Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence - March 25, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:39 p.m. to study the current state of "One Call'' programs that identify critical underground infrastructure in Canada.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate, and I am chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room and viewers all across the country who are watching on television.
As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You may also find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under "Senate Committees.''
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, and I will begin with the deputy chair to my right, Senator Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Black: Doug Black from Alberta.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from the beautiful province of Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
Today we are continuing to examine the current state of "One Call'' or "Call Before You Dig'' programs that identify critical underground infrastructure in Canada.
During the first part of our meeting tonight, it gives me great pleasure to welcome our witnesses from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, coming to us by video conference from Calgary. They are Jim Donihee, Chief Operating Officer; and Ziad Saad, Vice-President, Safety and Sustainability.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for being with us today. I'm sorry we are a little bit late; the Senate carried on longer than we expected, but we will be able to get on with it, so I await your presentation. Please go ahead.
[Translation]
Jim Donihee, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association: Ladies and gentlemen, we are pleased to present this information to you today.
[English]
My name is Jim Donihee, and I am the Chief Operating Officer at the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, CEPA, and our headquarters are situated here in Calgary. With me is Mr. Ziad Saad, our Vice-President of Safety and Sustainability.
To provide some context for our comments today, CEPA represents Canada's transmission pipeline companies who operate more than 130,000 kilometres of pipeline in Canada and the United States. These underground highways safely move approximately 1.2 billion barrels of liquid petroleum products and 5.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year. Our members transport 97 per cent of Canada's daily crude oil and natural gas from producing regions to markets throughout North America.
The Government of Canada has designated pipelines as part of our 10 national critical infrastructure sectors. Needless to say, our industry has a very keen interest in the work and the study that you are undertaking.
Our industry is an enabler of prosperity in Canada, and to be part of the economic engine of this country, we recognize the critical importance of maintaining our privilege to operate, often referred to as our social licence. The pipeline industry seeks to maintain this licence by ensuring the safety of the communities and the environment in which we, too, live and operate. This entails adhering to a world-class regulatory regime and striving for continuous improvement in our practices around pipeline integrity, damage prevention and emergency response, and we believe there's a very important opportunity around the work that you are undertaking in the Call Before You Dig program in this regard.
Damage to Canada's energy pipeline network exposes communities and workers to unnecessary risk and at times severe consequences. These consequences range from service interruption and environmental damage to serious injury and, very sadly, on occasion to death.
Potential damage to buried infrastructure by uncontrolled excavation is a daily public safety issue across our nation. Excavators who have not identified the location of these underground services before digging are the primary source of this damage. While we currently have one of the safest pipeline networks in the world — something we should be extremely proud of — the likelihood of pipeline damage due to construction work such as unauthorized excavation near pipelines will continue to increase as urban populations grow. As such, looking at the state of One Call programs across Canada, it is CEPA's view that there is a definite need for improvement.
Ladies and gentlemen, I will pass the speech now to my colleague, Mr. Ziad Saad.
Ziad Saad, Vice-President, Safety and Sustainability, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association: Thank you, Jim. There have been positive action and programs in the area of damage prevention. A key challenge has been navigating the absence or inconsistency of One Call procedures and practices across our country.
In order to be effective, three elements of One Call programs must be in place: All operators of underground infrastructure must register their assets; access to One Call centres must be easy and convenient; and consistent practices and requirements must exist for safe digging.
While One Call centres exist in most jurisdictions across Canada, there are a few areas in our country where One Call coverage does not exist. In most jurisdictions across Canada, registering with a One Call centre is suggested but not required. This exposes workers and nearby communities to unnecessary risk. Beyond the immediate risks to public safety and the environment, the cost to Canadians for emergency response, evacuation and repair is significant.
For example, an oil pipeline strike in Burnaby in 2007 cost tens of millions in response, repair, cleanup and restorations, along with interrupted service and significant reputational cost and loss of public confidence. Taking the time to identify, locate and mark buried utilities by contacting a provincial One Call centre or line locating service helps keep work sites safe, prevents environmental damage, saves projects time and money and prevents serious injury. In fact, the only public fatality from a transmission pipeline incident in Canada, to my knowledge, was as the result of an unauthorized excavation approximately 30 years ago.
Ultimately, addressing the challenges around damage prevention and One Call will require action from many stakeholders; safety is a shared responsibility. In our remarks, we have highlighted our views on the roles for industry and government. We will start with industry.
As an industry and association, we recognize that industry must play a leadership role in promoting safety and damage prevention. As such, we are demonstrating this leadership by moving forward on a number of safety measures that go well beyond baseline compliance with regulation. CEPA has developed the Integrity First program, a management system approach that enables CEPA members to strengthen the pipeline industry's performance, communication and engagement by jointly developing and applying common industry practices and messages.
With our Integrity First program, we have identified performance areas that fall under three broad categories: safety, environment and socio-economic issues. Within the safety category, employee safety, pipeline integrity, damage prevention and emergency management are the four key areas of focus.
Our board of directors, composed of CEOs or the most senior pipeline leaders of our member companies, are committed to a goal of zero incidents. Ultimately, we are working hard as an industry to ensure a strong safety culture is well rooted.
CEPA has also worked with other stakeholders through the Canadian Common Ground Alliance to promote One Call efforts, including establishing a ClickBeforeYouDig.com website. We believe these programs have achieved considerable success by increasing awareness of the presence of buried infrastructure and preventing accidental damage to pipelines and other utilities.
We are also working with other stakeholders through the Canadian Standards Association to develop CSA Z247, "Damage Prevention for the Protection of Underground Energy and Utility Networks.'' This work will create a national damage prevention standard for safe excavation and could eventually feed into regulation of damage prevention and promote consistency at the national level.
