Land Matters Group Advisory Committee (LMAC AC) Meeting Summary Notes - Meeting - 11-12 February 2025

In-person Meeting
11-12 February 2025

Participants:

LMG Project Working Group:

Suzanne Brown, Director, Public Participation
Amber Butterworth, Socio-Economic Analyst, Engagement
Véronique Duhamel, Director of Engagement
Paul Georgison, Technical Leader, Construction Oversight
Carole Léger-Kubeczek, Socio-Economic Analyst, LMG Coordinator
Mélanie Loisel, Socio-Economic Analyst, Eastern Region
Lisa Zaplachinski, Socio-Economic Analyst

Absent:

Darcy Allen (Alberta Farmers’ Advocate Office)
Anne-Marie Erickson, Technical Leader, Public Participation
Shannon Neufeld, Technical Leader, Safety and Damage Prevention
Nadia Prévost-Lowry, Socio-Economic Analyst, Eastern Region

CER Presenters:

Dan Dalidowicz, Emergency Management Officer, Emergency Management and Security
Anna DeCarlo, Technical Leader, Audit, Enforcement & Investigation
Sarah Ebbern, Technical Specialist, Programs and Evaluation
Marie-Ève Latour, Regulatory Compliance Officer, Audit, Enforcement & Investigation
Carly Milne, Vice President, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation
Len Seefried, Group Leader, Environmental Protection
Melanie Stogran, Technical Specialist, Energy Markets

Day 1

Meeting Opening

• Meeting officially opened by Marc Pauzé
• CEO opening remarks
  • Tracy Sletto welcomed the group and highlighted the importance of the CER’s strategic priorities, including Reconciliation, regulatory excellence, energy future, as well as building trust and confidence.

Review and Approval of Meeting Agenda and Meeting Minutes

• Approval of the meeting agenda
• Approval of the November 2024 Minutes
• Land Acknowledgement

Land Matters Booklet

Speaker: Lisa Zaplachinski, Socio-economic Specialist

Attendees separated into smaller groups to discuss a draft of the Land Matters Booklet. This Booklet provides a summary of key land related matters, and it is primarily intended for landowners and land professionals. Requested feedback was prompted with the following questions:

• Does the booklet capture all the topics that would likely be relevant or of interest to landowners? If not, which topics should be added or removed?
• Is the information in the booklet of sufficient detail for a quick reference/overview of landrelated processes at the CER?
  • What are your thoughts on the amount of text in the booklet?
  • What are your thoughts on the degree of plain language used?
  • Do the graphics make sense?
• Any other comments?

Comments provided by the participants will be taken into consideration when finalizing the document. This deliverable is listed on the 2024-2026 Roadmap.

Anticipated completion timeline: Q4 2026

Establishing Best Practices for Land Agent Conduct

Speakers: Josh Vass and Keith Turner

The topic of best practices for land agents was presented by two members of the LMAC who are both representatives of the International Right of Way Association. Josh and Keith, with the support of Anne-Marie Erickson who could not attend this meeting, are proposing a project to develop guidelines for land agents working in different parts of the country on CER-regulated infrastructure.

The prospect of developing such guidelines garnered a lot of interest and some members volunteered to work actively on this file.

The members see value in developing these guidelines because there will be an increasing need to bring more clarity and quality assurance in areas where these practices are not well known. At a minimum, training in the following three areas should be considered:

• Ethics
• CER 101
• Communications

Currently, Alberta is the only province where the conduct of land agents is regulated. While there is no regulation as such, in the province of Quebec there are some land agents (land representatives) who are employed by Union des producteurs agricoles.

The role of the CER in this initiative is to coordinate and facilitate a discussion amongst a sub-group of LMAC members with the objective of producing a recommendation document that will reflect the shared feedback regarding improved interactions between company land representatives and landowners.

LMAC volunteers to support the Land Agents Sub-committee: Anne-Marie Erickson (CER), Josh Vass and Keith Turner (IRWA), Jenna Woods (TC Energy), Isabelle Bouffard (UPA) and Brian Crews (OFA).

