Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 7 - Evidence - February 27, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 27, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:48 a.m. to study the current state of "One Call'' programs that identify critical underground infrastructure in Canada.
Senator Grant Mitchell (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am Grant Mitchell. I represent the province of Alberta in the Senate, and I am the deputy chair of this committee. Senator Richard Neufeld, the chair, regrets not being able to be at today's meeting. I want to welcome the senators and members of the public in the room, as well as our viewers across the country.
[English]
Senator Massicotte: That was very good, by the way, sir. Nobody else understood it, but I think it was very good.
The Deputy Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much. I feel very strongly about an effort to make these committees bilingual and certainly about having someone from Alberta making that effort and demonstrating that we care deeply about the bilingual nature of this country.
I am Senator Grant Mitchell, and I represent the province of Alberta in the Senate. I am deputy chair of this committee, and today I am chairing because, unfortunately, the Chair, Richard Neufeld from British Columbia, couldn't be here.
I would like to begin by welcoming senators, members of the public, staff in the room and Canadians who will be watching this on CPAC across the country. I will begin by introducing the committee's assistants: Sam Banks, Analyst from the Library of Parliament; Marc LeBlanc, from the Library of Parliament; and Lynn Gordon, who is the clerk. I would ask senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Sibbeston: I'm Nick Sibbeston, senator for the Northwest Territories.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I am Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, senator from Montreal.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Patterson: My name is Dennis Patterson, and I am from Nunavut.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Today, we are continuing to examine the current state of One Call or Call Before You Dig, which is also, we are learning, being called "Call and Click Before You Dig'' in the modern lexicon, programs that identify critical underground infrastructure in Canada and assist industry and others in avoiding the destruction of that inadvertently.
This study is particularly significant in a number of ways. It demonstrates the kind of work that the Senate does in addressing issues that haven't necessarily been picked up elsewhere in the country at any given jurisdictional level and advancing those issues, issues that can be very helpful in terms of safety, for example, in this case, to society and in terms of industrial efficiency. It is also unique to the extent that we have picked up this feature of an earlier study on hydrocarbon transportation safety, and now we are building into a very specific study out of which we hope we can achieve some success with recommendations that could advance this work in an important way.
It brings me great pleasure today to welcome witnesses from the Canadian Gas Association. We are joined by Jim Tweedie, Director, Operations, Safety and Integrity Management; and by Paula Dunlop, Director, Public Affairs and Strategy, who I think has had some experience on Parliament Hill as well.
Mr. Tweedie and Ms. Dunlop, thank you for appearing before us today. We last heard from you on June 20, 2013, when we were conducting our original study on the safety of hydrocarbon transportation. We ask you to proceed with a presentation of 10 or 15 minutes, and then we will join in asking you questions. We have until about 9:45, and so I'll ask you to start.
Paula Dunlop, Director, Public Affairs and Strategy, Canadian Gas Association: Thank you, senator, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak today. As mentioned, my name is Paula Dunlop. I am the director of public and government affairs at the Canadian Gas Association. I'm going to provide some opening remarks and turn it over to Mr. Tweedie for some specifics.
CGA is the voice of Canada's natural gas delivery industry. As the map in your handout shows, our members include the natural gas distribution and transmission companies that deliver energy solutions to more than 6.4 million Canadian customers. What this really means is that well over half of the Canadian population relies on natural gas in their homes, apartments, buildings, hospitals, schools and businesses. Let me also note what's not shown on the map — CGA's equipment manufacturers and service providers as part of our organization.
Today, we would like to provide some background on the natural gas distribution infrastructure in Canada and then speak to our industry's perspective on the important work that the committee is doing with respect to this study.
What most people don't know is that, today, natural gas has a central part in Canada's energy mix, meeting over 30 per cent of the energy needs. The majority of our customers are homes, but the greater volumes of natural gas are delivered to non-residential customers such as businesses, institutions and large industry for heat and industrial processes.
If you look again at the map, you can appreciate how extensive underground pipeline infrastructure and storage facilities bring natural gas right across the country. Indeed, the Canadian natural gas pipeline network consists of well over 440,000 kilometres of pipelines built from many combinations of pipe material and size. These pipelines are built and operated to achieve the highest level of public and worker safety.
The companies that transport natural gas apply up to date engineering principles and the most modern technology to build, operate and maintain a pipeline network.
Pipelines are designed, built and operated in compliance with stringent codes and standards, and advanced technologies are used to ensure pipeline integrity, to control pressures and to monitor the flow of gas.
