ARCHIVED – Land Matters Group Steering Committee – Meeting Summary – 20 December 2012

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Land Matters Group Steering Committee – Meeting Summary – 20 December 2012 [PDF 133 KB]

Land Matters Group Steering Committee (LMGSC)
Thursday, 20 December 2012
8:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
NEB Hearing Room

  • Isabelle Bouffard, Deborah Eastlick, Rachel Forbes, Elvin Gowman, Barry Jardine, Jamie Kereliuk, Pierre Lemieux, Greg Northey and Philippe Reicher.
  • Shirley Benson, Jason Laronde, Jeff Paetz, and Gary Redmond



1. Welcome

Agenda confirmed

2. Round Table Updates

All: committee members shared current projects or issues of interest from their organizations

3. Updates

Updates from previous meeting:

  • Administrative Monetary Penalties
    • Gazette I targeted for January 2013
    • Looking forward to NEB plan for Public Awareness of changes
    • Policy/implementation development – SC requests input opportunity
  • LMG Newsletter
    • Propose 2-3 issues per year
    • Some suggest list of references at beginning, with hyperlinks; others prefer keeping content within newsletter
    • Suggest providing an option for recipient to receive plain text
  • LMG sub-committees
    • Karine Simard outlined the proposed process for closing out sub-committees 1.1 and 4.4.
  • Pipeline Abandonment Research Steering Committee
    • Alan Pentney provided update of committee status
    • Participants reminded CEPA and NEB representatives of June LMGSC recommendation that there be similar non-industry representation on the research committee as there had been on 4.4
    • It is important to have transparency of the research committee documentation
    • There is a need for clear and timely comment mechanism on committee decisions
    • In terms of inviting non-industry participants, request that CEPA reconsider the make-up of the committee and clearly communicate importance that they reconsider their decision as to the composition of the committee
    • Important that PTAC studies be seen to be credible by non-industry too


  • Have PTAC communicate rationale + re-consider decision;
  • Jamie to request CEPA/PTAC reconsider LMGSC’s recommendation and report outcome to LMGSC
  • Jamie, Ziad, Philippe, Alan to meet and discuss approach

4. NEB response to Public Involvement Recommendations


  • Could develop guidelines and timelines for notification of public meetings;
  • Request more details about how the NEB will implement more verification (i.e. how will NEB ensure consultation is appropriate?)
  • Request that NEB expectations be clearer – easier to know whether the expectations are being met;
  • Would some “prescriptive” elements improve clarity and outcome?
  • GAP: there is a need for quicker access to NEB processes when there is an issue with consultation early in process (rather than after application is filed).
  • Suggest a consultation “guide” be developed to raise NEB and industry awareness around regional or association group “best practice” experience; perhaps a role for a new LMG subcommittee to develop the guide (similar to guidelines that some Aboriginal groups have developed).
  • Provide “consultation plan” to NEB prior to submitting project description
  • NEB Consultation guidelines need to have milestones, minimum threshold of information that proponents must provide to public (minimum de base respectueux et minimum d’information).
  • ERCB provides guidance to landowners that aligns with expectations for proponents – subsequent to the meeting, Deborah provided the following:
    • Here is the link to Directive 56 – our application requirements. Within it, Section 2 contains the PI requirements.
    • Also, this is the link to the PI FAQs for Directive 56.
    • And finally, this is our Landowner's Guide to Proposed Oil and Gas Development. This document contains the hyperlinked table of contents that Greg was suggesting. It also has a PDF version that you can select which makes it easier to download.
  • NEB to update Filing Manual requirements based on Board’s October reply correspondence.


  • Land Agent Conduct:
    • CEPA (land issues working group) is surveying training for land agents best practices and existing company codes of conduct; plans to be able to share findings within 3-4 months.

5. Damage prevention

  • NEB to issue Discussion Paper in 2-4 weeks (includes management system, 1-call and call before you dig requirements); a 45 day comment period is expected.
  • Participants stressed that effective communication of DP requirements is paramount.

6. 2012 Review

Suggestions included:

  • Need stronger engagement of SC membership
  • Could use stronger terms of reference
  • we need to have clear expectations (avoid lofty broad goals), with more focus on specific goals
  • include long-term projects and short-term projects
  • More focus on building consensus at a group level and on individual files

On the positive side:

  • Appreciate the commitment to initiative so far
  • Good sharing of perspectives, common understanding
  • getting to know each other; opportunity for candid conversations
  • unique group; willing to be open, which might benefit the NEB; can develop solutions together
  • international perspective is positive
  • helps to understand federal and provincial expectations

7. 2013 Planning

  • Overview of Provincial expectations
  • Alberta pipeline safety review: guest presenter
  • Outcome – moving towards common expectations
  • Notifications – develop better guidance
  • Land agent conduct – Guidance needed
  • Physical issues of abandonment
  • Focus on specific deliverables
  • Aboriginal issues: describe how the NEB has crown consultation covered
  • How do we move our ideas to practice/implementation?
  • Improve communication on the role of the LMGSC through Newsletter and Synergy Groups
  • New regulations: AMPs; Damage Prevention
  • Language issues: engaging francophones in the regulatory process
  • Aboriginal Involvement: Important to involve/offer participation
  • Aboriginal issues might be very different: seek feedback from Aboriginal participants on LMGSC process
  • Suggest inviting Aboriginal communities with pipelines within traditional territories


  • Review Terms of Reference and provide suggested revisions
  • Approved LMGSC meeting notes to be posted on NEB website
  • Prepare a review of 2012
  • Prepare a draft workplan for 2013

8. LMGSC Evaluation: Possible Criteria

Possible elements:

  • Has it been positive for me?
  • Has it been positive for the NEB?
  • Have we achieved our purpose?
  • Bring together knowledge/expertise
  • Further participation of members in community discussions
  • Are we preventing problems (proactive)
  • Ongoing score card tied to the mandate of the LMGSC

9. Adjournment


Date modified: