Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 7 - Evidence - February 25, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 25, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, The Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:32 p. m. to study the current state of "One Call'' programs that identify critical underground infrastructure in Canada.
Senator Grant Mitchell (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Welcome to this hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, The Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Grant Mitchell. I represent the province of Alberta in the Senate, and I am the deputy chair of this committee. Senator Neufeld, the chair, regrets that he is unable to attend today's hearing.
[English]
I want to welcome all of the senators and our witnesses. I want to welcome members of the public and staff in the room and members of the public who may be viewing these committee hearings today. I'm going to begin by having the senators introduce themselves. Then, we'll introduce what this is all about, and then we'll turn it over to our witnesses.
As I said, I'm Grant Mitchell. I represent the Senate for Alberta. I'm from Alberta, and I sit in the Senate. Let me get that out straight. I have the pleasure of chairing. I'm deputy chair of this committee, but because Richard Neufeld, the chair, is unable to be here today, I've been asked to sit in. It's a pleasure to do that.
I'm going to introduce Sam Banks from the Library of Parliament, whose research assistance is of profound assistance to us, and Lynn Gordon, who manages this committee in an excellent fashion as all of us members know. I would ask to start on my right with the introduction of the senators.
Senator Boisvenu: I'm Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu. Welcome.
Senator Sibbeston: I'm Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Senator Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
The Deputy Chair: Today, we're starting the first of a series of meetings on what's called "One Call.'' To many Canadians it will be known as "Call Before You Dig,'' and it's a remarkable initiative by various businesses and a group that's formed — and I'll let the witnesses describe all of that — to help prevent punctures and breakages of underground infrastructure, pipelines and so on in this country, which account for a great percentage of the punctures that do occur. It's an important study because it relates to safety. It's an important study because it relates to business efficiency. It's also an interesting study, if I can put it in some context, in that it's a follow-up study, by this committee, that arose out of an earlier study that we did on hydrocarbon transportation safety. We came across this issue on a number of quite independent occasions — visits in Sarnia and visits in Calgary, where it first came up. We found out about this national initiative that has gained real momentum in Ontario in particular.
Today, we have three experts to help us with this. We have, from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Robert Bailey, MPP, Sarnia—Lambton. We were just talking earlier, and I can say that he has done something that very few MPPs are able to do, which is getting a private member's bill passed, one of this substance and this consequence, which was passed in Ontario. I welcome you, and I congratulate you for having done that. I know how hard that is.
We have, from the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, Michael Sullivan, Executive Director, and, from the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance, Bryon Sackville, President and Chief Executive Officer. I think you'll find from these three people a real passion for this initiative and for its importance. I understand, Mr. Sullivan, that you are going to start. The floor is yours.
Michael Sullivan, Executive Director, Canadian Common Ground Alliance: Thank you very much, senators of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. On behalf of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to address the committee today. This is an important day for public safety. As you heard, my name is Mike Sullivan. I am the executive director of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, and I'm also the president of the Alberta One-Call Corporation. The Canadian Common Ground Alliance, the CCGA, works to reduce damage to buried infrastructure on a national scale to ensure public, worker and community safety, environmental protection, and the integrity of services by promoting effective damage prevention practices in Canada.
Damage prevention is a shared responsibility, and in that regard, the CCGA believes that anything reasonably possible to meet Canadian expectations relative to their safety and the integrity of services that support our daily lives should be done.
Buried underground in Canada is a complex network of millions of kilometres of electricity, gas, cable, pipes, water and telecommunications services. From a design and operations perspective, there is a high level of confidence shared by the owners and operators and the regulators in the integrity of those buried utilities. However, should that buried infrastructure be damaged by uncontrolled or poorly conducted excavation, public and worker safety, as well as the integrity of this buried network, is exposed to unnecessary risk and consequence whereby an excavation mishap could result in serious injury or even death to workers or to members of the public or could cause environmental risk or service interruption.
Over the past four decades, Call Before You Dig has acquired considerable public equity by increasing the public's awareness of the presence of buried infrastructure and has become the vital first step in a process designed to maintain public safety and the integrity of that infrastructure during excavation. Despite awareness of Call Before You Dig, excavation damage continues to put the safety of the public, the worker, our communities and the environment at risk.
Damage to critical buried infrastructure by uncontrolled excavation in Canada is a daily safety issue across the nation. On average, Canada's complex network of buried infrastructure is damaged more than 8,000 times per year — or at least 31 times a day. Excavators who have not identified the location of these services before digging are the primary cause of that damage. In fact, a recent CCGA report on damage that occurred in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia in 2012 concluded that 40 per cent of all reported damage was due to a failure to notify the One Call or contact centre, and 39 per cent was due to insufficient excavation practices. But the issue goes beyond simply not calling before you dig. A lack of comprehensive coverage is also to blame.
In most jurisdictions across Canada, registering, or membership, with a One Call centre is merely a suggestion, not a requirement, and that exposes unregistered buried infrastructure and public safety to unnecessary risk.
Beyond the obvious danger to public safety and the environment, societal costs associated with these damages, such as the need for emergency response, evacuation and repair, cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year. A recent report determined damage to Quebec's infrastructure cost Quebec taxpayers $75 million in 2012 alone.
While advancements in technology and improved excavation practices and methods can have a positive impact in reducing damages, Canadians will only realize the true value of the damage prevention process when a one-window approach that triggers that process exists in all jurisdictions.
With the exception of the province of Ontario, which passed legislation in 2012 requiring all owners and operators of buried utilities within the public right-of-way to register with Ontario One Call, true One Call services in Canada remains a voluntary concept for the most part. While One Call services and centres exist across most of Canada, joining or registering with those centres is merely a suggestion and is left to the choice of the buried infrastructure owner.
Now, at the opposite end of the spectrum, excavators are required by both provincial and federal legislation to identify the location of buried infrastructure before digging. Common sense suggests that the natural place for the excavator to start would be a true One Call centre where owners and operators of all buried infrastructure in that jurisdiction would be required to register the location of their buried plant. As it is, across most of Canada excavators are left to their own devices in determining, through any and all available means, the presence of any other buried infrastructure in the vicinity of their digging project that is not registered with a One Call centre.
Establishing One Call service and access across Canada that requires owners or operators of all infrastructure within a public right-of-way to register with the One Call centre, and mandating that all excavators contact the One Call centre to trigger the damage prevention process by requesting a locate, would significantly reduce damage to Canada's critical buried infrastructure. It would enhance public safety and service reliability and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
The CCGA is working to address this via three objectives. First, support for the establishment of mandatory "Before You Dig'' legislation with enforcement. This legislation would require excavators to request locates prior to excavation and make following the damage prevention process a requirement, not a suggestion, without exemption.
Second, simplified access to One Call centres across Canada that triggers the damage prevention process to ultimately confirm the location of all buried infrastructure in the vicinity of proposed excavation, once again, without exception.
Third, addressing Canadians' evolving worker and public safety expectations by harnessing new and emerging technologies and developing, simplifying and promoting national access points, including toll-free numbers, a national bilingual website, which is in existence right now, www.clickbeforeyoudig.com and www.CliquezAvantdeCreuser.com, and mobile applications that excavators can easily use for pre-excavation utility locates.
Once the Common Ground Alliance in the United States was able to achieve similar goals in 2004, damage to buried utilities dropped by 40 per cent over a four-year period. In fact, a recent DIRT report, the Damage Information Reporting Tool from the Common Ground Alliance in the U.S., confirmed that when a locate request was made to a One Call or contact centre, damage to buried infrastructure was eliminated 99 per cent of the time.
With the increase in infrastructure development activity across Canada, there is a growing discussion over the integrity of Canada's critical buried infrastructure. As part of that discussion, the CCGA is firmly of the view that one of the most effective ways to enhance the integrity of Canada's existing and proposed utility network, including existing and proposed transmission pipelines, is to secure legislation without exemption requiring the establishment of One Call service across Canada, mandatory registration of buried infrastructure with those services, and an enforceable obligation to comply with the damage prevention process. By that I mean request a locate, wait the required time, respect the marks and dig safely.
In an effort to promote its view of what damage prevention legislation should include for being effective, the CCGA developed a damage prevention white paper articulating the principles and elements for effective legislation that would result in safer digging practices, greater protection of underground infrastructure, and greater assurance of community safety. This paper was distributed to the committee on June 20, 2013, and I have taken the liberty of distributing it again today. It details 10 key components for effective and consistent damage prevention legislation and regulation across Canadian jurisdictions.
A recent milestone in Canada was the passing of Bill 8 in Ontario, the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012, an Act respecting an underground infrastructure notification system for Ontario.
This act requires that owners and operators of underground infrastructure specified in the act become members of, or register their facilities with, Ontario One Call. When a request for information about a proposed excavation or dig in the vicinity of that infrastructure is received, the member is required to locate and mark its underground infrastructure that may be affected by the excavation, or indicate to the excavator that its underground infrastructure will not be affected by the excavation. The act also obligates excavators to obtain information respecting underground infrastructure before beginning an excavation or a dig and creates offences for failure to comply with the act or regulations.
Finally, development of a Canadian damage prevention standard, CSA Z247, "Damage Prevention for the Protection of Underground Energy and Utility Networks,'' has been undertaken under the auspices of the Canadian Standards Association and is well under way. The technical committee charged with drafting the standard consists of a wide cross-section of damage prevention stakeholders, including owners and operators of buried utilities, pipeline, fibre optic, telecommunications, electricity, gas distribution, water and sewer facilities, locators and regulators, excavators, contractors and other practitioners, as well as representatives of municipalities from across Canada, who for the very first time are working together as a single team to develop a national damage prevention standard for safe excavation.
CSA Z247 aims to address the challenges facing damage prevention in Canada, identifying the damage prevention process and outlining key elements that, when consistently applied, can and will reduce damage to all buried infrastructure and significantly enhance public safety. The standard also strives to address the public expectation that those engaged in excavating should enjoy a reasonable level of confidence that their own safety will not be compromised once they have triggered the damage prevention process to identify and protect buried plant in the vicinity of their excavation.
Beyond the significance of developing the standard for the purposes of practical implementation, the CCGA recognizes the benefit of the symmetry that could be realized should the standard be referenced in legislation. Should that occur, the language within the standard effectively becomes a requirement of legislation and can achieve the CCGA's desired results articulated earlier in my commentary.
Senators, in closing, allow me to be bold. Nationwide in Canada, there is no legislation governing the damage prevention process or One Call in Canada. It does not exist. To date, there has not been any other opportunity to examine the One Call process that even remotely approaches this standing committee's scope. This standing committee has opened the door to a path that can realize this critical and pivotal goal. By influencing the development of balanced legislation across all jurisdictions requiring owners of buried infrastructure to register with the One Call system and excavators to request a locate from the One Call centre prior to any excavation, this standing committee will bring dramatic and positive change to the damage prevention process in Canada. It will save taxpayers millions of dollars in repairs and societal costs. It will enhance public, worker and community safety, and, ultimately, it will save lives.
On behalf of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance, its board of directors, the Common Ground Alliance regional partners, the thousands of damage prevention stakeholders across Canada and the millions of Canadians who rely on the integrity of this great nation's buried infrastructure, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee, and I urge you to take this work to the finish line and influence the implementation of One Call damage prevention legislation across all provinces and territories. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan, for that presentation. Thank you very much for your endorsement of the work of this committee.
I'm going to go next to Mr. Sackville. There's a method to this, which is that we've had the national perspective, and now we're going to have an Ontario association perspective as well. Then we have the actual, nitty-gritty legislation perspective. You are Ontario. Thank you.
Bryon Sackville, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance: Senators of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, on behalf of the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance, I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to address the committee today. My name is Bryon Sackville. I am the president and chief executive officer of the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance. The Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance is a regional partner of the Common Ground Alliance, the CCGA. I sit on the executive board of the CCGA, holding the position of secretary.
The Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance, the ORCGA, is a non-profit organization that began in 2003 and presently has over 440 members. These members are made up of underground facility owners, excavators and locators within the province of Ontario. The ORCGA is a member-driven association, dedicated to ensuring public safety, environmental protection and the integrity of services by promoting effective damage-prevention practices. Our mission is to enhance public safety and utility infrastructure reliability through a unified approach to effective and efficient damage prevention. We are a growing organization and represent a cross-section of 19 stakeholder groups that impact underground infrastructure. Damage prevention is a shared responsibility.
Some of the accomplishments that the ORCGA has achieved over the past 10 years are the development of best practices principles for safe excavation; the development of a certification training program for locators; a damage information reporting tool publication that is produced annually; annual excavator of the year awards; the development of a framework for a Canada-wide Common Ground Alliance; stakeholder represented committees, such as industry best practices, education, reporting and evaluation, and events; the formation of geographical councils across the province; the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012, otherwise known as Bill 8; and the Ear to the Ground biannual magazine publication.
The passage of Bill 8, the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, in June 2012, was a remarkable achievement. Not only was it first in Canada, it was passed in the context of a minority legislature. One Call legislation went from a concept in 2004 to law in 2012.
June 19, 2012, was a critical milestone towards the protection of the underground infrastructure within the province of Ontario. That was the day Bill 8 received Royal Assent. Although this day will be long remembered for its significance, the path to damage prevention in Ontario has been a long one and will continue well into the future.
The journey started many years ago with a vision by industry stakeholders of a One Call system as a key way to prevent third-party damage and, ultimately, to protect the critical underground infrastructure, employees working near that infrastructure and the public at large. The One Call vision looked to a single One Call centre in the province where excavators would call to initiate all of their locate requests. This concept would ease the process for excavators by requiring a single call, versus examples of up to 13 calls in some areas, and also reduce the risk as a One Call centre would ensure that no infrastructure owners were missed.
In 2004, Informetrica, an Ottawa-based economic consulting firm, was contracted to put together a model to measure the societal costs of damages caused by failure to call for locates. They conservatively estimated the societal costs at $33 million per year. This included not only the direct costs to the owners of the damaged buried plant but also the broader costs of emergency services, traffic impacts, et cetera.
In driving this One Call vision forward in Ontario, industry stakeholders engaged on many fronts, often providing the funding and resources to enable start-up and success. The establishment and the evolution of Ontario One Call, the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance, and other industry groups were key strategic initiatives towards this vision.
One Call was established in 1996 as a voluntary-participation organization. Membership has grown progressively over the years and will become mandatory for infrastructure owners with full implementation of Bill 8 in June 2014.
The Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance was formed in 2003 after some initial work by the Technical Standards & Safety Authority, TSSA, Ontario One Call and industry stakeholders. The ORCGA currently has 440 members and sponsors representing a wide cross-section of the stakeholders and has developed multiple iterations of its best practices document that industry stakeholders support and follow.
Other industry groups were formed. Also, getting provincial political support was key. In a meeting with Bob Bailey, a Progressive Conservative MPP for Sarnia—Lambton, he immediately thought the One Call proposal would make a great private member's bill. With the political landscape changed by the 2011 election, Bob Bailey realized that he would need a co-sponsor for this bill. He secured NDP MPP Paul Miller from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. The support of the NDP was now secured.
This multi-faceted approach created engagement and forged alignment within the stakeholder community. The alignment created the environment that, combined with the political will and the engagement of the time, enabled the final steps toward One Call legislation, Bill 8. Presently in Ontario, we are waiting for the regulations that will support the bill to be finalized and approved by the provincial government. The Ministry of Consumer Services anticipates that taking place in the next few months.
Commencing in June 2014, all facility owners, excluding federally regulated and First Nations ones, who have underground infrastructure within the public right-of-way, must be members of Ontario One Call and receive locate requests. This historic step fundamentally improves the safety of all excavations in the province. Throughout this process, significant milestones have been achieved, and overall damages have declined in Ontario. However, the work of the stakeholders is not complete. Until third-party damages have been eliminated as a risk to underground infrastructure, industry stakeholders will need to remain steadfast in the vision of a One Call in Ontario.
On behalf of the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance, its board of directors, our members and the damage prevention stakeholders across Ontario, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I urge you to take this information presented and support the implementation of One Call damage prevention legislation across all provinces and territories in Canada.
Robert Bailey, M.P.P., Sarnia—Lambton, Legislative Assembly of Ontario: Thank you, Senator Mitchell and honourable senators of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. It's a great pleasure and privilege to be here today as an Ontario legislator. I want to thank my colleagues; I won't have to say anything. My mother must have written their remarks, I think. In my role in the province of Ontario I'm the approximate deputy whip and also the critic for pipelines, oil, gas and aggregate.
Your committee and the work that you do are very important to the national scene, especially Ontario, the sector I represent. I'd like to thank your committee for the great invitation and opportunity to be here today. Ms. Gordon, the clerk, was kind enough to get a hold of me.
The work we're doing with the Ontario One Call system is very important, and I'm happy to share my insights and experience in promoting this initiative.
I will leave the technical and financial aspects to others, as Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Sackville already discussed. Rather, as the elected Member of Provincial Parliament for Sarnia—Lambton, I'll use my time to explain why, as an elected official, legislator and former employee working in the industry for a longer period of time than I'd like to think, I consider this initiative as something that could garner the support of all parties in the Ontario legislature. That's why I moved forward with it. To be honest, I thought it was the law in the province of Ontario. In the industry I worked in, with great foresight and safety initiatives, NOVA Chemicals from Alberta do a great job and are a great supporter of mine. They enforce these regulations, and I honestly thought it was the law until the One Call people approached me and told me what their problems were. As soon as I saw it, I said we have to do something about this.
My riding of Sarnia—Lambton is home to Ontario's oil, gas and chemical industry —an industry that I devoted more than 30 years of my life to. I started as a young boy right out of school. In fact, just prior to my election to the Ontario Legislative Assembly in 2007, I worked at NOVA Chemicals, where I was the contract coordinator and on a day-to-day basis was in charge of issuing excavation and safety permits, and I dealt with locates. I understood the importance of them. My job, my boss's job, was on the line every day and the infrastructure in the plant that we protected. When working in Sarnia's Chemical Valley, the first lesson I learned — and any new employee learns anywhere in industry today — is that safety is always a priority, job one.
If you talk to any of the employees involved in the petrochemical industry in Sarnia and across the country, Alberta, Manitoba, all of your provinces, the industry and the employees will tell you that knowing the dangers you may face on the job site is the only way to know what sort of precautions you need to take to make yourself, the infrastructure and the general public safe. This is even more important when your job site is made up of a vast underground network of electrical conduits, telecommunication facilities and pipes that connect all of our plants, factories, businesses and even our homes in Ontario.
You might ask what made me, as a legislator, interested in the Ontario One Call idea. For me, there were three important reasons, and I'll outline them now.
In Ontario, phone calls to locate underground infrastructure were not made or were even avoided due to the overly complicated and cumbersome system. For example, in 2011, the city of Ottawa had as many as 23 organizations or departments with utilities and existing infrastructure, investments that provide locate services. Only nine of these organizations at that time participated in Ontario One Call. Consequently, homeowners and excavators were expected to make those 13 phone calls before excavations. A mandatory One Call would reduce this to a single call, increasing the likelihood that that first important call would be made. I talk to contractors in Toronto, especially where they had the amalgamation — the old city with the newer cities — and if you were on the border of an intersection of a street you could have up to 23 different companies or organizations that you needed to call because old Toronto Hydro and different boroughs come together. It's a dog's breakfast, to use an old term.
In 2011, Ontario had twice as many accidental hits as the average American state. Keep in mind that every U.S. state has a form of mandatory One Call system, and they've seen the result of that.
Lastly, the current system to locate underground infrastructure was unnecessarily compromising the safety of homeowners, excavators and the general public, and that infrastructure as well. I always feel that safety should not be voluntary. It should be mandatory. The burden on homeowners, businesses and excavators alike to locate all underground infrastructure created unnecessary risk and potential catastrophe. We all know, all of us in this room and the viewers, when projects are under way, timelines are tight and mistakes are made. There can be oversights, and some may choose to take shortcuts with safety to achieve gains in productivity.
Ontario One Call was a solution to those concerns created by industry to protect its most important assets: its people and then its infrastructure, in that order.
Using readily available technology and a simple organization strategy, Ontario One Call has successfully archived information on the more than $100-billion worth of buried infrastructure in the province of Ontario alone. This has simplified a cumbersome system that was previously fragmented with little or no common standards. In addition, from my experience in talking with many of my constituents in Sarnia—Lambton and residents across the province of Ontario, centralizing information with Ontario One Call has increased the awareness of the existing responsibility to call for those locates before digging or excavating. People who may at one time have scoffed at the work involved in calling those many different numbers, sometimes 13 to 23, necessary for locates are now wilfully using the service to clear those areas where that might take place.
With the ever-increasing pace of life, people have come to expect simplified access to information. They just expect it. Without easy access to proper and complete information of underground infrastructure, damage regularly occurs to natural gas lines, electrical water mains, et cetera. Accidental damage to underground infrastructure is not only expensive, but it can be deadly.
While the importance of this issue attracted many voluntary members, as my colleagues have mentioned, to Ontario One Call during its early development, a number of organizations, such as municipalities, utilities and infrastructure owners, were slow to come to the table for various reasons. However, I feel the common good and benefit that was gained through requiring participation in the One Call system is something those organizations will soon come to understand and appreciate.
Further, the underlying interest in safety that Ontario One Call has developed in its structure, demonstrated by its leadership here today, has allowed it as an organization to make those accommodations for the different levels of status represented and served by Ontario One Call. One size doesn't fit all. There are large contractors and infrastructure owners, but there's a number in between, as well as the municipalities.
The success, honourable senators, of the Ontario One Call system is not something that should be unique to Ontario. We need the Canadian government, through you, to step up, require sectors and lands under federal jurisdiction to participate in the provincial One Call centres where they exist.
There are a lot of areas of overlap where federal cooperation is needed, for example, military bases, interprovincial rail, pipelines, and many more. Safety and security are things that we should all agree are in the common interest to all three levels of government, with the municipalities.
