Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence - March 27, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 27, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:46 a.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 Senate Standing 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'm chair of the committee. I welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room and viewers 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 the web cast 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 will now ask the senators around the table to introduce themselves. I will begin with the senator to my right, from Alberta, Senator Grant Mitchell.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Michael L. MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Quebec.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, New Brunswick.
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Black: Douglas Black from Alberta.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, to my left; and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
Today we are continuing to examine current state of One Call or ``Call Before You Dig'' programs that identify critical underground infrastructure in Canada.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome our witness from the Canadian Construction Association, Mr. Frank Zechner. Mr. Zechner, as I understand it, you are CCA's representative to the Canadian Common Ground Alliance and their expert on One Call issues. Thank you for being with us today. We look forward to your presentation. The floor is yours, sir.
Frank Zechner, Representative, Canadian Construction Association: The Canadian Construction Association thanks the committee for the opportunity to provide comments. I will now to turn my comments.
The Canadian Construction Association has been the national voice of Canada's nonresidential construction sector since its establishment in 1918. Today, CCA represents more than 20,000 member firms drawn from 65 local and provincial partner associations across Canada. The sector is responsible for the construction of everything higher than four floors and the core infrastructure that makes life possible in Canada. Our sister organization, the Canadian Home Builders' Association, represents the home building sector.
CCA's primary concerns regarding the current state of One Call or ``Call Before You Dig'' programs are: public and worker safety, federal government participation, and efficient and effective construction services.
Public and worker safety is of paramount importance to the CCA and its members. Few industries have invested more time and effort into public and workplace safety than the construction sector. It is this commitment to workplace safety that motivates us to speak up on One Call issues, and in this regard we are hopeful that your ultimate recommendations will lead to further improvements across Canada.
So why is One Call so important? Damaging an underground utility can have serious consequences, even if the damage does not involve a gas or electrical line. A broken water main may impair nearby fire sprinklers and fire hydrants which form the first line of fire defence. A broken sewer line may contaminate drinking water supplies for years. A broken phone line may sever communications of seniors in need of medical assistance, a security alarm, or interrupt traffic control systems at an airport.
A damaged electrical line may interrupt elevators, lighting, or sources of heat, a particular concern given the winter that we have just experienced. A contacted electrical line could deliver fatal electric energy to nearby workers, or a contacted gas line could trigger a deadly explosion not unlike the tragedy that killed seven individuals at a small plaza in the west end of Toronto in 2003.
Contractors try to anticipate and minimize every form of risk at construction work sites. While they do invest heavily in worker training, one element over which the contractor has limited control is the identification and location of underground utilities.
Canadian laws require construction contractors to rely on the owners and operators of underground infrastructure to provide and locate information in a timely and accurate fashion. This latter point cannot be stressed enough. Accuracy is critical to ensuring a safe workplace environment and minimizing the risk of injury to the public and our workforce resulting from the construction and installation of new subsurface infrastructure.
If inaccurate or incomplete information is provided, the likelihood of a workplace accident increases dramatically. As an example, a contractor may be advised that there is one telecom trunk line located two metres west of the east sidewalk. In fact, the contractor thinks he found the trunk line when he exposes an abandoned telecom line. He then cuts through the live trunk line severing communication for hours or days in the vicinity. In the case of more volatile assets such as electrical lines or gas lines, the results can be deadly.
This is unacceptable, particularly when the risk of such incidents can be minimized by ensuring infrastructure owners keep detailed and current schematics of their buried assets and that this information be centralized in one location so that when a locate request is made, all relevant subsurface structures in the construction zone are provided.
Regarding federal government participation, in 2002 one of CCA's provincial partner associations, the OSWCA, brought a Part VII application to the CRTC for locate response standards for telecoms. The application was denied in 2004. In 2008, the Canadian Construction Association provided financial and other support for an appeal of a CRTC decision involving Shaw Cable Systems who wanted to use municipal roads in Wheatland County to install underground lines. Shaw Cable refused to become a member of Alberta One-Call as a condition for using county roads. The matter went to the Federal Court of appeal who ruled in favour of Shaw Cable in 2009.
The CCA also provided financial and other support to the Canadian Common Ground Alliance's application to the CRTC in 2011 to require a sharing of the 811 number between provincial nonemergency health triage services and provincial One Call Centres. The CRTC also refused that application by its decision of 2012. Why is federal government participation so important?
Provincial legislation has until recently focused on ``Call Before You Dig'' by requiring excavators to call the owner of the utility to obtain a locate, being surface markings and maps to identify the location of buried utilities. One Call Centres had been in operation since the early 1990s in various parts of Canada but they were not truly One Call Centres because only some of the utilities opted to be members of those One Call Centres.
Until recently, a contractor working in the Toronto area might need to make upwards of seven separate calls, in addition to One Call, to obtain locate information. If one of those seven numbers is missed, it could result in tragic life of loss or impair the health and safety of countless individuals.
Ontario recently legislated mandatory One Call participation. While it is still in its early days, we are hopeful that this model will prove effective and that eventually other provinces will adopt similar legislation.
The legislation, however, only applies to provincially regulated utilities. When it comes to subsurface assets owned by federally regulated entities, there is no requirement for these entities to join Ontario One Call . While the National Energy Board has required its regulated industry partners to become members of One Call Centres, the same cannot be said for the CRTC-regulated businesses and interprovincial railways.
The U.S. experience is that mandatory One Call has been in place across the U.S. for about 15 years and for some states, almost 40 years. Over the past four decades, there have been countless opponents across the U.S. to mandatory utility locate systems. Notwithstanding the passionate arguments of hundreds, if not thousands of paid lobbyists for various sectors in industries in every U.S. state, each and every U.S. regulator sooner or later came to the same conclusion that a voluntary utility locate request centre was not effective and that a mandatory One Call Centre was an essential component of a safe and efficient economy and society.
Not only does the U.S. have mandatory One Call participation laws, it also has 811. The U.S. Federal Congress found One Call to be so integral to public safety that it directed the FCC and the U.S. DOT, in 2005, to establish a single one-call number, 811, to enhance the system's effectiveness across the United States including Hawaii and Alaska. The 811 system went into operation across the U.S. in 2007.
``One Calls'' by both federal and provincial lawmakers are key to a comprehensive framework that promote construction safety and enhance efficient construction services. Those laws must place appropriate obligations on both the excavating community and the owners and operators of buried infrastructure, whether that infrastructure is federally or provincially regulated.
The federal government can play an important role in advancing One Call across Canada, and we urge you to recommend to all federal agencies mandatory One Call participation of the businesses they regulate.
Furthermore, we hope you will also recommend that the CRTC reconsider its opposition to the shared use of the 811 number by One Call services. To do so we believe is in the best interests of all Canadians.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation. We will begin with questions from the deputy chair, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Zechner. You used very powerful language to make your point, and the way that you have done that is appreciated. It is very compelling.
I'm interested in your point in particular about the CRTC and Shaw Cable. Not that you are here to speak for Shaw Cable, but why would Shaw Cable not want to participate in this?
Mr. Zechner: I had the experience of dealing with many telecoms cross Canada. In fact, when the OSWCA made its application in 2002, I was counsel on that application. Most of the telecommunications industry — there are exceptions now and the exceptions are growing — basically look at this as a cost factor; that is, that their participation in One Call will cost X dollars. If they set up their own centre it would cost slightly less than X dollars. It is simply a matter of arithmetic.
Senator Mitchell: The idea of 811 would be a good idea. It was turned down by the CRTC because some other entity was using it. Have you or your organization thought about how it could be that that could be reallocated? You are arguing that it should be used for ``One Call.'' Is that still a possibility?
Mr. Zechner: We were arguing for a share. We do not want to displace the current owners of the 811 number. That has been assigned to various provincial ministries of health for secondary or triage services. It is not 911. It is a less urgent medical need, and 811 was a simple number. That is not active across Canada, notwithstanding the fact that that number was assigned to 811. Several provinces are using 811; others are not.
What we had proposed through the Common Ground Alliance was a shared use of 811. We would set up basically the electronic infrastructure so that the first message would be in both English and French, ``If you are calling for emergency or triage medical services, press 1. If you are calling for utility locates, press 2.'' After that, you would then be directed to the appropriate call centres. That application was considered by the CRTC and denied.
Senator Mitchell: You have mentioned that the National Energy Board makes participation in One Call centres mandatory, I think, and your suggestion is that CRTC could do that as well for the industries that it regulates. Have you considered that when a federal entity lets a contract for construction, that one of the conditions of being chosen for that contract be that the business has to be part of One Call as well, if it is a construction business?
Mr. Zechner: Construction contractors are not members of One Call. It is the utilities. If we're talking about Shaw or Rogers or Bell, that is the entity that is a participating member in One Call. The way this works — I'm sure you had other testimony — is that they basically have a fee structure, and they provide mapping information to the One Call centre. When the One Call centre receives a locate request from a homeowner or from a construction contractor, they then plug in to their computer an intersection or an area and say, ``These five utilities have underground infrastructure in the area you're proposing to dig.'' They then send out a message electronically to those utilities. The utilities respond. There's 85 cents or $1.10 or some number associated with each and every call that goes out. That's basically the way it operates.
Senator Massicotte: The call is made to a central registry. You identify the five or six infrastructures in place. Then what happens? The five or six do what?
Mr. Zechner: The five or six utilities in Ontario would be expected to go out and physically mark by flags or paint where their lines are, and also provide a document that explains where the lines are. It could be a sketch, a map or a written description, but usually two elements, a written document as well as surface markings to minimize any doubt about where the buried infrastructure is located.
Senator Massicotte: Is there any cost to the contractor?
Mr. Zechner: No cost to the contractor, no. Basically the utility pays the cost, and the costs are ordinarily recovered through its rate base, be it a water utility, a natural gas distributor or an electrical power distributor such as municipal electrical associations.
Senator Massicotte: We were told by another witness, the way I understood it, the way he described, is we call the One Call centre and there's a consolidation of services where one party represents all five or six utilities, but that's not the case?
Mr. Zechner: That can be, but not always. Certainly, for instance, the utilities cooperate and say, ``Well, if you're going to go out and mark where the gas line is, can you also mark where the telephone line is?'' That individual is then trained by the Bell representatives, the Enbridge representatives, the union or whatever the case is, and they are basically instructed and trained by those various companies as to how to locate their infrastructure. If a company is also doing locates for Ottawa Hydro and Enbridge Gas, they're trained by both the gas company and by Ottawa Hydro as to how to locate their buried infrastructure, and then that person is assigned and there are economies of scale because you are doing two or three things with one trip.
Senator Massicotte: For that person to do so, does he have on site via IPad or something the plans of each utility? I presume he must.
Mr. Zechner: He is provided with information by each utility, and it should be up to date.
Senator Massicotte: Having said that, does he rely on the plans only, or does he have some kind of technology to confirm the exact location of the pipes?
Mr. Zechner: Most of the equipment relies on harmonics. There is a frequency that is basically attached to the surface where the line comes to the surface. It might be a gas line or a water line. There is usually a frequency that is then inducted to the metal tracer wire or the metal outer casing, if it's a cased pipe. That sends a signal. The electronic device that he carries reads where the signal is emanating. It is like a homing signal when you think in terms of James Bond movies and things like that. It's a homing signal at a specific frequency. Since he is dialed to that frequency, he knows that's his line coming through and is able to mark with a great deal of accuracy, within a couple inches, where it is on the surface and put the appropriate paint marks.
Senator Massicotte: Is that more accurate than the plans? Would you rely on that more than the plans?
Mr. Zechner: You would rely on both, because that information about left or right will give you lateral information. It is not perhaps as reliable in terms of depth. It does not give you an indication of whether there's more than one piece of pipe or more than one cable in place. Again, the written information and the mapping information that he gets via computer will give him that information, and that's the information that he should relay to contractor. ``Here is the line that indicates where the gas lines are. There are two parallel lines, one above the other.'' Now the contractor knows that he must expose two lines before he can continue with mechanical equipment.
Senator Massicotte: Let me talk about sewer lines and electrical lines or telephone lines or cable lines which are not as dangerous. At least in Quebec, when you do a development, per se, commercial or residential, whatever, you obviously have plans that are approved by the municipality, and they have a copy, but there are rarely as-built plans filed. Usually the owner of a commercial property will do so on his own, but he will often not file with the city. When you are digging let's say residential stuff, you may encounter a rocky condition. You may deviate the line a little bit. The contractor on site rarely prepares new plans where the backhoe operator says he deviated by a foot or so. How do you circumvent that? Can you rely on technology to make up for that? Or are you saying, ``Mr. Residential contractor/ backhoe operator, you must now prepare and file as-built plans,'' even though no one is organized to do so?
Mr. Zechner: This is more a question of best practices by the industry. Through the various provincial common ground alliances as well the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, their best practices recommend that if there's any deviation in the actual construction versus the plans, that that appropriate information be passed back to the utilities and to the owner.
Senator Massicotte: The problem, I'm sure what they're saying, like Shaw Cable TV, maybe sewer, is that the consequences are not very serious if ever there's an infraction. It will probably cost a lot less to repair it if you ever get a break than to prepare those consistent plans, because there's a consequence. Sewer lines can be a bit more serious because you could contaminate something else, but I'm sure that's their argument. You are saying the law should be, irrespective of the economics, you must do so. Is that what you are proposing?
Mr. Zechner: Our proposal is mandatory. In the examples I cited in the presentation, each and every form of utility can have adverse impacts to health and safety of individuals, including phone lines. That could be a connection to an alarm system, a fire alarm system or a security alarm system. It could be a means of communication by which somebody is looking for medical assistance to try and dial 911.
Senator Massicotte: They will know that. As soon as there's a break, they will know there's a break. I'm sure they're saying it is easier to correct the break than, for the thousandth time, to call ahead and prepare the as-built plans, probably cheaper to deal with the consequence at that point in time.
Mr. Zechner: Again, when you interrupt those types of services, you slow down construction and make it less efficient. It might be a road opening that you are dealing with and now you have to keep the road open while people deal with the repairs. If you didn't have to make the repairs, the job would be more efficient and more effective not only for the contractor and owner but also for the public using that roadway.
Senator Massicotte: The financial and safety consequences of a pipeline and other potentially dangerous projects from this approach, if it was ever applied, would be immense. You referred to an example in the United States where the figure is 99 per cent, and some people say 40 per cent. It is probably billions of dollars saved. Would it be appropriate for them to compensate the fellows that don't see the savings to maybe contribute more to make sure everybody is on side?
Mr. Zechner: We see this, first and foremost, as a safety issue. Most of the utilities are regulated in one form or another. The National Energy Board regulates interprovincial pipelines. Various provinces have their own energy boards for pipelines. Electric utilities are regulated. Water utilities in many jurisdictions are regulated. And the CRTC regulates the telecom industry.
Added costs for responding to locate requests should be built into the rate base. It's a safety question; it's not a cost issue. Get it done.
Senator Massicotte: Why ``built-in'' when you would save so much money if this was applied? It should be a reduction, rather.
Mr. Zechner: We haven't seen any economic analyses showing great savings doing it the other way; namely, letting the line get cut and then trying to repair it.
Senator Massicotte: That's exactly what I'm saying. If you put this in place —
The Chair: I'm going to have to put you on a second round.
Senator Black: Your passion for the issue is very impressive and your point of view is helpful for this committee.
I want to understand, in terms of an ultimate model, what you think the answer to something is. If I may feed back to you, please, what I think I heard you say: You think that the Ontario model is the way to go, supplemented by an intervention by the Government of Canada to ensure that any agencies that fall under the Government of Canada regulate their carriers — Shaw, Rogers, CN Rail, Canadian Pacific Railway, whomever — to ensure they are following the mandatory provisions that you've described. Is that accurate?
Mr. Zechner: I'm not saying that the Ontario One Call legislation is ideal, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
Senator Black: Okay. What are the deficiencies in the Ontario legislation; what are the holes, in your view?
Mr. Zechner: It doesn't deal with a number of details in terms of accuracy — basically, the reasonable information and reasonable time requirements, which, again, are positive steps. Right now, there is no provision as to what happens if a utility doesn't comply in terms of penalties. Where are the teeth?
Right now, there's legislation across the United States that says, ``Well, if a certain amount of time has gone by, they can go and dig, and if a plant is damaged, it's the utility's fault; they'll have to deal with the consequences.'' I'm not sure that's the way to go, but there should be some sort of sanction.
Right now, the Ontario legislation doesn't have regulations behind it, and we have to wait and see what that looks like. There should be some sufficient reasonable enforcement mechanism and consequences, so that utilities don't just ignore the legislation. Yes, it's a requirement, but it's the equivalent of a parking ticket: $65, and that's the end of it.
Senator Black: You're saying let's have a penalty, not a fee?
Mr. Zechner: Basically, if you're not complying with the legislation, and I appreciate you might be missing a day or so, that's not a problem — but if you ignore it altogether — just refuse to come out and do paint marks; ``I'm going to give you a drawing and that's the end of it'' — you just have to suck it up.
Senator Black: One last question to elevate it a little bit. Are there any utilities or providers that would use underground services in Ontario that are not caught by the Ontario legislation? For example, are municipalities caught by the Ontario legislation?
Mr. Zechner: They are caught; there is a phased-in approach.
Senator Black: Sewer is caught, water is caught, electricity is caught, but cable is not caught?
Mr. Zechner: Again, Bell and Rogers are voluntarily compliant in Ontario — at least that's their current position — but other telecoms not. There are 80 telecoms in operation in Ontario. We probably have five or six of the larger ones complying. That doesn't mean we have the other ones.
Senator Black: How about the pipelines, TransCanada and Enbridge?
Mr. Zechner: The National Energy Board has been very proactive on this front. They have damage prevention regulations that have been in the process of being rewritten and revised for some 12 or 13 years. The proposed regulation requires mandatory participation in One Call s wherever they exist.
The National Energy Board also has guidelines, and they certainly are adamant through the guidelines that utilities and provincial pipelines participate in One Call.
Senator Black: That could be a model for the CRTC?
Mr. Zechner: It could be.
Senator Black: Excellent. Thank you.
Senator Seidman: If I could just ask specifically about locate requests. You've made your points very well in terms of the need for some kind of mandatory One Call system across the country. But as things exist right now, if a locate is requested, the pipeline operators will contact a caller within two to three business days — at least that's what we've been told — in order to determine the next steps. Is that the case? Do you receive timely service from the pipeline operators when a locate request is made?
Mr. Zechner: It's a mixed bag. Some utilities will respond within two or three days. Some will respond within two or three days with the whole information, not just more questions. Other utilities will wait until the fifth day and say, ``Exactly what is it that you're after?'' and try to buy more time and say, ``Well, now that you've clarified that, we're going to start the clock all over again with five business days.'' So it's a mixed bag.
Contractors will try to factor it in; if we have five business days in the legislation, we'll provide 10 business days' notice and hopefully we'll have the locates in place at that time. Often that's not the case; they might get five out of six, and they have to wait for the sixth one. Under the relevant laws, they can't break ground until all of the locates are in place.
Another problem that happens is that the locates have an expiry date, because there's always new infrastructure going in. Typically, the expiry date is 15 or 30 days after it's issued. If you're waiting for a locate to come and you get five out of the six coming within the first 30 days but the next one doesn't arrive until 40 days, guess what? Now you have to go back to the other five and say, ``Can you remark or confirm that nothing has changed?'' Now they get a remark request, and that's not as big a priority as the first time around, so they take longer. And it goes on. Quite often it can be 12 weeks before the contractor gets everything in place before they can break ground.
Senator Seidman: So, as you've described it, huge delays are possible and a lot of administrative work is repeated.
Mr. Zechner: Yes.
Senator Seidman: So that would call for well-defined time frames?
Mr. Zechner: Time frames, and maybe some sort of incentives so the utilities respect it. Again, contractors as a whole are not too concerned whether it's five, six or three days. In that framework, that works, but if it goes on for two or three weeks, that's a real problem.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. I appreciate that.
In our report entitled Moving Energy Safely, the committee included a mobile application as one option for a Canada-wide point of contact. My question for you would be: Do you think an app would be more efficient as a point of contact than a national phone number?
Mr. Zechner: Again, you're dealing with not only construction contractors; you're also dealing with homeowners. Homeowners might not necessarily have the app.
Even with interprovincial pipelines in Ontario and other parts of the country, when the interprovincial pipeline goes through residential areas will usually go through some sort of ravine in a backyard. Someone might be thinking of installing a pool and they might be getting close to that. The locate request is there. They might not have the app, because they don't do this all the time, but they should have an easy to remember number.
The number 811 works well. It's one of the tragedies that we didn't have that in Canada yet, because the U.S. manufacturers on all their excavation equipment — John Deere or whatever it is — have the 811 imprinted on their equipment. They have advertising campaigns, commercials and all sorts of literature that is included with all sorts of construction equipment regarding 811. They do so in their Home Depots and their hardware stores, so when people think about do-it-yourself projects in their front yard, they think of 811 because the banners are there in their equivalents of Home Hardware or Home Depot.
It would be good to take advantage of the awareness-building the U.S. has already created and get the spillover effect. It is the same way they have Coca-Cola commercials in the U.S. We get that advertising impact in Canada, but they have to shield the 811.
Senator Seidman: So there's an interesting model to emulate.
Mr. Zechner: Yes.
Senator Seidman: In regard to collecting data on incidents of damage to the underground infrastructure, we heard that there is data to support implementation of a national One Call system, but it's inconsistent across the country so that B.C., Quebec and Ontario are collecting data to some degree, given that data and evidence is important in order to demonstrate that it makes a difference to have this system. So what I wonder is, do your members collect data on incidents?
Mr. Zechner: There is something called the DIRT, the Damage Information Reporting Tool, that is administered by the Common Ground Alliance in the U.S. and its sister organizations across Canada. It is computerized. Contractors can participate, and if there is an incident, they will enter it into that tool. I did not have firsthand information about whether our contractor members in New Brunswick or P.E.I. are using the DIRT, but certainly in the provinces where the Common Ground Alliance is established and our larger contractors who frequently do road, sewer or water work and frequently encounter utilities, they will enter that information in.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for the presentation. I think the emphasis you've placed on the telecom situation is very helpful to the committee. We haven't really significantly explored that yet, so thank you for that.
I was shocked at the story you recited about the small plaza in the west end of Toronto where seven individuals were killed as a result of a contacted gas line. Do you have any further information on that? That's got to be one of the best examples of the need to improve our awareness system of these lines.
Mr. Zechner: It happened to be in my home neighbourhood, so I'm very much aware of that situation. What happened was they didn't actually break a line; they contacted a gas line, and there was a little bit of stress on the pipe, which severed a connection that was close to the basement of the small residential plaza, basically a strip mall that's one storey high. Basically, the line that fed that plaza developed a small crack, allowing gas to escape. The gas then escaped through the path of least resistance, which was basically into the basement, and then all it took was a source of ignition being a light switch, a furnace, anything at all, even a phone ringing would be enough to set off the explosion.
Senator Patterson: Was it construction equipment that put stress on the line?
Mr. Zechner: There are a number of perspectives on this. It went to court; there was a great deal of litigation. There were gas line markings on the surface but then there was a gap. The contractor assumed that the gap was basically the line continuing between the two points. There was a Point A and a Point B. The contractor assumed that the gas line was a straight line in between. It wasn't a straight line in between, and that's where they accidentally capped the gas line.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. Speaking of litigation and damages, most jurisdictions in Canada, I believe, do require ground disturbers to establish and mark underground infrastructure before any ground disturbance activities can occur. I think that's under health and occupation safety legislation, if not otherwise.
I'd like to ask you, from the point of view of your members, if an excavator neglects to request a line locate and does damage to an underground utility, is the excavator generally responsible for the damages that occur?
Mr. Zechner: They've been taken to court and sued successfully if they had not requested a locate and damaged a line. In fact, the gas companies will sue them for the gas that escaped. If you think about this, the cost of natural gas that escaped out of the line is added to the damages.
The point I'd like to emphasize here — you recited various occupational health and safety laws; in my additional notes, I also cited the relevant provision in the Canada Labour Code — there's no reciprocal obligation on the utilities. Yes, the excavator must — either as an employer or a contractor — request and identify the locate lines, but there's no obligation on the utility to respond.
The only change in Ontario that came about was through our One Call legislation. There's now a mandatory response required on utilities, but under the Canada Labour Code, federal laws, you can ask for a response from a railway or from a telecom, and they don't necessarily have an obligation to respond to a locate request. So what's the contractor to do? Basically stop the work for an indefinite period of time and hand it off to lawyers perhaps, I don't know, but that's not acceptable.
Senator Patterson: That's a valuable perspective. Thank you. I have one further question.
We have this requirement of ground disturbers under provincial health and occupational safety legislation. You mentioned people digging in their backyards. Are residents digging in their backyards generally not legally required to request line locates?
Mr. Zechner: Again, across the country, there's not a universal requirement on them to do so. Common sense and awareness is increasing that even planting a small shrub in your backyard may damage a line that's buried there. Frequently, most people don't have buried lines in their backyards, unless it goes to the pool heater or something like that, or perhaps some patio lights. In the front yard close to the roadway or if you have a laneway in the back, there's a higher chance you will encounter that. In Ontario, the law is that even homeowners have to call the One Call Centre.
Senator Frum: In your response to Senator Seidman, you made it clear why you prefer the 811 number for this One Call service, should we get there, but the CRTC rejected it for the reasons you explained. What would be wrong with potentially choosing another number?
Mr. Zechner: There's nothing wrong with it. 811 is easier to remember. It has the benefit of that spillover awareness, once it's allowed to flow across the border. So if you had a 10-digit number — again, I don't know if it's already taken, but let's say 1-888-888-8888 or whatever, it may work. There are more numbers to remember, so it's not as good. I'm not saying that's an answer. It's just that 811 is easier to remember than a 10-digit number, even if it's repetitive.
Senator Frum: In terms of the reasons why the CRTC rejected it, you were saying it's because of the crossover use or double use of the number. You're saying that it's a medical emergency number?
Mr. Zechner: I didn't say why they rejected it; I said that they did reject it. The decision is in my speaking notes, the rationale as to how they came to their decision.
We had asked for a shared response, and we realized, if it's non-essential, there would be time for, basically, one line; if it's health, press 1; if it's not health but locates, press 2. It's not critical in terms of the 911 emergency response that a five-second or three-second delay, whatever it takes, would not be an impairment anywhere. The construction industry, the utilities and the Common Ground Alliance participants would deal with whatever is necessary on the front end in order to put that switch in there so that it's not delayed and your request is put through the triage medical services. That was rejected.
Senator Frum: Having not read that, what was their rationale?
Mr. Zechner: I would direct you to the actual reasons for the decision. They basically said that they should get their own number and deal with it that way. They saw it as an unnecessary complication.
The various ministries of health opposed the sharing of a number. They decided there was no precedent in Canada for the sharing of a three-digit number, so they didn't want to start one now.
Senator Frum: That's interesting. That's a pretty serious obstacle to getting it done.
Mr. Zechner: Yes.
Senator Frum: Quickly, you mentioned the example of Shaw Cable preferring to do it themselves and not joining because of the cost factor. I know you don't know the specifics, but could you give us some sense of the magnitude of cost differential there?
Mr. Zechner: I don't know Shaw's economics. I don't know that of any specific utility, but my guess is it's anywhere from 10 cents to $1 per call difference.
Senator Frum: A dollar per call could be significant.
Mr. Zechner: It could be significant. When they're participants in One Call, the cost is somewhere between 80 cents and $1.10. If they do it themselves, they might be at 30 or 50 cents, something like that.
Senator Frum: Thank you.
Mr. Zechner: They can't do it for nothing.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Zechner, as you point out, the accuracy of the locate information is critically important to ensure that these underground structures are being located properly and not damaged.
I understood that the detailed schematic information that would locate underground structures is kept by each of the utilities, pipeline owners or power companies, and if a call was made to a One Call Centre the word would go out to the owners of underground facilities in that area.
You said something that made me wonder if I understand the way it works. You point out that infrastructure owners keep these detailed plans and schematics. You went on to say that in order to minimize risk that this information should be centralized in one location.
I was wondering, are you suggesting that the utilities would compile their information in one central location, say in a province or a municipality, so when the call came through it would be there for reference as opposed to detailed information that is not centralized but resides with each of the utility owners?
Mr. Zechner: What I had intended by ``centralized'' is Shaw Cable has buried cable on 22nd Street in Calgary, and on 22nd Street in Calgary there is cable. The One Call operator doesn't know exactly where on 22nd Street, but if they get a request for excavation somewhere on 22nd Street, be it a homeowner or something in the roadway, they will give Shaw a call saying that somebody wants to excavate on this portion of 22nd Street. Shaw will ask if it is on the west or east side. The operator tells them they want to excavate on the west side. Well, they only have their stuff on the east side so they're going to give them an all clear. If they're excavating on the east side then Shaw should be coming forward and saying they will mark and give detailed information. The One Call Centre doesn't have the detailed mapping; all they have is that there's a Shaw plant somewhere on 22nd Street; so they know where to send the locate tickets.
If you have Shaw and they only service the north half of the town but not the south half, and you get a locate request for the south half of town, the One Call Centre will not relay that call to Shaw. It is only for the gas and electrical lines.
Senator Wallace: The whole idea of a One Call Centre makes complete sense. It is hard to argue against it minimizing risk and so on. On one property you could have a number of underground utilities and lines. As a practical matter, when the call goes in it could be three or four or five different companies that are each required separately to come to that site and locate what they have. In the meantime, you have somebody in the construction business sitting on a machine waiting for them. It seems to be cumbersome. I thought it was because all the utilities and detailed information would be together so you wouldn't have five and six different parties arriving. That's not the case is what you said.
Mr. Zechner: Some utilities, particularly in Ontario, will use a common locator in order to locate both. For instance, in the city of Toronto, they could locate the underground Toronto Hydro lines, the Bell lines and the gas and water lines. One locator is trained by all the entities and has all the information. He has four cans of paint with different colours, and he basically prepares a drawing, and it is done with the blessing and training from the respective utilities.