Anticipated completion timeline: First draft – Q3 and final version – Q4

Pipeline Profiles – Updates for Landowners and Municipalities

Speaker: Melanie Stogran, Technical Specialist

This was a follow-up to last year’s presentation and the focus this time was on the program updates. Melanie provided an overview to help landowners and companies locate information about specific facilities.

Question/Comments:

Could the online function be further enhanced with the addition of lifetime information about pipelines, such as a facility’s life expectancy?

• The Pipelines Profile PWG will consider the request.

Definition of “Land Matters”

Speakers: Paul Georgison, Technical Leader

Reviewing the definition of the term “land matters” was an outcome of the in-person meeting of January 2024. The intent was to ensure that the term is comprehensive and encompasses the perspective of multiple stakeholder groups.

The definition is intended to be high-level and broad, to provide for flexibility and adaptability as LMAC focus areas, priorities, and stakeholder representation evolve alongside changes in the Canadian public interest and the policy context within which the CER delivers its mandate.

An issue raised by some members is that an overly inclusive or an excessively broad definition can, in either case pose a problem. It was proposed to keep “stakeholder” as a term that covers most groups, including local government bodies, and to complement the definition with a list of examples describing who is targeted, including owners, occupiers, and users of lands affected by CER-regulated facilities and activities:

• Farmers, foresters, home and business owners, residents, tenants, developers, municipalities, public land authorities, and license and permit holders.
• Owners who may or may not live in Canada

LMAC volunteers to assist with the definition’s wordsmithing via a form of electronic collaboration: Paul Georgison (CER), Sandra Dixon (Enbridge Inc.) and Isabelle Bouffard (UPA)

Anticipated completion timeline: First draft – Q1 and final version – Q2

Day 2

Meeting Resumes

• Impressions of Day 1, a discussion led by Marc Pauzé
• Opening remarks by Genevieve Carr, Executive Vice President, Transparency and Strategic Engagement

Genevieve welcomed the group and highlighted the importance of always keeping damage prevention top of mind because it is a shared priority for all stakeholder groups, including companies, landowners, local governments and the CER. She added that various aspects related to Indigenous matters constitute another one of the CER’s main priorities, starting with the implementation of measures to allow Indigenous Peoples to raise issues and concerns throughout the lifecycle of energy projects.

Emergency Management Program – Focus on Oversight of Companies

Speaker: Dan Dalidowicz

This presentation focused on how the CER-regulated companies are assesses against their emergency management (EM) programs.

The CER ensures that through their EM programs, regulated company meet the following expectations:

• Identify and analyze all hazards and potential hazards
• Verify that hazard information is passed onto residents, municipalities and first responders
  • Assess the company’s capacity to evaluate and manage risks associated with all those hazards

In the event of a pipeline emergency, the top priority is to make sure that people are safe, and property and the environment are protected. To that end, the CER’s Emergency Management Program works with regulated companies to ensure that their engagement with local authorities/municipalities and Indigenous communities meets the information needs of first responders and emergency managers.

Damage Prevention – An Overview from the Perspective of Industry

Speaker: Graeme Wright

This discussion was led by Graeme Wright who was speaking on behalf of TC Energy with the caveat that each company has its own Damage Prevention Program and circumstances may dictate differences.

The members were reminded of the importance of engaging early with potentially affected landowners and communities. They also heard that early engagement often starts even before a construction gets started and it is often the foundation of a good relationship between affected parties and companies, one that will last many years, even decades. Engaging during the initial planning stages allows the landowner and/or municipality the opportunity to share relevant information that could save the company time and money. This is also when company representatives need to engage with landowners and municipalities about the prevention of damages to energy infrastructure.

Question/Comments:

• How much information is provided by companies regarding crossing requirements for farm equipment, does it consider the increase in the machinery’s size and weight?
• Concerns regarding drilling underneath rivers and creeks at a depth of 10 to 15 feet, and the need to take additional precautions to protect these water bodies.
• To prevent complacency, landowners need to be reminded more frequently and be provided with more information about the risks of significant damage when precautions are insufficient.
• Awareness needs to be raised about the need to consistently use the same terminology, whether it’s coming from the company, the landowner and the CER.