In fact, the natural gas distribution sector has invested over $14 billion in this extensive national network and continues to invest about $2 billion a year to ensure the safe and secure operation and maintenance of the system. One of the most significant safety features of the distribution system is that our pipelines are buried well below the surface. The practice provides an unobtrusive and reliable energy-delivery system, well protected from vehicular traffic, damaging weather, vandalism and unauthorized public contact.
Having said that, accidental damage as a result of digging and excavating without first knowing the location of the infrastructure — in essence, digging and excavating blind — is the leading cause of damage to natural gas lines. In the industry, we call this "third-party damage.''
Natural gas and transmission and distribution companies in Canada have a long history of conducting public education and awareness campaigns on this issue. Most of us have hopefully heard the phrase "Call Before You Dig'' or "Click Before You Dig.'' With a simple request from an excavator, contractor or homeowner, an electronic instrument or system records can be used to accurately identify the location of buried pipelines so that they can be exposed without damaging them.
The challenge is to ensure that requests for locates are made in advance of every excavation project and that, once the buried infrastructure is identified at the construction site, safe digging practices are used.
I will turn it over to Mr. Tweedie now, and he'll talk about some specifics and elaborate on other efforts.
Jim Tweedie, Director, Operations, Safety and Integrity Management, Canadian Gas Association: Good morning. Call and Click Before You Dig education and awareness campaigns, plus a great deal of other work that we have done, have resulted in a significant decline in third-party damage over a number of years. Indeed, the industry has seen a 25 per cent decline in third-party damage since 2008, comparing 2012 numbers to it. We don't have 2013 yet.
Aggressive pursuit has been a key element of the process, but there are a number of other things we do. The natural gas industry is very committed to working with other stakeholders with a vested interest in the protection of buried infrastructure to drive this success even further. We believe that by working in partnership with other organizations, like the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, which, as I think you are aware, we are one of the original supporters of and continue to be one of the seeding sponsors of the call centres in Canada, the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the telecommunications industry and regulators, we can achieve more in the area of third-party damage.
Specifically, the natural gas industry and all of these groups are working on an enhanced communication effort to achieve broader awareness about how and who to contact to quickly and effectively obtain pre-excavation utility locations. We anticipate that this campaign will begin to unfold later this year. It is essentially a branding campaign. If you wish to draw people's attention to things, come up with something they can identify with, something that resonates with them and something that they will remember, most importantly.
We are working to support the establishment of contact centres to serve all jurisdictions where Canada has buried natural gas infrastructure and all buried infrastructure, not just energy infrastructure. That's where we are part of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance.
We are also seeking support for legislation with meaningful enforcement in all jurisdictions that will require the location of buried infrastructure before any excavation is undertaken.
I believe you heard from witnesses on Tuesday evening talking about the great leadership that the CCGA has taken as being the common point that we all rally to to drive forward the protection of Canada's critical infrastructure. Specifically, you also heard about the great leadership Ontario took, in particular with Bill 8. We believe that this legislation could and should be duplicated in other jurisdictions across Canada.
I also note that the natural gas distribution industry is committed to sharing best practices on third party damage prevention and a host of other safety and operational issues to ensure that natural gas distribution systems continue to be built and operated to achieve the highest level of public and worker safety.
I'll conclude by noting a few points with respect to the study that this committee is undertaking.
Again, thank you for dedicating time to look at and report on this issue. Raising awareness of the issue, the importance of obtaining the location of buried infrastructure before excavation, big or small, is very important. Your leadership and attention to this are helpful, valuable and somewhat inspiring to those of us who have been working on this for a number of years.
Any support or encouragement that this committee can provide with respect to encouraging other jurisdictions to look at the legislation in Ontario as a possible template would be very helpful. In our view, legislation with meaningful enforcement will have a significant impact on reducing third party damages.
As you know, this file resides primarily at the provincial level, that is, it is not at the federal level. However, significant construction projects are undertaken by the federal government every year, and one of the questions that we would put before a federal organization looking at this is whether it would be possible for the federal government to take the opportunity to show some leadership with the projects that they have direct involvement with, with the projects that they have control of, by confirming that there is a requirement in all contractual agreements with all contractors doing work for the federal government to obtain locates before undertaking any excavation projects.
Again, Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity, and to the committee as well. I'll stop here, and we'll address any questions that you have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both very much.
Senator Seidman: Mr. Tweedie, you did appear before this committee previously, as Senator Mitchell said at the outset. When you were here, you were representing both the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Common Ground Alliance. Are you still chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance?
Mr. Tweedie: I'm still on the board of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance. My term expired in November. It's a two-year term. Dave Baspaly from British Columbia has taken over. I am part of the executive as previous chair. I continue my involvement very heavily.
Senator Seidman: At that time, when I asked you about the structure, the mandate and authority of the CCGA, especially in relation to funding and maintenance of the "one call'' system, you told the committee you were in the process of approaching other parties, such as the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, to broaden your stakeholder base. Have you made any progress to date on that?
Mr. Tweedie: Yes, we have. We have recently added — the acronym is somewhat wordy — the national damage prevention committee for telecos. I should explain. What we want is a full cross-sector of everything. It's not about gas pipes or wires; it's about facilities and owners and the roadways and everything underground. The CEA has agreed in principle to join us, the Canadian Electricity Association. This organization I mentioned, plus the North American, locaters, the actual people who provide the locates in the field, have agreed to join the board. The telecos, with the telecommunications damage prevention committee, have a committee that specifically looks at that, and they have agreed as well to join the board.
As you heard the previous time I was here, the CCGA is relatively new. We reincorporated and changed some of our governance to do with the not-for-profit act that came into effect at the end of last year. We had to rewrite a number of things. Those are some of the things under way.
We are also actively pursuing a number of other stakeholders. The Canadian Construction Association has expressed interest. We have specifically spoken to them. That will help us to bring in the ground disturbance or excavation community. The idea is to get that broad stakeholder base. As you know, the NEB is already a member. CEPA and CGA are the two seeding, founding sponsors, I will call them, with the NEB. We have been able to bring in a number of other associations.
I will note, too, another change is I referred to the call centres. They are, of course, key to all of this. The call centres have formed a committee called COCCC, Canadian One-Call Centres Committee of Canada, and they now have representation on the board, so we continue to build.
We have a plan starting last year into this year and into next year to slowly build the board membership. It frankly will be quite a large board. We may go to caucuses, for instance. All of the pipeline companies may be represented by one organization. We may have CAPP, CEPA and the CGA, and one representative will sit on the board, and with telecos something similar, electricity similar and road builders.
What we have done partially, to do with the not-for-profit act requirements by the end of the year, is redefined and recognized it. Our board was going to be extremely large and the caucuses system would work. It is a long-winded answer, I apologize, but it is a pretty detailed thing we are involved in, and our goal is to continue to add, again with a broad stakeholder base.
Senator Seidman: The broad stakeholder base piece leads me to my next question. You said, quite rightly, that this file largely resides not at the federal level, but that the federal government could take leadership and require in all contractual agreements that contractors doing work for the federal government obtain locates, and I'm now quoting what you just told us. My question would be, could they actually do this, obtain the locates? In other words, is the data available?
Mr. Tweedie: Yes, the data is available, plus each organization that has called for a pre-excavation utility location will also, in one fashion or another, verify it, either by making alternate arrangement agreements or, where required, marking it on site. The data is available, yes.
You raised a good point that I should be clear on. Today we are actually representing the Canadian Gas Association, but I feel it's fair to say that for all utilities, the data is available, yes. They are in a position to provide locations before anyone excavates.
Senator Seidman: You are saying that with a certain degree authority, having now described a very far-reaching, integrated group of stakeholders — electricity, gas and oil. You say, with a certain degree of authority, that the data is available.
Mr. Tweedie: Yes, the data is available, initially generated by field notes at the time of installation and then moved into the various GIS formats in use. Each company probably uses a different commercial product. There are a number of ones that are pretty common, pretty well used, but yes, the data is available.
Senator Seidman: You also note in your presentation to us that the natural gas distribution industry is committed to sharing best practices on third party damage prevention and a host of other safety and operations issues. Are you committed to sharing those best practices, and how would you do that?
Mr. Tweedie: What we are actually doing, and I brought them with me because I thought that might spark some interest, in North America, as you know, the Common Ground Alliance exists, and best dig safe practices have been developed throughout North America. They tend to be somewhat consistent, as they should be, because really there isn't that much difference. If you are going to dig safe, there are certain things you do.
Our industry, the Canadian Gas Association, earlier this year or very late last year, actually has put forward a motion to adopt the Canadian Common Ground Alliance best practices for our industry. We want to then talk to other industries about having them adopt the same thing. It covers a number of things. I don't know if we have time, but I brought the index to give you a sense of what it covers.
The Deputy Chair: If you would leave that with us, that would be great. Could you give us a copy?
Mr. Tweedie: I will. What we are starting to think about is, as you go to the next steps, where you can go now to really start to make progress. That's one of the areas where we think we can make progress. They are not dissimilar to what is in the United States. The specific example I brought is the ORCGA. Bryon Sackville was here Tuesday evening, I believe. We brought theirs as an example. They have been developed with all stakeholders in Ontario. One of the business plan items of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, the national organization, is to harmonize those best practises across Canada and then have them adopted.
Of course, everyone has to go back to their safety and engineering people, who have all been involved. We would like to see every industry consider adopting these and eventually adopting these specific best practices, which touch on all aspects of safety. I will leave the index and a summary. I have a 10- or 12-page summary of what each index item means.
Senator Frum: We are very early into our hearings on this issue, but what has become apparent very quickly is the value of what it is that you are proposing, the social, safety and economic value of it. I'm having a hard time understanding what the impediments are at the provincial level. It seems so logical and self-evident, so, from an industry point of view, where's the trouble?
Ms. Dunlop: As Mr. Tweedie has mentioned, there are a lot of stakeholders involved, so kind of corralling everyone and getting everyone to kind of come to the same table and work together to help raise the awareness and raise the profile has been, I think, the main job. Everybody has been doing their part but now that everyone has come together I think that that will help.
In the case of Ontario, the two gas utility companies in Ontario worked with the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance, and they identified some champions. It's the usual process of getting something on the agenda of government and parliamentarians and officials.
Since Bill 8 has been passed, we've heard that a couple of other jurisdictions are now looking at it and trying to figure out how they could fold it into existing legislation that they have. I think it is generally just getting the stakeholders together to all go with a common voice.
Senator Frum: And that requires government involvement?
Ms. Dunlop: Yes, the actual action does require government involvement to move forward with legislation.
Senator Frum: As a point of clarification on the recommendation you made about the role that the federal government can play — and Senator Seidman asked about this as well — confirming that it is a requirement that all contractual agreements obtain locates, is it not an obligation right now?
Ms. Dunlop: I was just going to say that we don't know. Hence the word "confirm,'' but I think it would definitely be an opportunity to profile if it is or to confirm that it is a requirement. It is just, again, an opportunity to show leadership that we think would be helpful.
Mr. Tweedie: Frankly, the federal government has a lot of work going on, so we don't know. Perhaps the expression is better laid out as: "If not already in place, would there be consideration of doing that?'' It may indeed already be there, partially or fully, but it is a great opportunity to your point about this committee realizing how significant this is and how important it is. There's a certain element of common sense that comes into it. People, after a while, get their heads around it and understand it.
I will try to be careful about this. When you look at it from an all-stakeholders perspective — the Canadian Common Ground Alliance — one of the things we want, of course, is to be able to, as Paula said, now say, when we know this, that the federal government now makes this a part of their contractual process to do any work.
Of course, I don't think it is any secret that we certainly quote the work of this group now and what came out of the previous study and I hope what comes out of this study. So these are the things that we need to drive it forward. It's almost like a PR campaign. Once we get to people — provincially, it is happening; federally, we're starting to make some progress — there is a light that goes on. At a certain point, there may be some resistance, but, overall, these things help us to make the point.
Senator Wallace: I want to make sure I understand this from a practical point of view — how it works or should work.
You are calling for a one-call or one-contact system. If a property owner was going to have some excavation done on their property, they would contact this number, and I guess, from there, certain things would happen. When I originally heard about this idea, I thought what it involved was that there would be a central repository of all information on underground facilities that could be located on certain property. So, if I were calling about my property, somebody could go online; they would see my property lines and would know exactly what underground infrastructure was on my property.
To take that forward, I thought that, perhaps, this was going to be controlled by provincial governments. At least in New Brunswick, we have centralized mapping of all properties in the province and subdivision plans and those plans, in many cases, which show the location of utilities. I was envisaging a situation where there's a one-call system in a province, where somebody would go online, look at the mapping of the particular property and identify what structures are there. Of course, to get that information on what underground structures are on each property, it would require utilities, and the gas companies as well, to provide that.
That was sort of a long lead-up, but I'm wondering: To start with, is there a central repository of all of this underground structure information that would be in one location for an entire province?
Mr. Tweedie: In Ontario, that is what they're going towards from Bill 8. In terms of the mechanics of the way you were looking at it, the intent would be for someone in a call centre to have access to that information. If you called in at number 12 whatever street, they would say, "Yes, you have these things here,'' and then make the arrangements for locates to be done.
At this time, the plan isn't to be able to have the person at that address look it up online. The requirement is to call and, as you heard the other night, have it go more towards Click Before You Dig, where you make an automatic appointment and where that system tells you that "Yes, you require locates.'' It may give you a "clear,'' for instance. If you are in an area where there is no natural gas, it will say that there is no natural gas but that there is hydro, water and everything else. That's the way the system is designed; it goes to that central point of contact — the One Call or one- contact centre.
Eventually, something where you can look at everything online may come to be, but not at this time.
Senator Wallace: Bringing together all of that information — the location of the underground infrastructure — do you see each province being required to do that?
Because you have a lot of individual players. You have industry. You have got municipalities with utilities, power companies. How is all of that brought together in this one location? What compels them to provide all of that information and bring it to that one location? The province, or is it voluntarily up to industry and municipalities?
Mr. Tweedie: I think we would have preferred that it be voluntary, and, certainly, some industries have done it voluntarily.
You use the word "compel,'' in Ontario, I guess that would be the word. That has compelled people, required people, to then pull it all together into GIS systems that someone can look at.
The Canadian Common Ground Alliance, believe that it could be done voluntarily, but, frankly, we're saying that Bill 8 is a great model to work to. Compel, require, that is the direction that we think it could go.
We believe that, over time, we will be able to convince everyone of the logic of this, but time is the issue. We wish to have this in place. It is a public safety issue that we feel very strongly about, and, if provincial legislation and assistance from federal legislation can help, then so be it. That's what will help to compel or require it.
Senator Wallace: Is there a requirement in Ontario or any other province in Canada for providers of underground infrastructure to have some indication, on the surface, that their infrastructure exists?
For example, in my home, I want to go out and do what I would consider to be very minor digging, turn my garden or do whatever, and I have no idea where the power line is. I have no idea, and I wouldn't think, probably, of calling a One Call number.
Is there a requirement for any of these underground infrastructure providers to also provide something on the surface, a stake or something that would trigger in the property owner's mind, "Gee, I had better call and find out how deep that is and exactly what is there''?
Mr. Tweedie: On a permanent basis, no.
Senator Wallace: Should there be?
Mr. Tweedie: I don't believe there should be. You mentioned you don't know what's on your property. To me, that's the point of the call centre. That's what they should be doing.
I mentioned the branding campaign. I would be the first to admit that bill inserts from utility companies are not high on people's reading lists, but there is something there. There are pretty heavy-duty campaigns. What you will see our industries, all of them, doing via our members directly and the CGA members is very strong campaigns to get that word out, to make people aware that no one particular individual really does know what's on their property. You can make logical assumptions. You have hydro, cable, a phone line, and you have a gas line and you have water and sewer. Well, they're there somewhere. In some cases, they're behind the houses. In many cases, it is a split between them. Some utilities run down the backs. A lot of hydro does.
The expectation that someone should know that is probably not realistic. I believe there's an expectation on industry, via partnerships under call centres, to make it clear to people that you can get that information easily. We will have a marketing campaign around that, saturation certainly at specific times of the year, and we will tell you what you need in order to do this.
Senator Wallace: There is a centralized location. It is able to identify what underground infrastructure is on my property. The question becomes: Exactly where is it? Is it here, or is it there? How is that going to be identified on my property? If I have utilities, power lines, gas lines, all running on my property, and that's been identified by this central call location, exactly where is it? Does that mean each of those providers of underground infrastructure have to come to my property and show the excavator exactly where it is?
Mr. Tweedie: Yes.
Senator Wallace: Each of them?
Mr. Tweedie: Yes, or make an alternate locate arrangement. In some cases, mapping will be provided. When we are doing all of these things, public safety is the priority, of course, but we're aware of the need for efficiency too. A number of organizations — and I will refer to it more as industries, I guess — are also looking at having locators who can locate a number of utilities, so if you can have the calls all come to one place, then you can have someone come who has all the records.
Being a locator is a very specific profession. You basically have to locate it. It is done by signal induction. Even with plastic pipe, which won't carry a signal, there's a tracer wire around it, so you are really locating the tracer wire around it. There is no reason that those individuals can't locate all of the utilities. That would be going to end state where I think the industry should go.
The idea is, yes, in the sake of let's be honest, too, homeowner and public safety and worker safety, all of them do have to be identified in some fashion.
Senator Massicotte: I am just trying to deal with the practicality of the issue, also along the same question. I'm not an expert in the field so my questions may look naive but, from a residential sense, natural gas is a specific exception. Like all energy infrastructure, it is very professional and it is dangerous to fool around with that. I am convinced you have a right to know what you are doing. Many connections from a residential sense, including water and so on, are done by the local backhoe operator, your neighbour or the fellow in the community who probably dug your basement when you were building. He's going to probably put in your water and sewer systems, not the electrical.
From what I understood, a major problem is that a lot of the knowledge of where it is located is not being stored. He will come on site. He will look at the plans from some structural engineer, civil engineer, but amend it because they hit a rock, or he found another pipe. He's not doing as-built drawings. It is based upon original drawings that have been deposited with the city hall for building permit purposes. How do you get that information there? How do you get current to know where everything is as opposed to where everything is supposed to be?
Mr. Tweedie: I will talk about different industries differently, to be fair. In the case of gas, electricity, certainly the telecos, if something from what was planned is changed, that is supposed to be recorded on the as-built for that plant. Then, for instance, an electricity utility would then have someone physically go and locate it. He can actually follow it. For water and sewer mains, I will be honest that I'm a little less familiar with them.
One thing I will point out, and I will hand it out, is that all of this to a great extent is a work-in-progress. One of the things that is included in this, which I will circulate, is the table of contents around best practices. As I said, these are pretty North American in nature, not just Canadian or from Ontario or from Alberta. We try to deal with all of that. You referred to who locates it. One of the things in here is locating and marking best practices. We're trying to deal with all of the issues. It is not as simple as that. Certainly the utilities that I'm familiar with are very specific and very professional. I don't know specifically about water. I would have assumed that they would have had someone doing it. What we're trying to do as part of this public safety initiative, the Canadian Common Ground Alliance initiative, is to try and cover it all.
I know you don't want to get into this now, but the first thing in this is the planning and design best practices, so start thinking about it when you're designing the underground stuff. Then it is the "one call'' centre best practices and locating and marking best practices, then the excavation best practices. It is not just about getting the locates. I realize you are talking specifically about "one call'' systems and locates. We actually have a higher level thought on it called Dig Safe, which is something that we're going to start as part of our branding exercise, promoting across Canada. It is the entire cross-section of the things that you would be doing, that is, now you have your locates, so how do you dig that up? The question was asked earlier about the locate. There is a requirement to dig by hand within so many feet, meaning that's an extra safety consideration. If you are using a backhoe and you are exposing a water service or gas or electricity service when it's been located here, you are in some cases looking at a three- to five-foot strip. There is a requirement to dig by hand within a certain distance on either side, again to add more safety to it. That's not specific to a locate, but it is part of the safety aspects of everything that we are trying to accomplish here.
Senator Massicotte: On the natural gas, I buy into it, but for a water and sewer system, electrical, I'm not so sure. It is often done with the same people, even telephone, done by the local operator. He does not, from my understanding, file as-built plans with the city. He's got his permit. That would mean that I suspect 50 per cent of all homes have underground that they're not aware of. They know it exists, and they know when they come on site. It's happened to all of us. They come on site and they know there's a water main some place, a water connection. They look on the street, and they think they know where the pipe is going, but they're not sure. That would mean that, under this scenario, if we imposed this type of regimen, 50 per cent of the homes have to employ this locator you call, this expert who can locate the pipes and maybe complete the plans. Therefore, there's a major job of getting knowledge of exactly where all the pipes are. Is that expensive? Who would pay for that cost if 50 per cent of the households in Canada must employ this expert, which will certainly take several hours by the time he files the plans? I suspect it is quite expensive per hour. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr. Tweedie: Sorry, I will interrupt for a second. A different person would install it normally than the person who then comes back and locates it.
Senator Massicotte: This locator, how much would he cost to provide as-built plans for the homes that don't have current knowledge of their undergrounds?
Mr. Tweedie: I wouldn't know that offhand, what it would cost to go back and create as-built plans. Again, I speak more from what I would call the shallow utilities, electricity and gas. We do have as-builts. There are as-builts. I'm certainly familiar with water to a certain degree in that they will still come and locate it. They are now considered a deeper utility, with the sewer as well. They may not have it with a central registry, but somewhere within their planning systems they do have a record of what they installed.
To your point about is it possible that something occurred on site that caused them to change their installation plan? Yes, that is possible. I couldn't say it isn't, and I don't know exactly how they would handle that.
Senator Massicotte: When you say "they,'' who is they? Is it the contractor, the homeowner, the city?
Mr. Tweedie: The owner of the water, the municipality. In the case of Ottawa, it is the City of Ottawa. I would assume most waterworks and sewer works are owned by the municipalities. They have records of what they have in the ground.
Senator Massicotte: Including on residential property?
Mr. Tweedie: They have what should have been installed on the original plans. I have worked with them in planning the subdivisions, so I have seen them.