In other parts of the country — for instance, interprovincial — TransCanada pipeline will not share with anybody else. They will do it on their own and locate where it is their boundaries are of concern.
Senator Wallace: As you point out, the responsibility to implement an effective One Call Centre brings together both the provinces and the federal government. There seems to be a joint responsibility there.
From your comments, you would expect the federal government to implement that system for federally regulated agencies; that makes sense. What would be the expectation of your association as to the role of the federal government, if any, in bringing together the provinces to do something in a cohesive and comprehensive way?
Right now it seems it is a series of one-offs. If they choose, each province is to do their own system separately. What role do you see the federal government playing, beyond having the system for federally regulated agencies? How does it interact with the provinces?
Mr. Zechner: I want to make it clear that we're not asking the federal government to spend any money, not a nickel. We are advocating for something along the lines of what the National Energy Board is doing in saying you are a regulated community, you shall join the One Call Centres and shall respond to locate requests. Whether they choose to do so by a statute, regulation, policy statement or guideline, is entirely up to them. Right now there's a void.
Senator Wallace: As far as the provinces are concerned, it would be the Canadian Common Ground Alliance that would deal with the provinces. You are asking us to deal with federal agencies; the provinces will continue to be dealt with in a series of one-offs through your alliance; is that correct?
Mr. Zechner: Yes. There's a series of common ground alliance organizations. There's one in Ontario, B.C., Alberta and Quebec. They deal with the provinces and work with all stakeholders in that province, including federal entities, the telecoms.
Because of the Wheatland County type of scenario, there should be a mandate similar to what the National Energy Board is bringing forward, whether it is by regulation or policy statement, but move in that direction.
The National Energy Board is choosing to do that in a regulation. They have had a proposed regulation on the books since 2007. It is expected to be finalized later this year, and then it will be a formal legal requirement on pipelines. Up until now it has been part of their recommended policies and guidelines.
Senator Massicotte: The Canada Labour Code obliges every contractor about to excavate to do follow-up and find out where the underground pipes are.
You said the court has proven they're held legally responsible if there's a fracture in any pipe.
Mr. Zechner: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: From the contractor's point of view, from all those backhoe operators or for the major operators, they would see an immense benefit from One Call Centres. In other words, they would support it immensely given their exposure. If they break a pipeline, we have seen billions of dollars in damage; so they're largely on side. Who is not on side? Some utilities?
Mr. Zechner: Some utilities, exactly.
Senator Massicotte: Everybody else would be on side. The pipe, gas, anyone significantly dangerous and with consequences, they have to be on side. It has to be cable or telephone, those who have less to gain?
Mr. Zechner: Municipalities have been reluctant as well. They're now part of the Ontario legislation, but that doesn't apply across the country.
Senator Massicotte: The municipalities and utilities that are less dangerous are not at the table yet?
Mr. Zechner: Depending on which location you are talking about, you will have different people not wanting to enter into the picture. You have some telecoms like Bell and Rogers that are participating across the country, to the best of my knowledge; you have other telecoms that are choosing not to. And in Ontario you have a great deal of reluctance from electrical distributors. They didn't want to be part of this. They had a regulation which required them to respond, and now they are caught by the One Call legislation in Ontario and they have to join One Call . As recently as three or four years ago, the majority of electrical distributors were not part of One Call .
Senator Massicotte: Distributors being those that install?
Mr. Zechner: Ottawa Hydro and equivalent, yes.
Senator Massicotte: Those that install electrical wiring, for instance?
Mr. Zechner: Basically the people who bring electricity to your house.
Senator Mitchell: I would like to follow up on two points that arose out of Senator Wallace's questions. The National Energy Board's initiative requires industrial concerns under their jurisdiction to funnel through One Call Centres at the provincial level. They wouldn't have to have a separate system.
Mr. Zechner: No.
Senator Mitchell: Would it not be more likely if we actually had a mandatory One Call system that single locator firms might emerge and reduce the complication of having four or five people having to go locate, that that would be drawn into greater relief in the sense of people realizing, ``Wow, if we are all working together, why don't we locate together?''
Mr. Zechner: That would be more likely; it would encourage that. As long as you have people outside of One Call, chances are they're not going to respond on a collaborative basis because they're getting separate calls; they don't know when the other ones are being contacted.
The Chair: That was very enlightening. I appreciate you coming here and presenting and answering questions.
(The committee continued in camera.)