Engagement, Compliance and Regulatory Requirements

Speakers: Anna DeCarlo and Marie-Ève Latour

This purpose of this presentation was to provide an overview of the CER’s approach when dealing with landowners and/or municipalities who do not comply with the CER’s Damage Prevention Regulations.

The prevention of damages to energy infrastructure is a high priority for the CER and it is also listed on the LMAC 2024-2027 Roadmap.

Comments:

• The CER has tools to address 3rd party violations. When reviewing a case, the CER also looks at compliance history to identify patterns that could be rectified with additional education.
• The CER expects pipeline companies to provide the required level of support to landowners and municipalities to ensure that infractions are not committed due to lack of awareness. If necessary, the company representative is expected to walk along the land to show where the pipeline is located and to make sure it is clearly marked in a way that is avoid any misunderstanding.
• Companies can file a complaint with the CER. The complaint process includes a review of the documentation provided by the company to determine the issue’s level of severity, assess whether the instructions provided to the landowner were clearly defined or whether there were gaps that could account for some level of misunderstanding and lastly, to assess whether this is a case of repeated non-compliance. As appropriate, the CER will address the issue.

Overview of Indigenous Initiatives at the CER

Speaker: Carly Milne, Vice President, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

This overview was provided following a request that originated from the in-person meeting of January 2024 during which members expressed a need for more information to help them better understand the CER’s priorities in this regard. The intent was also to help them, as representatives of various stakeholder groups, find answers to some of the concerns shared by their respective constituency groups.

The CER feels strongly about the need to integrate Indigenous perspectives across the organization – Indigenous cultural intelligence is an integral part of the CER’s Strategic Plan.

The CER’s Reconciliation plan includes four main areas of focus:

• Indigenous cultural intelligence - A framework that includes new policies and procedures that support meaningful and respectful relationships, and set expectations, requirements and accountabilities.
• Implementing UNDA and Action Plan Measure 34 - To enhance the participation of Indigenous peoples in projects and matters that are currently regulated by the CER.
• Crown Consultation - Consultation process with potentially impacted Indigenous peoples to share information about a project, seek feedback on its approach, and hear initial views or concerns regarding the proposed process and the Project itself.
• Indigenous Monitoring and Advisory Committees

• For landowners, chance finds on private property can be a significant concern. More information is needed and the LMG needs to be involved.
• Early engagement needs to involve more than Indigenous communities; landowners also need to be considered.
• A member’s request for a presentation explaining the Indigenous Ministerial Arrangements Regulations project and its potential repercussion for land matters stakeholder groups will be fulfilled at the next LMAC meeting.

Access to Property – Indigenous Monitors

Speaker: Len Seefried, Group Leader, Environmental Protection

The intent of the presentation was to provide an overview of the role of Indigenous Monitors in relation to access to private lands and the implications of chance finds protocols.

Indigenous Advisory Monitoring Committees are critical in ensuring that pipeline projects are managed in a way that respects Indigenous rights, protects the environment, and maintains ongoing communications with affected communities. They are dedicated to monitoring the implementation of environmental protection measures, addressing concerns, and ensuring that pipeline operators meet their obligations to Indigenous communities.

Indigenous Monitors working for the IAMC ensure that Indigenous communities have an active role in overseeing environmental and social impacts of pipeline projects. They help by ensuring that pipeline companies meet obligations and protect the environment, and by advocating for the rights and traditions of Indigenous peoples throughout the project’s lifecycle. This includes identifying chance finds that have a heritage value.

Indigenous Monitors are not automatically granted permission to access private lands. To conduct monitoring activities along CER-regulated pipelines, Indigenous Monitors must be accompanied by a CER Inspection Officer.

They must coordinate with landowners, the pipeline company, and regulatory authorities like the CER to carry out monitoring activities on private lands.

Questions / Comments:

• What happens if the Indigenous Monitors go off the right of way, and then the landowner can’t use that parcel of land. What are the limitations?
  • Indigenous Monitors accompany CER Inspectors: neither the Inspector nor the Indigenous Monitors have authorization to go off the right of way – they are coming as guests onto a Landowner’s property, they don’t wander around on the land.
• When projects are being surveyed, are Indigenous Monitors presents at that time?
  • No, Indigenous Monitors are not yet involved at that early stage of a project’s development.
• What happens when territorial lands overlap?
  • The CER works with Indigenous Monitoring Advisory Committees who deal with those issues, and they also oversee who will do the monitoring.