There is a plan of where each thing goes in when a builder builds a subdivision, and I believe that's a requirement to get all of his permits to build the subdivision. So there is a plan of what should have gone in. I would hope that their as- laids are being updated if there is a major change. In the vast majority of cases, of course, there is no change. They go exactly where they're shown to go.
There is a pretty specific group of people involved at the utility level who plan the infrastructure as it goes in, and there are coordinating committees around that, PUC committees in various municipalities — public utility commission committees.
Senator Massicotte: I'm still involved in residential subdivisions, doing some development. I've done a lot of development in my life, but I'm only 35 years old.
Having said that, the problem I see with the water and sewer — and it's happening today — is that, yes, you have to provide detailed plans and specs to get the approvals from the province or the city, but you don't provide as-built. I was involved in one project where there was a lot of rock. We deviate the mains. We deviate the lines, but we don't tell anybody. So there's a risk that, later on, you'll find that it's not where you thought it was and not where the plans exist.
Ms. Dunlop: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities might have more insight on this than we do.
Mr. Tweedie: Frankly, you could be right. Obviously, you understand the subdivision process and how everything is clearly shown. That's the process I'm familiar with. To what level they keep their as-builts and keep them updated, I will be honest that, on the sewer and water side, as I say, I'm not specifically familiar with it. It is more the shallow utilities that I can speak to.
Senator Massicotte: On the gas side, it is absolutely a must. It is so dangerous otherwise. There's a compelling reason to do so and self-interest to do so.
Mr. Tweedie: Yes.
Senator Sibbeston: I'd like to ask you: What do you foresee in terms of the organization that would have these call centres? Do you foresee call centres employing a lot of people? What are we talking about? If, in Ontario, the legislation is passed now and call centres are established and fully operational, is it hundreds of people, or are we talking about thousands people who would be involved in these call centres?
Ms. Dunlop: I don't know if we know that, but there is the One Call centre organization that the committee could look at having, and they could talk about the machinations of the actual call centres. They would know who they currently employ and where they would see employment levels going.
In particular, in the Ontario One Call centre's case, certainly, if there's more membership in the call centre, then that would make me assume that there will need to be more people working there.
Mr. Tweedie: Ms. Dunlop mentioned the Canadian One Call centre committee, and they would be an excellent group to talk to. To be frank, that's an evolving situation. I believe you heard, on Tuesday evening, that the role of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance is to enable communication; it doesn't matter how. For the past number of years, it's been Call Before You Dig. That is very slowly but surely evolving into Click Before You Dig, which very much impacts the efficiency of this system, which then impacts the number of people you need. That is really where the market is going. Then, I don't know if they got into it, but the next step, of course, is Tap Before You Dig. We have built branding and marketing around that as well.
It gets even simpler, so you are never actually talking to someone. It may be, within a short number of years, primarily computer generated or done via an app on an online reservation system. We believe our role is to enable all types of communication forever, no matter which way it goes, but that will change the number of people involved as well.
We would encourage the call centres to be represented and to talk about that specifically.
Senator Sibbeston: I'm also interested in knowing: Do you see a role for government in setting up these call centres or in the whole management and operation of these call centres? You're an industry, and, obviously, you're putting some effort and some money and resources into the process. Do you think there's a role for government? Should government begin hiring people to work at these centres?
Ms. Dunlop: I can answer that. I think that, in the One Call centres, the role for government is to ensure that we have mandatory participation in them, meaning that all folks with buried infrastructure are a part of those One Call centres. I guess the call centres, as they exist right now, are non-profit organizations, and we don't think the challenge is necessarily in the day-to-day operation of the call centre. It's more in ensuring that the right people are members of the organization.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for being here. Ms. Dunlop, you said your pipelines are buried well below the surface. Could you be more particular, please?
Mr. Tweedie: Do you want me to talk about it?
Ms. Dunlop: I think so because there are best practices around that as well.
Mr. Tweedie: In the case of gas mains and gas services — and they do vary — they are in the two- to three-foot range below the surface. If CEPA comes and talks about the major pipelines across the country, they are deeper. It depends on the utility. Some of the wire-type utilities might be shallower. The key point here is that, as is in our statement, our industry is governed by very stringent standards. In this case — and I can provide more detail on it, of course — it's something called CSA Z662. It's a CSA standard that every jurisdiction in Canada has adopted and what each member company does. There are similar ones for all of the other utilities, as well, by the way. Not the same one; this one is specific to pipelines. There is a requirement for different types of plants to be at a certain depth. It varies by the type of plant and the location.