The work isn't done here. Yes, Ontario may be a model for the country, but the federal government should encourage mandatory One Call centres to exist in every province, like in the United States. I would strongly encourage any jurisdiction considering a similar program to take lessons from what was gleaned in Ontario. The legislation may not be perfect, but it is a major step forward for safety and something that we can build upon and improve.
At this point, I will conclude my remarks and be glad to answer any specific questions that the members of the committee have. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I think this will be a major step in advancing the safety and health and the environment, and I'm glad to be a part of it. I never dreamt that I would get this private member's bill through that would mean so much to the province and to the national scene.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. I said it was quite an accomplishment. I was in the Alberta legislature as an MLA for years and years, and I can vouch for the fact that it's very difficult to do, and to get a substantive one through is really something.
I will open this up.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: First of all, I would like to thank you. You have enlightened me considerably on this topic.
I would have dozens of questions, but I will try to get to the core of the issue. First of all, you talked about stakeholders. Who are the members of your association? Are they the infrastructure owners, or the big builders?
Mr. Sullivan: They are the infrastructure owners.
Senator Boisvenu: So the one who pays is not the one who causes the damage?
Mr. Sullivan: Precisely.
Senator Boisvenu: Where do you situate the problem? Is it an awareness-raising issue? Is there too much ignorance about infrastructures? Is it carelessness? There is a lot of damage of this type in Canada. What is the origin of the problem?
Mr. Sullivan: If we compare Canada and the United States, between 2000 and 2004, the United States was at the same point as Canada. When the United States passed legislation on one call centres, the number of damage incidents diminished.
I believe that public awareness-raising had something to do with it. The "Call Before You dig'' program has been in existence for about 40 years. So the awareness-raising took place. Sometimes the problem is that the infrastructure owners refuse to become members of a one call centre, and that is the issue.
I do not know if it is a matter of costs; that is possible. But when the legislation was passed in the United States, the infrastructure owners had to become members. From that time on we saw a decrease in the number of incidents of damage.
According to the last figures from the Common Ground Alliance in the United States, in 90 per cent of cases, there will be no damage if a call is made. In my opinion, we need a combination of public awareness-raising and some will on the part of the infrastructure owners; and the lack of legislation is also a factor.
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Bailey, Ontario had to follow suit in the footsteps of Quebec over the past few years. I saw a lot of campaigns on television, awareness-raising campaigns, asking contractors to inquire before they dig. I remember that Hydro-Québec launched some campaigns, as well as Gaz Métro.
There are costs involved in passing a bill to set up a one call centre, as Ontario did. Who is going to cover those costs?
[English]
Who will pay for centralizing the information or the call?
Mr. Bailey: Senator, thank you. I'm trying to catch up here. I apologize.
I think the cost is just a small part to the risk, what could happen. In the larger businesses, whether infrastructure or chemical refineries, et cetera, they did such a good job, and I'm sure they did in Quebec.
In Ontario, I thought it was the law. Like I said, when I left NOVA Chemicals, my former employer, I just assumed that was the law when I went to Queen's Park, when I got elected. The gentlemen here and others from One Call came to see me from industry, and this dichotomy, what they were up against.
They had the publicity and a great campaign, but the Government of Ontario at the time was saying, "We want it to be voluntary. Sure, it's all well and good, it's a great concept, but we don't want to force municipalities or people to belong. We think it should be voluntary.''
It wasn't going anywhere. I'll let my colleague speak to that.
That's why we brought the legislation in, and even then, with all-party support, we had to really work with the industry and the public service to encourage them to go this route, because they had a number of years working with One Call, and it wasn't happening. It was never going to get to where it is today and where it's going to go.
[Translation]
Mr. Sullivan: May I reply to the question about costs?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Mr. Sullivan: The cost of setting up a one call centre comes from the notification of members. I will use the Alberta One Call Corporation as an example; I am its president. Our organization has about 750 members and whenever we receive a call from someone who wants to dig, we notify members who having infrastructures close to the excavation site. Our members pay us a fee for each notification that is sent to them.
However, in Alberta, there are three fee levels: from 1 to 100 notices, is one amount, 100 to 5,000 is another amount, and if there are more than 5,000 notices, that is another amount. So the owners of infrastructures like TELUS, or gas distribution companies, receive many notifications. So they are going to be paying less in fees. That motivates them to become members. And that is how we finance the one call centre.
As I said, we have 735 members in Alberta, and we receive between 350,000 and 400,000 excavation requests per year. We send out approximately 1.6 million notifications to our members every year. We do that in a province where there is partial legislation.
Alberta Energy Regulator has 900 permit holders. Since 2005, those permit holders must be members of Alberta One-Call, but up till now, that is not well understood. We benefit from partial legislation, but we would like the same legislation as Ontario.
I will give you another example. Manitoba has never had one call centres. They tried for a long time, but in June 2013, Alberta One-Call offered them access to their one call centre. "There's no bricks and mortar''; use our system, and the service is included.
There is also another way of reducing costs. Rather than doing awareness-raising about one call centres, we can begin by suggesting that you "Click Before You Dig.'' Canadians may make a Web request 24/7. In my office, CSRs need about 45 seconds to complete a Web request rather than five minutes for a call. It is much more effective and everything is already there.
[English]
Senator Frum: You were starting to answer some of the questions I wanted to ask you about, but first of all, I just wanted to say to Mr. Bailey that as the sole Ontarian on this committee, it's a great day when I can feel proud. Usually we're not the leading province on this committee, but we are today, and that's great. Thank you for that.
Just so I understand you about the difference between the 23 calls that had to be made formerly and now it's one call, is the idea that, in terms of the time efficiency — you just said it changes from being, I assume, a process of days or weeks before into something —
Mr. Bailey: I'll speak to that a little bit, but then let Mr. Sackville and Mr. Sullivan add.
That was the indication. Some of the contractors were giving up. They were trying to build houses, waiting to get locates, trying to do sewer and water main. They have a short operation season anyway, and they would make these calls, waiting to get a call back.
Some people would come out. I'll say our gas companies are great. They would come out and do a locate almost immediately. Union and Enbridge did a great job, but then some of the other utilities and companies would maybe be a little later coming, and then Union or Enbridge would have to come back and do another locate, because they only guarantee them for so long. I'll let the other gentlemen from the business speak to that.
Mr. Sackville: When Ontario One Call started in February of 1996 I was the centre manager. Calls came into my centre in Toronto. I worked for a contractor who provided the service. In the early stages we had a ratio of only one call in to two calls out. The contractor said our service was one less call. It was the start of the whole process. Where that process has now gone, with the growth of the movement in Ontario and with Bill 8, is that last year the ratio for an excavator was one call in for requesting it and it was going out to seven underground facility owners.
They anticipate, when the municipalities are all on board, that will probably go from one to eight. The advantage to the contractor is efficiency and cost savings. Basically, he doesn't have to go out and try to find all those people and communicate with all those underground facility owners. He makes the one call through the centre and they then distribute the tickets out to those members who have underground facilities at that dig location, or if it's project work within that scope of work. That's where the efficiencies are that the excavator can see.
In some cases in Ontario, contract locating is also being used. In some cases it's one locator coming out to identify the underground facility, too. It's not the norm yet, but there is a mix between contracted locators and in-house locators doing the work.
Senator Frum: You made reference to bricks and mortar. There's a dispatcher who then sends the request out to all the different places. There is no physical infrastructure involved in this, is there?
Mr. Sullivan: Correct. I'll give you an example. Alberta One-Call or any One Call centre, all we do is notify. We don't do locates. The request comes into us, one hub, and we send it out to all those who may be affected by the proposed excavation in the vicinity of that excavation.
As Mr. Sackville said, the ratio, that one call to perhaps five buried utility owners or operators, or 10 or 12 or one, depending where that proposed excavation is located.
Bricks and mortar, yes; Alberta One-Call has a building. We have office space, staff, equipment and computers and everything else, and mapping software. For Manitoba, we gave them an option to get started. We would run everything from Alberta. They agreed to it, so Manitoba effectively — the Click Before You Dig program in Manitoba — is run out of Alberta. They don't have any bricks and mortar for the time being. It's a contact or a call centre. Really, that's all it is.
Senator Frum: Is public money involved? Is there a line item in the Ontario budget for this now?
Mr. Bailey: No, other than it's under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, so the TSSA was already doing work in the Ministry of Labour. It has always been the law in Ontario that if they were going to do an excavation, there should have been a call, but there was no real meat on the bone to actually make that happen. This is all run, as my two colleagues say, by the industry, the infrastructure owners and that.
Senator Frum: One last question: How have the penalties changed for non-compliance?
Mr. Bailey: They're still in the drafting stage. We're leaving that to the minister. I won't speak to the numbers.
Mr. Sackville: Basically, terms and conditions for Bill 8 are just in the final process. We have had a chance to view some of the information and make responses back on behalf of the ORCGA; as well, our members have commented on and had input in the legislation and regulations. The goal, as I mentioned in my presentation, is that within the next few months, if the legislature can pass the regulations then they will be in place.
We're looking at June 2014. That's the last stage of where the municipalities have to be on board. They're the last ones in the step process in the implementation. We're hoping that the regulations and the municipalities will be it. In June 2014, the world changes in Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Congratulations, Mr. Bailey, on a great achievement, no doubt. I do have another question but I'd like to continue a bit the question Senator Frum was asking. I didn't catch what ministry this falls under in Ontario.
Mr. Bailey: In Ontario it's the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Senator Seidman: If I understand correctly from what you were saying, Mr. Sackville, if you have a piece of legislation and you use language like "require'' and "mandate,'' then you must be able to enforce it with some kind of penalty or it's hardly worth much. You were speaking to that, Mr. Sackville.
Mr. Sackville: Yes. Basically, right now there are regulators in the province like the Ministry of Labour, the National Energy Board and the TSSA. Ontario One Call will actually be a regulator, too. What that form takes we're not sure of at this point because that's in the discussion papers and presentations. They are going to regulate what's happening within the Call Before You Dig program.
If an incident does happen, they will probably not be on site and take control of that site investigation if an incident does happen, because the Ministry of Labour, or the TSSA, if it's a gas strike or whatever, would take over.
Where the compliance officers will be focusing in on is what they can control as the One Call centre. If it was too long on the call, if the excavator or the homeowner got frustrated that it was too long on the call, they could lodge a complaint against the time process going in. If in fact everything went well but then on the back side of things, when the locate was being done in the field, it wasn't being done in a timely fashion as per the regulation, then that excavator or homeowner could call back into Ontario One Call to lodge a complaint. The complaint is going to be reviewed by a compliance officer, and if they feel it needs to be elevated further then there will be a compliance committee that's formed separately from the board of directors of the Ontario One Call system that will review the complaint. Again, that's all being structured by the ministry.
Senator Seidman: That helps me on that score. I might just leave that and go to my other question. There's no doubt there are many pieces on this that all have to come together for it to happen as you would like, across the country especially. Last time you appeared before the committee, Mr. Sullivan, you discussed the serious gaps of information caused by voluntary reporting. I'd like to know if you've made any progress in collecting the kind of data you need to prove that the One Call systems are efficient, in terms of both cost and reduction of incidents.
Mr. Sullivan: A little. The CCGA recently published a report, and I have it here now. It's only three provinces — B.C., Quebec and Ontario — but that represents 75 per cent of the population of Canada. That's where we received our information about the 8,000 damages per year. It's actually more — 31 damages per day — because only three provinces are being captured here.
This baseline data, though, certainly allows us to make some very strong assumptions. We look at what happened in the U.S., and the reduction in damage was 40 per cent from 2000 to 2004. When they brought in legislation, they got their baseline data and they reviewed again. That, in my personal view, is proof positive that legislation works.
We have, as we mentioned earlier, public awareness. We have One Call centres. We have access where there is no physical centre in a given area or region. Yet, the piece that's missing is the legislation. We don't have that missing element. When we say there are damages in our report, the one thing we're not positive of is whether those are damages to buried infrastructure that's actually a member of a One Call centre. Likely not, because there was no easy way of their being notified of that dig in the area where they are.
The One Call process is there for the benefit and the ease of access for the excavator. The spinoff is the public safety and the assurance we get that we've captured everybody.
Senator Seidman: Okay. So you have data from B.C., Quebec and Ontario to some degree.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Seidman: That data gives you exactly what kind of information?
Mr. Sullivan: We've produced a report on damages per year, per day, and number of damages per notifications in those provinces. When we say "notifications,'' as I explained earlier, we receive a call. In Alberta, there are 1.6 million notifications per year. We can determine, in those provinces that participated, per thousand notifications, how many damages there were. We have that information as well.
We've also concluded that 30 per cent of damages occurred during work on sewer and water systems and that in 75 per cent of all damages, the equipment that was being used was a backhoe. Some of the strongest data — and this is, I think, the most interesting for your question — 40 per cent of damages are due to a failure to notify.
Yes, there's public awareness and they may have contacted the One Call centre, but they didn't notify that other utility that wasn't a member of the One Call centre, and they're being damaged.
Eighty-four per cent of damages cause service interruption. In terms of damage requiring emergency response, in Quebec and Ontario, emergency services — fire and police — respond to 95 per cent of damages to natural gas utilities. This goes to societal costs. When there is damage, we have to maintain public safety. That costs money, and it also puts the responders at risk.
Senator Seidman: As you advocate for this across the country, which you clearly do, do you get a positive response to this kind of data presentation in terms of cost-effectiveness? Clearly, that's what people are going to look for, so there's a cost to implementing this.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Seidman: It has to be worth its cost, so to speak. We understand that it's important for the safety of Canadians, but is this data credible enough to the people you present it to across the country so that they feel there's a point in getting on board and doing this?
Mr. Sullivan: The data is fairly new. The report was only presented back in November, and published in English and French just recently. It may be premature to say "yes'' or "no'' to that question.
I'm preaching to the choir a lot of the time when I am giving presentations. We speak to our own people, and we need to get beyond that. It's tough. When we look at this information, this feedback, even to our own industry, this is shocking. Forty per cent of damages from a failure to notify is absolutely unacceptable.
When speaking from what I do in my day job, Alberta One-Call, that infrastructure has been there for 30 years, and we have that much use and that much relevance in the whole damage prevention process and public safety, and these damages continue. It's mind-boggling that we're there, but the missing piece of that whole damage prevention process is the legislative piece. When we have that in place, I know these percentages will drop over time, but this is our baseline.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Sullivan, as you point out — and I think I'm stating the obvious in saying this — legislation is needed to bring the Call Before You Dig and the One Call system into play. Do you see, then, the need to have a combination of legislation in each of the provinces as it relates to provincially regulated underground infrastructure, and one at the federal level for federally regulated?
Mr. Sullivan: That is definitely one way to do it, yes. It is a provincially mandated process, if you will, as it's done in Ontario. Under the federal umbrella — the National Energy Board, the CRTC, for example — any regulated pipeline company, by and large, I would go out on a limb and say they are members. That said, the NEB is revising, changing its pipeline crossing regulations. They have a notice of proposed regulatory change that went out. Membership, or registering with the One Call centre, where those centres exist, will be a requirement going forward.
The CRTC, on the other hand, doesn't have a damage prevention mandate whatsoever and it is silent on the matter. That is an area that would benefit tremendously from the focus of the standing committee.
The CRTC regulating what it does, it's not just that Ms. Jones will not be able to see her soaps that afternoon when damage occurs. It's 911 services, banking, technology and information. That's what we rely on today. It's not all wireless, the BlackBerrys and iPhones in our pockets. Those signals for our phones go into the ground at the tower. They can be damaged, too, and we rely on them for everything.
There is definitely a balance that can be achieved from federal and provincial. Provincially, if there can be an incentive to cast or create similar or the same legislation that exists in Ontario across the country, then absolutely that would be a way to go.
Senator Wallace: As you point out, everybody is well-intentioned, but at the end of the day, it comes down to enforcement, to being able to have a requirement that owners of underground infrastructure are required to comply with. Correct me if I am wrong, but in order for that to be enforceable, if you have infrastructure that falls within provincial jurisdiction, it would have to be provincial legislation that would enforce; similarly, for federally regulated infrastructure, it would be federal. Correct?
Mr. Sullivan: Correct.
Senator Wallace: There has to be a combination of the two. I think to the extent that the federal government is able to influence this and have some sort of a national approach to it is one thing, but I want to be clear on that: The federal government cannot enforce these requirements provincially, correct?
Mr. Sullivan: Correct.
Senator Wallace: You mentioned the CSA Z247 standard, which is being developed under the auspices of the Canadian Standards Association, and that is well under way. Can you give us more background on that? What stage is it at?
What's in my mind on that is that to develop somewhat of a consistent template or standard across the country for the provinces and the feds, it would seem to me that that CSA standard would be the one that everyone could rely upon and you would have consistency. Ontario has done a great job moving ahead without that standard, but in order to promote this throughout the country and in all the other provinces, it would seem to me that the CSA standard will be critical. Where is that at right now, and when would you hope that would be reaching completion?
Mr. Sullivan: Senator Wallace, you are absolutely right. The Canadian Common Ground Alliance has a couple of horses in the race here, and being here today is part of that. CSA Z247 is another. I'm the chair of the technical committee that is drafting the standards, so I'm well-versed in where we are, where we were and where we're going.
Where we are at right now is that we're about a year and a half into a three-year process. At the endgame, we look to publish our standard in May 2015, perhaps June 2015, and in French shortly thereafter, after translation. The technical committee that is drafting this standard, to my knowledge, is the biggest, most diverse technical committee that has ever come together to put a standard together.
My background was with pipeline, with the National Energy Board, which was my employer for 10 years a number of years ago. I was part of a CSA process then, but nothing like this. We have regulators from Alberta and B.C. The NEB is there at the table. There are excavators, locators, utility owners from distribution and municipalities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It's a massive group and it's coming together to design a damage prevention standard from all these areas that will apply to everybody.
It is a massive task. Where we're at, we just had our industry review; we published the industry review back in November and received 350 comments. We used the Canadian Common Ground Alliance and the regional partners of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance Canada to push that out. That's one of the huge benefits we have. It's our link to stakeholders throughout the country, literally through the click of a mouse. There were 350 comments. The technical committee went through all those comments.
We've revised the standard now. I was hoping to have the latest copy with me here today but I don't. It's not ready yet. I certainly will submit it later on. It will be going out for public review in, I believe, May — I'll have to check on that — and again with publication expected in May 2015.
You're absolutely right. In my view as well, it potentially has the best chance of being that symmetrical language that can be referenced in existing legislation or regulation, and thereby making all clauses within that standard a requirement.
There are parties at that table representing companies that are not registered with One Call systems voluntarily, except in Ontario where it's a requirement, yet they're at the table and they are working on this standard.
I have great hope for it. I find myself in an enviable position to be part of that as the chair right from the conception to completion.
Senator Ringuette: One Call is a non-profit organization?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: That is very important for people to understand, that you're a non-profit group. When you talk to your current members in Ontario and your operation also in Alberta, you have a lot of the same major players here — the telecommunications and Enbridge. You have all those players.
Now that the legislation is in place in Ontario — thanks to you, Mr. Bailey — how much are your Ontario members lobbying the other provincial jurisdictions to get the same kind of regulation in order for them to save money and to have safety for the workers and the public? How much are these groups lobbying provincial governments, your members in Ontario and in Alberta? If the system really works well, why are they not lobbying the provincial governments to put the same kind of legislation in?
Mr. Sullivan: I can speak for Alberta. There has not been a concerted effort for some time. Alberta took a run at legislation at least once before, and it failed. The reasons for it were, as I was told, that there simply wasn't an appetite for it at the time. Companies such as TransCanada, Enbridge, Alliance Pipeline, transmission pipeline companies and gas distribution, be it ATCO Gas or whoever in the province of Alberta, certainly do want legislation. We have that partial legislation, where 900 licensees under the Alberta Energy Regulator are required to be members. We talked about enforcement, legislation that goes back to 2005, and I'm certain we don't even have half of those licensees that are registered with Alberta One-Call.
I'm working with the Alberta Energy Regulator right now to address that, and the goal is, to be very plain, to put our house in order from a regulatory perspective and registration perspective before we go to seek provincial legislation similar to Ontario's. It is important to get that working well.
Is it happening in other provinces? Saskatchewan is making a run at it now for legislation. Quebec has a strong desire to do the same. In B.C. the One Call process is perhaps not where it should be. In Manitoba, it's in its infancy. There are other concerns that I have personally in Manitoba that there is regulation in place right now that effectively negates membership of one significant party, and they are trying to address it on their own.
Senator Ringuette: Hydro?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: I'm not surprised.
Mr. Sullivan: There is a will. Is there a concerted effort? Yes and no.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Bailey, you said that you wish — I think that's it — that the federal government would have similar legislation to cover the Crown land and the military bases in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Bailey: The National Capital Commission.
Senator Ringuette: The National Capital Commission, where we're sitting right now, is not part of it.
Mr. Bailey: It doesn't have to be. That would be an important step right there, of symbolic significance, for the National Capital Commission, army bases, the rail lines that are federally regulated.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, and rail lines.
Mr. Bailey: I would like to add to what Mr. Sullivan said and the question you asked: Why isn't government doing this? I'll be honest; there wasn't a lot of appetite in Ontario either, but they came to me and I understood the importance, having come from the industry. We took hold of it and we moved it forward. To be honest, it was a minority government. That minority government needed some things, like a budget. You know how things work. Anyway, my bill was there and I got my bill.
Senator Ringuette: I have a credit card bill; I need your help on that one.
