it was noted by NEB staff that this presents a need and opportunity for the NEB/CER and its regulated industry to enhance their awareness campaigns and practices to provide better clarity for farmers and landowners.

11. Land Specific Initiatives

• Update and overview of the proposed dispute resolution process for compensation was provided
• Input was received on the importance of recognizing that issues will vary depending on the region.
• An overview of the proposed Land Matters Advisory Service and its Terms of Reference was presented.
• Input was received on the need for transparency between the ADR processes and when an application is filed with the Commission.

12. Website Renewal Project

• A presentation was provided on the website renewal project including next steps. Interested members were given the opportunity to set up one-on-one meetings with Jumping Elephants to discuss website changes and improvements. Ease of website navigation was identified as being key.

13. Follow up items and next meeting

• Follow-up meetings between NEB staff and the UPA were requested to discuss the UPA’s specific questions about further clarifying the role of the Commission(ers).
• A conference call would be organized with the LMG AC sometime in the first two weeks of June to further discuss Public Participation and Early Engagement.
• A commitment was made to provide updates to the LMG AC members on the continued transition to the CER.
• Options for a next meeting were discussed with members and it was agreed that this would depend on outcomes of Bill C-69.

14. Adjournment

• Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm MST.