With the support of the CEPA board of directors, our members have adopted and committed to following a set of damage prevention principles and have established a safe digging checklist for CEPA members and their contractors. However, in addition to these efforts by industry, we believe there is a role for government in helping to create consistency and ensure participation in One Call programs. It is essential that Canada evolves to a system of mandatory membership in One Call programs and enforceable rules for safe ground disturbance.
CEPA believes that mandatory Call Before You Dig legislation should be established across Canada. This legislation would require mandatory registration of all buried infrastructure with One Call centres, require excavators to request locates through One Call centres prior to excavation and finally make following safe ground disturbance process a requirement. Legislation should include appropriate enforcement provisions. These steps would significantly reduce damage to Canada's critical buried infrastructure, enhance public safety, ensure service reliability and save Canadian taxpayers from shouldering the burden of avoidable emergency response measures.
Introducing legislation to mandate a Call Before You Dig program is not without precedent or proven results. For instance, similar legislation was introduced in the United States several years ago. Following the passage of the law in the United States, damage to underground utilities plummeted by 40 per cent over four years.
There are also examples of ongoing efforts across Canada to strengthen these programs. CEPA welcomed the passage of Bill 8, the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act in 2012 by the Ontario legislature. Bill 8 requires all owners and operators of buried utilities within a public right of way to register with Ontario One Call.
CEPA is also a proponent of the NEB's proposed regulatory change that would require anyone planning construction or excavation activities within certain areas to make a request to a One Call centre at least three days in advance of digging. We call on all federal regulatory agencies to adopt regulations similar to that of the NEB aimed at protecting underground infrastructure falling within their jurisdiction.
Finally, a national approach to ensure consistency across provinces, along the lines of Bill 8 in Ontario, would help address the challenges we have seen and would build on the positive steps taken to date.
For some concluding remarks, I will turn this back to Mr. Donihee.
Mr. Donihee: To conclude, ladies and gentlemen, maintaining the integrity of the Canadian energy pipeline system, which is federally designated as critical infrastructure, is imperative to assure the safety of Canadians, to enable our economic prosperity and to retain the trust of the communities in which we live and work. The introduction of mandatory Call Before You Dig legislation would help strengthen the safety of the public and help Canada's pipeline industry to achieve its stated goal of zero incidents. By improving access to One Call resources and, through regulation, reinforcing that damage prevention to buried infrastructure is everyone's responsibility, Canadians will be safer and better served by this critical element of our national infrastructure.
Operators and various stakeholders, including landowners and excavators, have a shared responsibility to protect themselves, their workers, the public and the environment by acting in a responsible and prudent manner. These stakeholders must work together as they are mutually dependent upon the successful execution of one another's roles in this overall process. The continuation and more widespread adoption of the Call Before You Dig program will help to ensure the safety of Canadian communities, will help to ensure the pipeline industry enables the economic prosperity that we seek and also importantly help to ensure the protection of our cherished environment.
[Translation]
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our comments. We are ready for your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for those comments. We will now move to questions, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, gentlemen, for a very good presentation. It was very interesting. You clearly support legislation making this process mandatory. In your presentation, one of the elements of the legislation would be appropriate enforcement provisions. Have you given some thought to what that might mean? Penalties or criminal sanction of some kind? What would be reasonable, and would it vary depending on the nature of the problem?
Mr. Saad: We have given some thought to this, senator, and we believe that an approach that's incremental in nature and also has an element of creative sentencing associated with it has been observed in the United States, at least, to be the most effective. Certainly a graduated penalty system might include monetary penalties, but in the worst cases criminal sanction could be considered. Also the ability to, for example, do community service around safety education is a possible substitute in some cases for monetary penalties. Some examples of those that have been applied in the United States have proven very effective.
Senator Mitchell: Great, so there's precedent.
Clearly if someone dug and punctured a line without having called or clicked before they did that, that would be straightforward, but would you contemplate penalties for somebody who dug, didn't call or click before, and didn't puncture something?
Mr. Saad: Yes, I think that's necessary. Again, graduated penalty is the underlying principle here, but the fact of the matter is that if somebody undertook an unauthorized excavation, they don't know. It was basically sheer luck that that person did not cause significant damage, most importantly to himself or herself. The person excavating is often the victim when something goes drastically wrong. Yes, I believe that some form of penalty, even if they did not actually make contact with a buried infrastructure, should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Donihee: I could build on Mr. Saad's comments and simply indicate that the advancement of this overall would also entail an educational program ensuring that, over time, these various contractors and companies engaged by firms to do that work are making the right decisions because they're well informed and well educated about where and how they should be undertaking their work.
Senator Mitchell: The fact is this doesn't have to cost government any money at all. Companies pay per call; that is, the infrastructure owners pay per call, and you're fine with that?
Mr. Saad: Absolutely. That's the way it's been. There has certainly been no intention for us to change that. Furthermore, for the person calling to request a locate, it's a free service for the person calling as well, and we support that scheme.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for being with us. I think we all agree conceptually with the purpose and usefulness of a One Call centre. Where we get hung up a little bit is how to make it work in a practical, everyday sense. You refer to the example of Bill 8 in Ontario, which basically applies to buried utilities within a public right of way. Does that include private lands, private residential lands?
Mr. Saad: Whenever there is a public right of way or a public easement, it would apply, to my understanding.
Senator Massicotte: So I can understand if you've got a pipeline of natural gas or propane coming to my home. That's potentially very dangerous. I presume that's a public right-of-way.
How about a water pipe, water main or electrical wire? Is that nearly always applied as a public right-of-way?
Mr. Saad: I'm not sure of the legal description of how that comes into a home, but if we go to address the issue of whether those utilities ought to be marked as well, the answer is absolutely yes, because you can obviously cause harm by contacting electrical wires or electrical systems, and similarly with cable and such. Interruption of service could be a safety hazard.
Senator Massicotte: For cable TV purposes as well as the water line, you would also consider that to be a public right-of-way?
Mr. Saad: I believe so. Totality is very important here, because an argument can be made that a gas line is more dangerous than a cable line, and I can understand that differentiation, but if we cannot rely on a single window to identify all buried infrastructure, there is an element of risk and uncertainty that affects the overall system.
Senator Massicotte: My understanding in Quebec and Ontario is that when they put in a waterline, for instance, from a subdivision to a private home, yes, detailed plans and specs are submitted to the city. They get approved and they obviously get a building permit, but if they're on site and they encounter rock or some obstacle, they often deviate from the route.
For waterlines, I'm not aware that the contractor must then prepare as-built drawings and deposit those with the city. I don't think that's currently the practice in most provinces, and one could argue it would be burdensome for them to do so. You would say that, irrespective of the cost, they should do so?
Mr. Saad: Actually, that point reinforces the need for locating the pipes, because, as you say, you cannot rely exclusively on plans.
What this entails is workers coming out to the site and verifying where the pipe was actually installed. There are lots of maps that can be accessed, but it is not a substitute for workers actually coming out to the location of the dig site and marking on the ground the actual location of where the buried facility is, as opposed to relying on an as-built plan, as you suggested, that may not be accurate.
Senator Massicotte: You also mention that some provinces in Canada do have One Call legislation imposed now. Which provinces that would those be?
Mr. Saad: The only province is Ontario, currently.
Senator Massicotte: And that's a year and a half ago, right — 2012?
Mr. Saad: Yes, 2012. The only additional provisions exist in some federal regulations, such as the National Energy Board regulations, which provide a mandate that the operators of pipelines that are under its jurisdiction must register with One Call. It also has authority to mandate that anyone who is digging in the vicinity of a federally regulated pipeline must call One Call.
Again, you can see here, senator, that the National Energy Board is doing what it can within its jurisdiction. But the resulting patchwork results in uncertainty that really takes away a lot of the benefit of a single-window One Call system.
Senator Massicotte: This discussion has obviously occurred and has been occurring for a couple of decades. Why is it that the other nine provinces and territories do not have such One Call centres when they've certainly heard the discussions and the arguments? What's the consideration for them not to impose such, which is clearly within their jurisdiction?
Mr. Saad: I don't have a good answer for that, senator. It's a very logical thing that ought to be adopted. With appropriate encouragement of different jurisdictions — and perhaps constituents haven't spoken loudly enough that it hasn't occurred. But I certainly don't see an impediment that it should occur with the right will behind it within the leadership.
Senator Black: Thank you both for that tremendous presentation. That was extremely helpful.
You've done a very clear job of outlining what you would wish to see. The practical problem I'm having, and I'm hoping that you can help me and the committee with, is how we get this done.
Bear with me as we work through the players. There's the Government of Canada. We all understand that the Government of Canada can advocate that something should happen here — and I think we all agree that something needs to be here — but the Government of Canada doesn't have the legislative authority to make this happen, other than, as you pointed out, the National Energy Board through their jurisdictional areas.
Then, as Senator Massicotte has pointed out and you have underlined, we have the provinces that, for whatever reasons, haven't taken action. So I'm wondering whether it doesn't fall in conjunction — it's teamwork here — to your industry, in cooperation with the cable industry, the municipalities and others to come together to provide an extensive lobbying campaign to identify the need for this service.
So what is CEPA doing in conjunction with other organizations, such as a Canadian cable organization, to advance this agenda?
Mr. Saad: You're correct, senator. There is a role for industry in that regard on two main fronts, apart from informal outreach to various interested parties. Formally, we have been strong proponents of two initiatives. One is the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, which is a federal or national umbrella organization that we helped establish along with other interested parties, in particular the Canadian Gas Association, but others as well. We did so to establish this umbrella organization that ties together a lot of the provincial Canadian Common Ground Alliance organizations that have existed for a number of years in a number of provinces.
So we helped establish that, and we have been reaching out to other jurisdictions to participate in that as well. We have achieved some success recently in, for example, attracting the Canadian Electricity Association and some of the other associations into the Canadian Common Ground Alliance umbrella. So that's one initiative we have been working on for a number of years now that is starting to bear significant fruit. It's also the vehicle through which we established the Click Before You Dig website.
The other one is through the Canadian Standards Association. We along with the Canadian Gas Association, some federal departments and the NEB were the initial parties that came together to propose developing the standard for damage prevention. Since then, a technical committee has been established. The vast majority of the sectors are represented in one way or the other, so telecommunications is present on the technical committee, as well as some of the municipalities, such as the people with water and sewer and such. That is along with CEPA and Canadian Gas Association members.
Those are two examples of things we are doing as formal vehicles to promote this issue.
Senator Black: That's wonderful to hear, but I would say to you that, given all of that good work and given the knowledge of the problem and the risks that we face here, what is the obstacle? Why hasn't this happened?
Mr. Saad: Again, senator, from my perspective, it should have happened, and —
Senator Black: I agree. Why hasn't it happened? Help us with that.
Mr. Donihee: I'm surmising a bit, if I may, but there is the potential for a perspective of a discretionary cost around the manpower that's required. There's certainly inertia around this. Even though the companies would be called upon to provide this service, if you've been so fortunate to not — as yet — experience the significant loss of reputation, the damage and the consequences, there is a certain degree of inertia that has to be overcome.
Mr. Saad: I would suggest the sheer complexity is an issue as well. There are different jurisdictions. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of kilometres of buried infrastructure across the country. There are different vintages, different approaches to installation, and evolutions over time. There are mixed levels of knowledge of the actual locations. As you suggested, some neighbourhoods are very old and some infrastructure is 100 years old in some cases. It is a complex situation.