In some cases where you are not able to be at the depth you wish to be, there is also provision for protection over the plant for that stretch where it would be at a shallower depth.
Senator Patterson: Do you collect statistics on the causes of pipeline incidents or calls to One Call centres?
Mr. Tweedie: We collect statistics on a number of things. For the damages that our industry has, we collect statistics on why that damage happened.
In order to solve a problem, you must understand the root cause, so we do collect stats on damages, as an example, damages to gas plant in Canada. I was reading that yesterday, and it hovers around 51 per cent, the damages being caused by the person not calling at all. About half of all of the damage to gas plants is caused by people not calling at all and simply digging. Others are caused by improper excavation technique when they are on sight. As I mentioned, that's where we bring in the whole dig-safe philosophy. It's more than just calling for locates. You have to do certain things. Not digging by hand is specifically identified. If we say the gas plant is in this metre-wide stretch, you are required to dig by hand within that.
In some cases people will not, and they will simply go ahead with the mechanical equipment they have on site. We collect stats in order to analyze the issue and to hopefully then resolve it.
Senator Patterson: Could you share that with the committee? I think we are particularly interested in information on external interference.
Mr. Tweedie: Yes, of course.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Tweedie, you've mentioned quite a few times the importance of bringing all of the stakeholders under your organization. I find that one of the key stakeholders is the trade unions, which are continually responsible for workplace safety. A lot of trade unions also provide training, so that will also be one of the issues in the improper digging techniques you were referring to. In some provinces, you have community colleges that should not necessarily be stakeholders, but should be aware of or receiving your marketing in regard to One Call and digging safely.
Going to my essential question, in regard to members of your organization, are the trade unions part of it and have they been approached?
Mr. Tweedie: At this time they have not been approached. It's an interesting perspective, understanding that the member companies all have trade unions working for them and the gas utilities provide the training to those members. Of course, they are the people digging the holes. Have the trade unions been specifically contacted? No, but it's an interesting thought. Perhaps it's something we should consider.
Certainly, we are aware of community colleges; I believe there is one in this area that offers a course in backhoe operation. That's where we get into the college and the training and education. Those are certainly the types of things that perhaps we should be looking at and I believe we will be looking at.
Senator Ringuette: I think that in order to increase the probability of success, the major stakeholders would be trade unions in regard to the safety and the proper digging technique in what your goal is. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: I have a couple of quick wrap-up questions. I think one of the witnesses on Tuesday mentioned that once you get a locate authorization from an underground infrastructure owner that it's only good for a certain period of time, suggesting that sometimes this underground infrastructure shifts. Is that why, or the potential that it might shift?
Mr. Tweedie: No. We're kind of a society that always seems to be building something. It's more a concern that something may have changed. In the vast majority of cases, it's very unlikely, but the fact is that plant does get replaced, other things get installed, things get removed. It's more to do with changes to the infrastructure itself initiated by the owner.
For instance, for any one of the city streets here, there is some major construction going on and the locates are only good for a certain period of time. Some of that has to do with the fact that those utilities have to be moved to accommodate that construction. In the majority of cases it will not change. One of the best practice issues is what the length of that location ticket should be across the country, but it's a safety thing, just in case something has changed.
The Deputy Chair: With the velocity of technology development these days, could you foresee a time when even a homeowner could buy something — I could buy a stud finder and find where my studs are before I renovate my basement — and you get to a point where the technology is so sophisticated that anyone could have it, every backhoe operator could have it or will it always require some level of sophistication that the layperson would not have?
Mr. Tweedie: I think inevitably yes, that will be available, because everything eventually seems to become available. I'm struggling to remember, but I think someone actually has something now. It's an app for iPad. It isn't actually what's in the ground, it's what the GIS systems have, so they are able to look at an area, focus it down and based on the records submitted, you can see what should be there. It's not actually physically locating it on site.
To the second part of your question, this is a public safety issue. The industry would have to be 100 per cent convinced. I understand nothing is 100 per cent safe. Industry would have to be very convinced — and I imagine government would be, too — to allow that to go forward without a whole lot of validation and verification of the accuracy and safety of it. As I said, I think somebody has something like that now and the name of it escapes me, perhaps I can provide it. It's in the display stages as most things are when things start.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I will say that's the end of this part of the meeting. I want to thank Ms. Dunlop and Mr. Tweedie very much for your participation and excellent testimony.
I will suspend for a moment and ask the committee to stay in place because we have to discuss terms of reference for our next study.
(The committee continued in camera.)