Mr. Bailey: I got the bill and they got their budget. Anyway, it's unfortunate, but everyone knew; when I talked to ministers and people, they all said, "It's a great bill, a great idea; it should have happened long ago,'' but there's got to be that drive. There's got to be the premier in the corner office or the civil service. We had seven or eight ministers in eight or nine years. These gentlemen here did an excellent job, their organization, but they had to start from ground zero every time. For me advancing the bill, I give them some credit for this, but the idea was already there, and it's there across the country. People know it's the right thing to do. We just need to give them that incentive to take them there, to get them to cross the Rubicon and to do it.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Sullivan, people who have backhoes can also be homeowners. You probably have a lot of homeowners who call the One Call service because they don't know, unless they were the first on that particular road or landscape, what was there prior to them.
Mr. Bailey: I can speak to my own self. Recently we moved property and my wife wanted to put in a memorial garden to her parents and mine. She was planning all this and had the landscaper come and do some drawings. All of a sudden one day I said, "Did you call One Call?'' She said, "I don't know.'' I said, "Make sure the landscaper calls One Call. I won't live this down.'' It could have happened. It was a garden, down a foot, six inches. I said, "No, we've got to bring them in here.''
Those things can happen, honest mistakes. A person wants to put in a driveway, they're going to do a little bit of excavation, put a fence post in, hit something they didn't know was there.
Mr. Sullivan: There was a fatality in Alberta from gardening a couple of years ago.
Senator MacDonald: I just want to pick up on where Senator Wallace was going. Unlike Senator Wallace, I'm not a lawyer, but there are some jurisdictional questions when it comes to this. Is there jurisdictional clarity on this in terms of the federal government and the provincial governments? Would the federal government receive any push back if we came up with something that was less than piecemeal, more comprehensive? You talked about the National Capital Commission in these areas of federal jurisdiction. To a certain extent, that's also piecemeal, to take the spots where the federal government has jurisdiction. Is there a constitutional opening there or a legal opening for the federal government to bring in something more comprehensive that could apply across the board? Is there constitutional clarity on this?
Mr. Sullivan: To be blunt, I'm not aware of any. I've been around this a long time, over 20 years, and, if it's not clear to me, then I would venture to say that there isn't constitutional clarity on it. If I look at the National Energy Board and the CRTC, one federal organization and another, one is pushing for membership in revision to legislation and to regulation, whereas one has no mandate whatsoever. To me, again, looking at the reasonable expectations of Canadians, if I'm going to dig or do something and know that there is that Call Before You Dig message, in today's day and age of, "I'll have an app or do whatever I need to do,'' it should be like that. When it isn't, it doesn't make any sense to the person trying to preserve their own safety, let alone the safety of their community and the integrity of that buried plant.
I think we could probably spend a lot of time looking at the hurdles, such as constitutional clarity, and I've heard a lot of those hurdles over the years. I want to see us look beyond the hurdles and find a way. Is it to create an incentive? Look what happened in the U.S. An incentive was created by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, back in 2000, I believe it was, that created an incentive for One Call systems in those states, for grant money, seed money, to comply with best practices and achieve legislation. I don't know if that ability resides in Canada, but I would venture to say that, being in the business that I am and hearing the expectations of Albertans, primarily, that's what they expect. That's truly what they've expect.
Senator MacDonald: I don't think it's a matter of putting up obstacles. All of this stuff starts at home. People see the problems in local communities. Businessmen, municipal politicians and provincial politicians react, respond to it and deal with it. I'm saying just the opposite. If there are no restrictions for the federal government here constitutionally, there's really no functional reason why the federal government couldn't step in and bring in something comprehensive that would overlay the entire country. It has to respect constitutional particulars, but there is nothing to prevent it or deny it from doing that, except if there was push back from the provinces, who would say, "You're getting into areas of our jurisdiction.'' I would like some clarity on that. Maybe we can get some clarity on that, but it's probably one of those things, like many things, that don't really have any distinct constitutional parameter.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Are all the infrastructures georeferenced? If they are, are they accessible via the Internet?
Mr. Sullivan: They are not all georeferenced. Certain infrastructures have been there for a long time and we know approximately where they are on a lot.
Senator Boisvenu: You know where they are approximately.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes. According to the call centre cartography, we know where the spot is. If we have a call or a notification, we will determine whether the excavation will affect us or not. It all depends. Georeference is preferable because it will necessitate less notification for the infrastructure owner. However, all of the infrastructures are not georeferenced.
Senator Boisvenu: What leadership role could the federal government play? In my opinion, this should be provincial legislation. Outside of the national capital, what leadership could the federal government provide in this file?
Mr. Sullivan: In my opinion, its role should be to create incentives, to create a damage prevention culture for the provinces in Canada. Both federal and provincial departments should strive to create a damage prevention culture.
The CRTC does not have a damage prevention mandate. In my opinion, given the services that it offers Canadians, it should have a damage prevention mandate.
The minimum leadership goal, in my opinion, for the federal government, should be the creation of a dialogue between the federal and the provincial levels in order to create motivation.
[English]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Bailey, what is your point of view on federal leadership on that issue?
Mr. Bailey: Under the National Energy Board, I see issues. We already talked about the National Capital Commission, the railroads that cross inter-jurisdictions. I think, using Bill 8 as a template — though it's not perfect by any means — and showing that kind of leadership, through the leadership and the membership of this committee here, could go a long ways to incentivizing and encouraging our legislators across the country to take this on.
One thing I wanted to mention is that some of the greatest supporters of this bill, who signed letters and sent letters of support to me, were our first responders. I had EMS, fire and police, who, as Mr. Sullivan said, are some of the first people who have to go and respond. Every call you go to could be an emergency. It could be serious. They see One Call and Bill 8 as an important part of their safety and the safety of their neighbours, so I think that anything that the federal government could do through the Senate and through the leadership of this committee would go a long way. If we could encourage those first responders to get involved and get behind this initiative, with the Common Ground Alliance, Ontario and federal, and find out where the people are going, get out in front and lead, I think that would go a long way toward implementing this type of safety and health program in Ontario and across the country.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Sullivan, in the United States, they have a One Call service, a national One Call service that covers the entire country. We heard from you when we were doing our study of transportation of hydrocarbon infrastructure. I was left with the impression, from your presentation, that you thought it was possible that we could have a similar One Call system in Canada so that there would be one number for the entire country that would be called if somebody were digging anywhere in the country.
I'm not sensing that today. Quite frankly, I can't get my head around how that could work in Canada. It seems to me that because of federal-provincial jurisdiction, probably the best that could be achieved would be separate One Call centres in each province. I suppose a centre could cover infrastructure in the province, whether it's federally or provincially regulated. Am I correct? We're not talking about the U.S. system here in Canada. That's not what you're proposing.
Mr. Sullivan: No. We're getting two things — you're right. It's incorrect as well. In the United States, there are One Call centres in every state. In some states, they have more than one. Texas has three. What they have that's singular is one national access point through a three-digit number, 811. A person can dial 811 from any location in the U.S. and they will be routed through to the nearest One Call centre. That has allowed the U.S. to have massive public awareness programs. They put the logo out there. Whether it's Shell or any other pipeline company or owner of utilities who uses that logo, it has become as known as the CH logo of the Montreal Canadiens or the NY logo of the New York Yankees. It is the team logo for damage prevention in the U.S.
We applied to the CRTC for shared use of 811 in Canada two and a half to three years ago in Canada. We didn't get it. I was not president of a One Call centre at the time. Looking at where technology is going, I think it was probably the best answer we could have had.