In the United States, there were also some of the jurisdictional issues that the program got significant traction with federal incentives being put in place that would incentivize state governments to put programs in place. I believe there were some financial incentives tied into it as well in that model.
Senator Black: Perhaps we could look at that. That's tremendously helpful. Thanks to you both.
Senator Patterson: On the subject of legislation, moving forward towards your goal of mandatory Call Before You Dig legislation, do you see it necessary first to establish provincial One Call centres across Canada before a Canada- wide One Call system can be implemented?
Mr. Saad: It's certainly desirable, senator, but it's not a mutually exclusively proposition. I'd like to say that we currently have One Call centres across Canada except for the Maritimes, where there is only One Call in the city of Saint John, I believe. And the territories don't have One Call centres. There are now established One Call centres across Canada otherwise. We are on the cusp of hopefully solving that problem on a voluntary basis.
Legislation can move ahead, and where a One Call centre is not in existence the legislation could potentially help establish that.
Senator Patterson: I'd like to turn to the problems of ruptures. We have learned of an NEB 2011 report, Focus on Safety and Environment - A Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance — 2000-2009, where the NEB found that 8 per cent of all NEB-regulated pipeline ruptures were caused by external interference.
Are the pipelines operated by your members mostly NEB-regulated? What's the breakdown?
Mr. Saad: That's correct.
Senator Patterson: They are.
Mr. Saad: What was the breakdown of causes of ruptures? Is that your question, senator?
Senator Patterson: No. I was wondering whether your members were mostly regulated by the NEB. I wanted to ask this: Does CEPA collect statistics on external interference or third-party damage?
Mr. Saad: We do, senators. We collect it from our members. Our numbers correlate reasonably with the NEB. Our numbers probably indicate around 13 per cent. Our members, of course, are a blend of provincial and federally regulated companies.
Senator Patterson: Where damage was caused by a third party, would you be aware if pipeline locates were in place in those situations?
Mr. Saad: I don't know on specific cases, but there have been cases where locates did take place but safe processes were not followed subsequent to the locate. They were either the absence entirely of a locate or not completely following the process to its conclusion.
Senator Patterson: Is that what you call the safe ground disturbance process?
Mr. Saad: That's correct.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Mr. Saad: For example, in some cases it would require the direct supervision of company personnel for some stages of an excavation, and some of the damages were caused by a company getting authorization to start digging but then not subsequently providing the appropriate notifications for supervision of stages of the excavation, as an example.
Senator Seidman: I think you've made it very clear in your presentation that you believe we need mandatory registration and mandatory One Call centres in the country. I'd like to follow along on Senator Black's line of questioning because we keep hearing resistance and that builds a certain degree of frustration to try to understand why there is so much resistance and why something that seems so obvious in terms of safety for Canadians hasn't happened yet.
It's my understanding that pipeline operators may be notified of a request to dig in two different ways. The parties contact the pipeline operator directly if no call centre exists, or the One Call centre notifies the pipeline operator in the vicinity of the activities that could result in damage to the pipeline. At least that's what we've heard.
Do your members collect data on these notifications?
Mr. Saad: They do collect all the data that comes to them, whether a request is provided directly or that request comes through a One Call centre. Is that your question, senator?
Senator Seidman: Right. They collect data on the notifications.
I'm trying to look for ways to provide evidence to deal with the resistance. Generally one thinks if you have evidence that something is good people will subscribe to it more readily.
Could the data that you collect be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the One Call system in terms of, for example, reduction of incidents and, as a result, cost-effectiveness?
Mr. Saad: I don't know the percentage off the top of my head specifically, but there are statistics that show in the vast majority of cases where notification has taken place and safe procedures have been followed the excavation is safe. Off the top of my head, that is in the 90 per cent plus range. It's logical as well. There is certainly evidence that if you follow the right procedures where all the underground facilities are marked and the proper excavation procedures are followed, everybody gets to go home safely.
There is a point I'd like to make, though. The totality of being able to mark all the underground infrastructure is a key element here. As long as there is an element of uncertainty that maybe, just maybe, one pipe was missed, one cable was missed, a great deal of risk gets introduced into the equation.
It is also an element that causes the effectiveness of the system to be reduced. If the person who needs to excavate has to make multiple phone calls or check multiple websites before they can have a level of assurance, they're less likely to do so.
Senator Seidman: If you have collected the data, have you done comparisons using Ontario, which has a mandatory system, with other provinces that don't have mandatory systems using this data to demonstrate that in essence it's a lot safer and really more cost-effective all around?
Mr. Saad: Actually we have. Because the Ontario legislation is relatively new, the best data we have is from the United States since the process has been introduced. A study conducted by the American Gas Association followed excavation in four states over a period of 12 years and clearly demonstrated that where the appropriate legislation is in place, where the appropriate enforcement is in place and the appropriate education and outreach around safe digging practices are in place, the performance is vastly superior than in places where that is not the case.
Senator Seidman: Do you think somehow using this evidence, travelling across the country and making presentations to the various provinces and those responsible in the provinces would sell it? I'm grasping at straws here.
Mr. Saad: Well, certainly it's an element of selling it; and I think the story is quite compelling. Certainly it is an element. We are a big country, and there are many jurisdictions. That absolutely is an element; and that is the approach we have been taking to date.
Senator Wallace: Gentlemen, I'm thinking in practical terms. With your experience in provinces where there are One Call centres, have there been any difficulties in coordinating the calls that come in and the transfer of the information or the calls to your pipeline members? Is there any breakdown in there? Have you generally been satisfied with the quality of that connection through these One Call centres?
