National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Common menu bar

• Français
• Home
• Contact Us
• Help
• Search
• canada.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

LMCI Meeting Summary - Association de propriétaires privés, agricoles (acéricoles) et forestiers (apPAF) - 24 April 2008

24 April 2008
7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Victoriaville, Québec

Stream 1 - Company Interactions with Landowners

• The Board should require companies to do soil studies before construction and during operation to check for contamination on the rights-of-way (section by section, for all facilities).
• The NEB could use this information to assess the condition of gas pipelines.
• Soil studies are very expensive and are required by the financial institutions. The proponent should pay for them.
• Development of standard contracts with all possible clauses (so that landowners better understand their rights) - no framework agreement like the one with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec (UPA).
• Royalties should be a new form of compensation.
• One-time payment does not work (no present value adjustment).
• The Association de propriétaires privés, agricoles (acéricoles) et forestiers (apPAF) would like the NEB to recognize it as the association that represents Quebec landowners - apPAF would like to work in close co-operation with the NEB.
• Temporary operating zone during construction.
• Liability and gross negligence.
• Difficult to define gross negligence.
• Landowners should have full immunity.
• Even in the event of gross negligence or an intentional incident, it is not necessarily the landowner who is liable - Example: if the subcontractor is not advised of the pipeline's presence, who is responsible?
• Problem relating to burden of proof for landowners - they do not necessarily have data or photos dating back to prior to a pipeline's construction - e.g., difficult to prove that crop losses or contamination are caused by the pipeline.
• Companies have all the odds in their favour and some landowners have initiated action and lost a lot of money.
• Response time when the right-of-way has to be crossed: three business day = too long.
• There should be a hotline, seven days a week: need for rapid response because farming never stops and depends on the weather.
• Proponents should adapt to landowners rather than landowners having to adapt to the pipelines.
• Decompacting and rehabilitation - should be adapted to crop type - e.g., for organic farming, the soil has to be decompacted to a greater depth, i.e., 70 m rather than the 30 m set out in the regulations.
• Impact of the pipeline on certification is not known: risk of losing “organic” certification.
• No contracts should be in perpetuity; the lifetime of a pipeline is limited, and a fixed and final duration should be stipulated. Environmental standards change from one day to the next, and if the standards require changes and the pipeline has adverse effects, the company that owns the pipeline should pay for them. And if necessary, the company should buy the landowner's property outright, at its market value.

Stream 2 - Improving Access of NEB Processes

• The NEB should have proof that 90% of the people affected are in favour of the company's project before approving it, and the NEB should be required to investigate to ensure that this is "real" support for the project.
• The attitude of agents (companies' representatives) is not always acceptable. They often use threats to get signatures - e.g., threat of expropriation.
• Landowners would like companies to cover their legal expenses, including lawyers, notaries and others, from beginning to end of the process - lack of resources for landowners.
• Development and implementation of a compensation fund, financed by the industry, for landowners' defence.
• Experts are very expensive and landowners cannot afford them, but they should be able to access expertise.
• The NEB should follow up in the event of leaks and do the necessary inspections to ensure the work has been done correctly and that decontamination work has been done.
• What recourse do landowners have in the event of leaks or improperly done work?  Complaints? Legal action? Obligation of the landowners or the companies? All members of the public affected by a project should receive all the information about everything pertaining to a pipeline.
• Information on incidents is often late.
• Landowners should be involved in the selection of a route.
• Pipelines should run along roads - would make monitoring by users possible (take advantage of existing standards) and reduce deforestation and any constraints to the owner caused by a pipeline, and eliminate the stress to the landowner caused by the pipeline.
• Alternatives with the least impact should be studied (independents, other experts), and these studies should be funded.
• Landowners are not able to submit studies during hearings, which is a violation of their rights because the costs of these studies are too high.
• Supervision should be done by people with expertise (who have the requisite knowledge). Inspections planned with UPA do not cover all landowners (they cover farmers only).
• Landowners would like to be able to enjoy their land without worrying about the safety zone (using increasingly heavy equipment).
• Compensation for loss of enjoyment (30 m) - compensation for having to notify the company and plan ahead. Landowners are concerned about the impact on their quality of life and the stress caused by the proximity of pipelines (safety zone).
• Unfortunately, stress is not seen as an actual loss and you cannot put a price on it, so there should be compensation for it.
• Landowners are concerned about declining values for lands affected by pipelines.
• Proponents should agree to pay the difference between the actual market price of the property and the value if the pipeline had not been built.
• The NEB should check whether companies are segmenting projects and then connecting them later - the NEB should implement a strategy for dealing with these situations.

Stream 4 - Pipeline Abandonment - Physical Issues

• This stream was not addressed because of a lack of time.
• The landowners are concerned about future generations.

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2011-10-28