I'll give you an example as to why I feel that way. As I mentioned earlier, if we receive locate requests over the web, the time it takes our CSRs to process that locate request is a fraction of the time that it takes over the phone, not to mention the person requesting a locate can do it 24 hours a day and be done in five minutes on the web. They're not waiting on hold and getting frustrated at high peak times and maybe hanging up and digging anyway.
We have put together a national web portal, Click Before You Dig, for probably $5,000. It's in both languages. Click on the province you're working in, and you're in. Our application to the CRTC for shared use of 811 was just south of $100,000; and we didn't get it. Where technology is going, and I'll get to the Alberta One-Call here, one year ago our locate requests over the web was roughly 35 per cent of all locate requests. We rebranded in March 2013. We got rid of our Call Before You Dig call to action and went to the Click Before You Dig call to action. In 2013 we had our third busiest year in a 30-year history. In about eight to ten very short weeks between mid-March and the end of May, when we rebranded, we saw a more than 60 per cent increase in locate requests going to the web. The system had been there for 15 years, but we never promoted it.
In December 2013, for example, 74.6 per cent of all of our locate requests in Alberta came through the web. Quebec, where it's Info-Excavation, has the highest percentage of web locate requests of any One Call centre in North America with more than 80 per cent. That is where technology is going. That is what the public expects. Quebec launched an app for locate requests, and Alberta is launching one in the fall.
There are One Call systems all over the U.S. in every state. They have 811, but it forces people to call. It's forcing people to wait on the phone and potentially get frustrated. In Canada, yes, we still have 1-800 numbers; and I can't foresee a day when we don't. If you asked me 20 years ago if we would ever get rid of the fax, I would have said never. We just rid of our fax last year. We had 4 per cent of locate requests coming through by fax. We have to be nimble. Call Before You Dig is a great call to action. One thing I want to do is change that. Before you dig is important and, in that regard, the CCGA just completed a brand for the damage prevention process that states, quite simply: Before You Dig, with three icons up top: phone, web, tap the app. Over time, like fax, I'm certain those methods of access will rotate away; but no matter what, 20 years down the road the public will always have to do something before they dig. It may not be call and the Internet may be a passing fad by then, but they will have to do something.
You were correct; there is one national access point. We can do that here, but we have to remain flexible in order to change that going forward.
Senator Wallace: Regardless of the method of access, the actual information would be retained provincially.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Wallace: The response would come from the province.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Wallace: It would not come from some office in Ottawa that's covering the entire country.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Senator Wallace: That clarifies it. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: This has been excellent. I have a couple of things I'd like to pursue. From the point of view of funding, I understood that if somebody calls before they dig, or clicks before they dig, the infrastructure owner, i.e., the private sector owner or the municipality, for example, would pay $1 per call. That's where the money comes from. It's not taxes, as such. I guess if it was a national program — but no, it wouldn't. It's always the private sector owner.
Mr. Sullivan: Correct.
The Deputy Chair: It will not cost government money generally. It might be that there would be an incentive program, but even that's quite remote.
Mr. Sullivan: One of the things we use in our advertising is, "One click costs you nothing; not clicking could cost you everything,'' which is exactly what could happen.
The Deputy Chair: There was some concern about cost to municipalities, and I think there's some sort of threshold where the association, the industry, would actually cover a municipality's costs up to a certain number of requests.
Mr. Sullivan: I can speak to Alberta only. Perhaps my friends will speak to Ontario.
Typically, a municipality will fall in the very first tier. They won't get anywhere near 100 notifications in Alberta, for example. When we raised our fees a short time ago, we put our first tier up by $1 to $6 per notification in that first year — 1 to 100. I received some strongly worded feedback saying, you can't do this. I said you only received 35 notifications last year. Your cost escalated $35. Let's put it into perspective. Whereas if I'm ATCO Gas or TELUS or Bell and I'm being notified every single time there's a dig in Alberta, with the notification fees I'm going to pass that first or second tier quickly and go down to perhaps $2.50 or $2.20 per notification. At the end of the day, those utilities are paying the freight for the non-profit organization.
The Deputy Chair: A question I had concerned the nature of the legislation. First, the legislation would require infrastructure owners to be members of the system. Second, it would penalize somebody who didn't click before they dug. Would it penalize them if they didn't hit, but it was found out that they didn't call or contact before they dug? Even if nothing happened, could they be penalized?
Mr. Sackville: Sometimes the excavator gets lucky and does that job and doesn't get caught. With regulators out there moving around and people observing people doing other work, there'll be fewer and fewer opportunities for that excavator to try to bypass the One Call centre. Yes, they will find out what's happened. Sometimes damages happen that people cover up, and they think they get away with it. In the future when somebody finds that nick in the electrical line, someone will say that a homeowner must not have called.
The Deputy Chair: There's also the problem of getting really good information on where things are. A lot of pipelines are sold from one company to another. The records, if there ever were any, were lost; and who would know where to find them if they weren't really lost, if you still had them?
Does this legislation require owners to be much more rigorous in recording and submitting that record of location to a centre?
Mr. Sackville: Where an underground facility is more explosive — higher danger — there's better mapping. This is one of the things that municipalities were given the extra time — a year — to come on with Ontario One Call, because they have a lot of old underground infrastructure that wasn't mapped. It was installed many years ago.
I know we have one municipality that sits on our board, and they find they will have to take every ticket within that municipality until they can build that mapping so they can identify where their sewer and water mains are, those being the deepest structures. They just don't know 100 per cent right now where it is, but as they go forward they will develop the GIS mapping capability that develops that infrastructure.
Mr. Bailey: Thank you for that question. It reminds me of something. There's an engineering company in my riding that has created new jobs, because some of the industry has been around for some 100 years in Sarnia—Lambton. When this was coming down the pipe to be legislation, they started looking at each other and saying, "Yeah, we don't know where that stuff is. So-and-so used to know where everything is, but they retired. They always looked after that.'' So they have had to scramble.
But there's been employment and new technology developed, and a number of companies are going out and mapping this, doing it for the companies, because they know this is coming at them. The big guys have to obey the rules. So they've moved forward on that.
I can give the committee some information on that. I'll make a note of that and I'll get back to you.
The Deputy Chair: That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan: Part of that — you're talking about where there's legislation. But even where there isn't legislation, such as in Alberta, we have member agreements that when we bring a new member in, they have to sign off on an agreement that states they will provide us with their data within 30 days or X days — 15 days — of new infrastructure going into the ground, so that our mapping is constantly being updated by our member services department.
You also mentioned, Senator Mitchell, that you must register or call before you dig or click. There's a step above that as well that the Senate committee needs to consider. Where there is no One Call service, those buried utility owners shall create one. That's what happened in Alberta. Twelve buried utility owners 30 years ago said, "We need this.'' They started off with 12 members, and today there are 735.
The Deputy Chair: Back to Senator Wallace's point and the idea of the federal government. Let's use Ontario as an example. Ontario's One Call provincial centre could presumably be the repository of any deep pipeline and CRTC underground infrastructure, so they could channel their information to that centre or require that their regulated actors channel their information through that centre.
Mr. Sullivan: Correct.
The Deputy Chair: It wouldn't be a federal cost at all. It could be done, but it would require some federal legislation to link up with the provincial element. It would only be a problem where you have nine provinces with centres and a tenth without. Now what do you do? You put pressure on the tenth province, in a good way.
Thanks to the committee members and to the excellent witnesses. We really appreciate your time.
(The committee adjourned.)