Mr. Saad: To my knowledge, there haven't been issues with that aspect of it at all. We are in the age of technology with its sophistication. I remember in the old days it used to be all by fax. They'd get a phone call and faxes would be fanned out to the subscribing companies with information about the excavation. Today, we have the Internet and apps and a plethora of approaches to add to the convenience of the process; so to my knowledge, not at all.
Senator Wallace: When a call is received at the One Call centre and they are then in touch with your members, are there any issues with delays in response by your members to the request? I think you have members with pipelines throughout the country, so they require staff to get people out to the site and identify the location of the lines. To developers, of course, time is money. They're concerned about getting their job done in a timely manner. Have you encountered any times when your members were not able to respond quickly enough, at least in the minds of the property owners, to get to the site and identify the location of the underground lines?
Mr. Saad: The National Energy Board regulations require a response within three days. For the most part, our companies are happy to respond within that period of time. With that type of time frame, there is no issue. This is not new for our members, in particular, because they have the appropriate staff to receive the calls and the appropriate people on the ground to go out and mark the system. There's a very deep recognition in our industry of the grave consequences that could result if the wrong things happen. The responsiveness of our members would not be an issue in that regard.
Senator Wallace: How do your members locate the lines on properties? For example, do they physically mark the surface where the lines would be located? How do they identify where those lines are? I realize you can look at a plan but, as Senator Massicotte said, plans change as construction occurs. How do they locate the lines on a site?
Mr. Saad: For example, if the pipeline is under paved surfaces, they would mark with paint on top of where the line is. They have the plan that brings them near to where the pipe is and they have instruments that can detect the line from the surface. They use that to confirm the exact location. If it is under dirt or farmland, they will stake it in short intervals to allow clear identification of where the pipe is.
Senator Wallace: From a practical point of view, there shouldn't be reasons why property owners and developers would have any problem whatsoever with the One Call system. It doesn't seem that it causes any delays. You can easily locate the lines and, of course, safety is what on the minds of everyone at the end of the day.
Mr. Saad: That's certainly my position. Some people might find it inconvenient, but we are talking about significant safety gain and significant safety hazard if you don't do it. From my perspective, there are no impediments in that regard.
Senator MacDonald: Gentlemen, you mentioned that all the One Call systems in the country exist from Quebec to British Columbia, with none in Atlantic Canada. I wonder why there is such a lag in this regard in Atlantic Canada. Why are we so slow at getting the system set up there?
Mr. Saad: The answer is largely because the amount of infrastructure in the Maritimes and in the territories is not as intense as it is in perhaps other provinces. One of the older One Call centres is in Alberta because Alberta has had hundreds of thousands of pipes for a long time. One part of it is identification of the need and another is awareness. It's not as clear in some parts of the country as it is in the others.
We are trying to reach out through the Canadian Common Ground Alliance to do our part in filling that gap. That's the only explanation I can provide.
Senator MacDonald: Of course, it raises a question because there are still sewer lines and buried power lines. There are a number of other things that have to be checked out before you dig. There's construction going on all the time, so something is missing, obviously, that has to be addressed.
You mentioned that CCGA was working with regional partners to set up a One Call system in Atlantic Canada. Who are these partners? Are they public, private, or both? Who are they, since there is no system in place?
Mr. Saad: For the most part, senator, they are industry representatives, just like CEPA is. I believe you heard testimony from some of those, for example the Canadian Gas Association. Those are the partners we have worked with.
The National Energy Board participated in the early stages of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance and continues to support the development of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance. There is government or government agency participation as well.
Senator MacDonald: Do you have any indication of the timetable for this? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel in terms of getting a One Call system set up in light of these discussions?
Mr. Saad: We are advocating for the ultimate set-up of a One Call centre, which is a separate entity from the Canadian Common Ground Alliance. We do our best to promote that. I believe the Executive Director of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, Mike Sullivan, whom you heard from earlier, is travelling regularly across the country to try to establish One Call centres. As you know, he's the President of the Alberta One-Call Corporation as well.
We certainly hope that will happen. Until recently, one of the big wins was Manitoba, which did not have a One Call centre until recently. That was at least partially as a result of the outreach done by the Canadian Common Ground Alliance.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions. I noticed that in your report you say that with the passage of the law in the U.S., damage to underground utilities plummeted by 40 per cent over four years. That's pretty astounding when you think about it. It certainly follows what you're saying — that it pays off big-time for industry.
Can you give me some sense of how long it took the U.S. to get a system like this in place, understanding that the population is 350 million and densely populated in so many areas, for example New York City. Can you tell me how many years they worked at this proposal until they finally got something in place to receive calls?
Mr. Saad: I'm not 100 per cent clear on the history. I know the legislation was in place in the mid-2000s. Since then, there have been progressive adoptions at the state level that have resulted in the benefits that you just pointed out.
Some areas in the U.S. have infrastructure that is as old as or older than Canada's is, so I imagine the recognition happened over a long period of time before that until it came to a head. I'm also unclear whether there was a specific trigger, such as a major accident, but the United States has had some very notable tragedies associated with underground infrastructure being struck.
The Chair: Your organization represents many of the larger pipeline companies. In regard to smaller companies drilling wells in northern Alberta or northern British Columbia, in a good year, it could be 15,000 to 20,000 wells with tie-ins to the main pipeline system.
Are those smaller companies that aren't members of CEPA or governed by the National Energy Board as enthusiastic about having a One Call system and paying for someone who might have to go out in the field 400 kilometres away to actually mark on a pipeline right-of-way before someone digs?
Mr. Saad: There is an old saying: If you think safety is expensive, try an accident. It is from that philosophy that there is recognition.
Ultimately, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers represents a lot of those producers, and EPAC, the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, represents the smaller producers. CAPP did recently join the Canadian Common Ground Alliance as well, so the indication of support is certainly there.