Heritage Resources and the CER

Speaker: Sarah Ebbern, Technical Specialist

The presentation was meant to share information about heritage resources protections, including an overview of the different laws and regulations, and the CER’s approach to these resources.

Requirement of companies:

• Engage with right holders (landowners and lease holders) and other stakeholders to provide information about the process in the event of a chance find.
• Submit a complete application filing inclusive of known and potential impacts to heritage resources, and proposed impact mitigations.
• Follow provincial legislation when conducting impact assessments.

Requirements of the CER:

• Verify compliance to heritage resources conditions
• Verify compliance to Environmental Protection Plans and applicable chance finds procedures
• Enforcement of non-compliances, as applicable.

Questions / Comments:

• Landowners are concerned about the repercussions of having a pipeline crossing their lands. For a landowner, what could be the repercussions of a heritage resource being found on their land during the construction of a pipeline?
  • A chance find could severely limit a landowner’s ability to work the impacted sections of their farm or woodlot and as a result, their livelihood could be impacted.
• Landowners need more education from companies and the CER to limit the extent of misinformation that feeds confusion and potential conflicts.
  • The CER is in the process of developing guidance on best practices and impacts; this is part of the review of the Onshore Pipeline and the Filing Manual that the CER is currently conducting.

Follow-up Items for Future Discussions

What constitutes heritage resources – chance finds?

• Was this topic sufficiently addressed during this meeting or are there other aspects that still need to be further defined?

Ministerial Arrangements, NRCan is leading this project

• Projected discussion topic for the June 4th meeting agenda.

Land Matters Progress Update

Speaker: Carole Léger-Kubeczek, LMG Coordinator

• Status of the revised Terms of Reference, the 2024-2027 Roadmap and the 2024-2025 Action Plan: all three documents have been posted on CER Dialogue.
• The agenda for this meeting included a few items from the 2024-2025 Action Plan, including the revision to the Land Matters definition, preliminary discussions about Indigenous matters and heritage resources, as well as different aspects about damage prevention.
• Carryover items from the previous LMG Work Plan
  • The issue of pipeline abandonment and decommissioning was addressed last year starting with a presentation to the LMAC in January 2024 that was followed with an article in the October issue of the LMG News. Even though the items have been addressed, this does not mean that they couldn’t not be brought back as a meeting agenda item or a newsletter article, should a need materialize.
  • Early Engagement:
    • Recommendation to the CER: the organization should continue to engage with all stakeholder groups about issues like damage prevention, compensation and easement agreements or services like alternative dispute resolution.
      • Consider diversifying the outreach to include participation in more small- and large-scale events such as provincial and local agricultural fairs, “community breakfasts”, synergy group meetings and local agricultural meet-ups.
      • LMAC members residing in those areas could facilitate with introductions to the event organizers.
    • CER staff could also attend events hosted by industry to meet and share information with their staff who deal on a regular basis with various aspects involving land matters.
• Upcoming land matter projects will include the following initiatives:
  • Membership survey that is currently under development with Mireille Beaudoin from UPA who volunteered her assistance.
    • Anticipated completion timeline: Q1
  • Additional member resources to be posted on CER Dialogue, namely a section featuring each member with a bio, photo and their contact information. Except for the contact details, the same information will be added to the LMG page on the CER website.
    • Anticipated completion timeline: Q2
  • Total revision of the LMG webpage on the CER website.
    • Anticipated completion timeline: Q1
• LMG News: always seeking suggestions for article topics that will appeal to a wide range of stakeholders.

Overview:

This is a standing item where new discussion topics can be listed for future meeting discussions or for articles to be published in the LMG News.

• Regular Agricultural Activity, a discussion to come up with a more elaborate definition
  • Agricultural cultivation vs. Agricultural formal practice

Meeting adjourned at 3 :35 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for 4 June 2025 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (Mountain Time). Revised meeting date: 17 June 2025, same time.

Date modified:

2025-05-22