The Chair: That's good to know because for me, at least, coming from northeast B.C. and knowing how remote some of those areas are, that's important for me to know. I thank you for that.
Do you have a supplementary question, Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Yes. Senator Neufeld raised an important point. If you look at the impact in the United States, there has been a 40 per cent reduction in incidents from the One Call service. This may be a stupid question, but wouldn't it obviously save your companies a lot of money rather than penalties if you offered $10,000 to everyone who calls the centre? I'm sure nationally everybody would immediately agree.
The Chair: That's innovative thinking.
Mr. Saad: Certainly, senator, within a comprehensive program that first of all relies on information and education and awareness of safety and has a combination of carrots and sticks, I'm sure our industry would be prepared to play its part, as it has been, even more so in partnership with government.
Senator Mitchell: I asked about the cost to industry; no problem. There is a cost to municipalities. I understand the Canadian Common Ground Alliance is considering there is some threshold to which municipalities would actually be subsidized, that they don't get that many calls, anyway. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Saad: Not in detail, senator. But again, we certainly agree that we are in this together and we see the benefit of everybody participating. So whatever we can reasonably do to assess, just talking about our own members, certainly we would consider that very seriously.
The Chair: Thank you very much to both of you for your presentation and answers to questions. This was very interesting and certainly informative for our committee. Thank you very much. Again, we apologize for being late, but you know how it is when some politicians get talking in the chamber; we can't get them to stop so we can carry on with our committee meetings. You have a good evening.
We are continuing our examination of the current state of One Call or Call Before You Dig programs that identify critical underground infrastructure in Canada.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses from the Canadian Electricity Association here in person with us today: Francis Bradley, Vice President, Policy Development; and Geoff Smith, Director, Government Relations.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. We apologize to you also for keeping you a little bit later than what you thought, but not all is within our control. The floor is yours for your presentation, and then we will go to some questions and answers.
[Translation]
Francis Bradley, Vice-President, Policy Development, Canadian Electricity Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Canadian Electricity Association is also known by its acronym, the CEA. The CEA is the national voice of electricity in Canada and has been since 1891.
Our association represents all industry stakeholders, including utility companies, energy traders and representatives from the full electricity value chain. This includes suppliers of equipment, technology, and services. CEA members provide electricity generation, transmission, and distribution services to industrial, commercial, residential, and institutional clients across the country.
[English]
I am pleased to be here today to speak to Canada's One Call programs, in particular, what's in it for the electricity sector going forward, an overview of underground electricity infrastructure, and CEA's stance on best practices surrounding Canada's One Call programs. Geoff?
Geoff Smith, Director, Government Relations, Canadian Electricity Association: A little now about the importance of the electricity system generally. Families across the country depend on reliable electricity every single minute of every day. Businesses from coast to coast depend on electricity to power offices, equipment, machinery in plants and factories and to support the development of new projects and ventures. As time goes on, we are all becoming more dependent on electricity to power our smartphones, TVs, vehicles and larger-scale economic projects.
As governments and businesses look to expand resource development projects across the country — an issue this committee is very familiar with — they'll expect safe and reliable electricity to be there, as it always has been, to power these initiatives forward. In short, electricity is the backbone of Canada's economy.
However, most of Canada's electrical power grid was built over 25 years ago and intended to serve a population of around 20 million people. Today, we are at 34 million plus and increasingly dependent on electricity.
As an industry, we are up to this challenge and we are embarking on an ambitious and transformative project to bring Canada's electricity infrastructure in line with the needs and technology of the 21st century. The Conference Board of Canada tells us that investments of around $350 billion will be required over the next 20 years. It's a huge investment, but it has huge potential to create an average of 156,000 jobs each year within that time period.
With Canadians using more and more electricity and governments looking to expand resource development, electricity infrastructure renewal is vital to ensuring Canada's grid can meet the increasing demand, and essential to this transformation is the need for the system itself to be safe and secure.
I'll turn it back over to Francis to give you a bit of an overview of our grid and specifically how much of it is above ground and, for the purposes of what you're talking about today, below ground.
Mr. Bradley: You are all probably familiar with what an electric power line looks like. In Canada, in most places, there are two types of lines. Outside of the city centres, in rural areas or by highways, the larger power lines you see are transmission lines. Transmission lines have a high voltage and bring base load power to towns and cities. The second type is distribution lines. They have a lower voltage and are the ones within cities and towns, the ones you might see outside your home, the ones that actually bring power to the end customer.
Here is a quick overview of how much of this infrastructure is below ground. In 2012, Canada's distribution lines that were buried underground covered just above 143,000 kilometres across the country. That's only about 14 per cent of all distribution lines in Canada, as there were estimated to be over 876,000 kilometres of overhead distribution lines in that same year. In 2012, Ontario had around 43,000 kilometres of lines underground, which is about 22 per cent of all power lines, and 7.8 of all of Manitoba Hydro lines are underground, according to their 2012 annual report. Hydro- Québec estimates that about 9 per cent of their distribution lines are below ground. The main reason most of Canada's electricity infrastructure can be found above ground is that at the time it was cost-effective and easier to maintain.
As much of Canada's electricity infrastructure is above ground, we focus a lot of resources and assets protecting this infrastructure. At CEA, for example, we've had a number of initiatives to protect our grid and warn of the dangers of tampering with this powerful infrastructure. These include the creation of a series of videos under our occupational health and safety program called Electricity the Invisible Killer. I have a couple of samples here. We brought props.
Most recently, CEA launched a policy paper on the issue of copper theft from electricity facilities. This is an issue that's dangerous, expensive and a threat to reliability. The paper outlines the issue and provides four recommendations to deter copper thefts across the country.
Recently, given some extreme weather events like the ice storm in southern Ontario in December, there's been discussion about moving all lines underground. However, what most people are unaware of is that the cost of doing so would in many cases be astronomical. For example, after the ice storm in Toronto, Toronto Hydro released a preliminary estimate of the cost to bury all electricity infrastructure for the city of Toronto. This was estimated to cost approximately $15 billion — in other words, a 300 per cent increase to customer electricity rates. It's generally estimated that burying power lines costs roughly $1 million per mile. However, geography and population density of the service area can half that cost or triple it. As such, burying all power lines would be quite a costly venture.
At the same time, however, the number of underground lines is increasing as utilities across the country are equipping new subdivisions with underground structure. In fact, Hydro Ottawa, for example, notes that all new subdivisions are equipped with underground power lines, as it's mandated by the City of Ottawa through an agreement between the city and the developer. Utilities also continue to work with municipalities across the country to enhance cooperation around large-scale projects that may allow them to move infrastructure underground in a more cost- effective manner. Given the increasing amount of electricity infrastructure being installed underground, CEA and our members are turning more of our attention and resources to protecting this infrastructure.
I will now hand it back over to Geoff to talk about CEA's position on Canada's One Call programs.
Mr. Smith: With utilities installing more and more infrastructure underground, obviously we believe we must do all that we can to protect it and ensure the safety of those around it and those who use it. Interference with electricity infrastructure, either above or below ground, causes inconvenience for families and obviously can lead to significant losses for businesses across the country. I mentioned it can be extremely dangerous, even deadly, for utility workers, emergency first responders and residents, so this is a top priority for both above and below ground infrastructure.
Given that underground lines are increasingly being installed in housing subdivisions, they have a higher likelihood of being susceptible to third-party damage. An example would be an owner of a newly built home would be eager to undertake various projects, installing fences, decks, pools, landscaping, things that require excavation. As such, it's critical that local developers and homeowners know the dangers of digging and where our electricity infrastructure is buried. Outside of new subdivisions, buried infrastructure is most commonly found similarly in densely populated areas where a lot of the same construction and work occurs, so less so, obviously, in rural areas of Canada.
Our members are working with local governments and developers to ensure safe practices and that all relevant information is available when excavation is taking place near buried power lines. We believe that the Call or Click Before You Dig programs in the various provinces and the new federal initiative are very effective in reducing third- party damages. Primarily, increased awareness of these programs is key, and the dangers of failing to call or click before digging must be known.
Given CEA members' involvement with these programs throughout Canada and the increasing amount of electricity infrastructure being buried, we have joined the Canadian Common Ground Alliance. Francis is a recent addition to the board of directors. We are a fairly recent addition to the group, but we're enthusiastic about getting involved. While obviously the underground infrastructure is a little less in terms of our total infrastructure, we are at the table and want to be there.
Working with these partners, we want to be part of Canada's unified damage prevention voice, so we're contributing to the work of the CCGA in a number of areas: enhanced communications to achieve broader awareness about how and who to contact before you dig and how easily this information is available in the technological age; the establishment of contact centres and online services in all jurisdictions, and obviously there is some work to do there; and legislation that is similar to what was adopted in Ontario recently that will require the location of buried infrastructure before any excavation is undertaken.
We are pleased to be working together on the issues with our partners in the CCGA. I believe we can help ensure and enhance not only the safety of the public but also the reliability of the system.
Mr. Bradley: Moving forward, as Canada's electric utilities upgrade and renew Canada's electricity infrastructure to ensure it continues to be the reliable source that we've come to count on, we will look at new and innovative ways to protect all infrastructure above and below ground. As such, I want to thank you for taking the time to look into and report on this issue. The protection of this infrastructure is important not only for system reliability but also for the safety of Canadians, so your leadership on this issue is very valuable.
[Translation]
As the newest member of CCGA, I also ask you all for your support and cooperation on the ventures we take on as a group to best implement the one-call programs in Canada. I believe we can all agree that any step towards a safer country and more reliable systems is a good step.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present here at the committee. We look forward to taking your questions to further this important discussion.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. We will begin with Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks a lot. It's great to have you here. Just to confirm, you are good with legislation that would make this activity mandatory both for clickers and for the participation of infrastructure owners as well?
Mr. Bradley: Extending the Ontario model to other jurisdictions?
Senator Mitchell: Yes.
Mr. Bradley: Absolutely.
Senator Mitchell: This is a technical question that shows my naiveté about these things, but would it be easier to detect electrical lines than other infrastructure because there is power running through them?
Mr. Bradley: No, it would be pretty much the same. What you're detecting is metal. Whether it's an electricity line or a pipeline, it's metallic. In fact, when some infrastructure that isn't metallic is put underground, they actually will wrap a wire around it so that it can be detected.
Senator Mitchell: My final question would be along those lines. To further the technology question, can you imagine a future 10, 20 or 25 years from now where it's just infinitely easy to find things underground? There are GPS locaters. Is that progressing in your industry and industry generally, like my stud finder that I can buy at Canadian Tire?
Mr. Bradley: I think that could be certainly a possibility in the future. Ten years ago, nobody imagined that we would have GPS in our phones that would give us the kind of capabilities that we have there. As I say, we know, at least on the electricity side, where this infrastructure is. We have methods to be able to locate it accurately. The question is to what degree that would become tools that will be available more broadly to people outside our industry. It would be interesting to see, as you say, decades into the future, what that looks like.
Mr. Smith: Obviously with any technological advancement, on one hand there's convenience, but the security elements that would be involved at a certain level among the grid would have to be part of that equation as well. There is obviously some critical infrastructure that we don't want a cellphone app to be able to find, such as a key distribution point, so that would be a balance we'd have to find.
Mr. Bradley: The critical bulk power system is not underground. The transmission and distribution substations are not underground, for technical reasons more than anything else.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Good afternoon. Are you related to the Abitibi Bradleys who were in mining and forestry?
Mr. Bradley: No.
Senator Boisvenu: I want to thank you very much for being here and I congratulate you on your excellent French. Mr. Smith, thank you for coming as well.
The ice storm in Quebec made the front pages all over the world and cost Hydro-Québec almost a billion dollars as it had to strengthen its distribution network. Since that time, the debate is not whether it is normal to have such a vast system of electricity distribution that extends from the large northern power plants right to people's homes; a network of overhead lines rather than an underground one.
Several Quebec cities have been built more recently, such as Varennes, where the entire electrical network is underground for esthetic reasons and also for practical reasons, because with global warming people are thinking about scenarios like ice storms; there could be another ice storm and it could have very damaging effects on the distribution network. However, burying the network causes other problems such as a break in networks when people dig without calling or without knowing where the wires are buried.
Given those two issues, that is to say a more intensive effort to bury wires and to have a more or less effective alert system, how do you think we can optimize prevention in future? Especially as concerns electricity, where there is quite an obvious danger of people digging and coming into contact with high voltage systems?
Mr. Bradley: Yes. If we take the Ottawa example that was mentioned, the same process applies, the one that exists in other communities, in Quebec and elsewhere.
[English]
When we've got new subdivisions coming in — when you're building from scratch — there's a tendency to build those systems underground. On a go-forward basis, when we're looking at new communities being built, we will see that go underground.
But, again, it's the distribution system that's being under-grounded; it's not the transmission system. If you recall, the most striking images from the ice storm in 1998 were the transmission towers that were crushed and gone to the ground. There are challenges to be able to move transmission underground. There are thermal issues and there are a lot of engineering issues that come into play. You can do it as if you have a DC as opposed to an AC system; you don't have the same heat issues. But you will always have that challenge with respect to the bulk transmission system that will, in most cases, remain above ground.
One of the reasons we are increasingly interested and why we've joined the Canadian Common Ground Alliance is precisely what you identified there: the new communities that are now under-grounding, so more and more of our infrastructure will be below ground on the distribution side.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Is the call-before-you-dig reflex more developed among the owners of overhead networks, or underground ones?
Mr. Bradley: It might be more interesting to speak to our members to find out about their experiences and compare, for instance, the older downtown areas in certain places where they have overhead systems, as opposed to new subdivisions. I think it is possible, but we do not have that information.
[English]
The Chair: What experience has the Canadian Electricity Association had with underground wires that are now in place being disturbed by someone not calling before they dig? Is it a lot compared to pipelines? For instance, pipelines tell us the biggest percentages of problems they have are third-party. What's your experience with the electrical lines that are underground?
Mr. Bradley: We have the same issues, though it doesn't happen quite so frequently because more of our infrastructure is above ground. It is not in all circumstances, but what tends to happen is that a backhoe that may not have called before digging would hit an overhead power line on the way into its site.
But our members are actively participating in these initiatives because they do work and reduce the amount of equipment they have to then go in and repair as a result of these things happening.
In the end, these are costs that wind up being borne by the ratepayer, so it is to the benefit of the ratepayer for us to ensure that we reduce those events.
The Chair: Could you give us some sense of how many underground power lines are hit in a year? Do you have any of that information across the country? You represent everything across the country, so there's lots of buried infrastructure, especially distribution. I'm quite familiar with British Columbia, and there's a fair amount of buried transmission line, especially into the centre of a large city, such as Vancouver.
Do you have any idea of what percentage? Is it a lot in a year, or do you maybe just get two strikes in a year or what? Is there some number we can deal with? If you don't have the answer, we're quite happy to have you get back to the clerk with it.
Mr. Bradley: We will do that. We can quickly get that information from our member companies, and we'll provide that information back to the clerk for the report of this committee.
The Chair: That would be very good, because that would help us in our report.
Mr. Bradley: Absolutely.
Senator Massicotte: I didn't have my hand raised but I can come up with a quick question.
The Chair: That's fine.
Senator Massicotte: I'm trying to help the chair.
[Translation]
You said that a metal wire had to be put in so as to be able to identify sewer or water pipes. Is technology sufficiently advanced to allow people to not have to file plans and can we depend only on identification? Especially when you buy a residential house, because small contractors are often the ones who do that kind of work, and it is common practice to not file the "as-built plans.'' They just depend on the plans that were filed with the city.
Mr. Bradley: That question should be put to an engineer. It is a very good question.
[English]
I do not wear the metal ring on my pinky. That would be a question for somebody on the engineering side. My limited understanding of that, though, is that you wouldn't want to lean exclusively on those readings, because you will get false positives because there are other metallic things in the ground. So it's a combination of the two.
Senator Massicotte: But the initial plans would be a very good approximation of where the pipes are. So they encounter rock or something. If the technology is reasonably good, that could work. I think the major problem with the whole idea is that if you're requiring these contractors to file as-built plans, it is quite expensive and not organized to do so.
So if that technology was good enough that they could rely upon the original plans and, with the technology, identify some small deviations, that would seem to work.
Mr. Bradley: That was essentially what my colleague from CEPA was describing a little earlier this evening when he was talking specifically about when a locate occurs. They do both in that they don't simply spike the ground based upon the ground; they spike the ground based on the locate.
Senator Massicotte: He was suggesting that we need to file as-built plans, and that's a major hurdle for these contractors and even for large commercial property owners.
Mr. Bradley: Right.
The Chair: That ends our questions for this evening. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time, and we're sorry we kept you a little bit later than we normally would have, but we appreciate your input very much. We'll be back to you if we have other questions.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will provide that information to the clerk.
(The committee adjourned.)