Canadian Common Ground Alliance

Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility

 5

NEWS

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • 29 Nov 2016 10:05 AM | Anonymous

    The National Energy Board (NEB) released the results of its 'Engagement Survey' following release of the Damage Prevention Regulations (DPR) in June 2016. Survey results are available HERE.

    The NEB regulates the construction and operation of interprovincial transmission pipelines, and the DPR regulates ground disturbance activities within 30 metres of those pipelines. 

    The NEB is a member of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance.

  • 16 Nov 2016 10:28 AM | Anonymous

    National DIRT Report 2015 – Executive Summary


    Each year, the CCGA Data Reporting and Evaluation Committee (DREC) collects information about damages to underground infrastructure reported in each province. In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, the data is collected through voluntary submission of information into a Virtual Private DIRT (Damage Information Reporting Tool) database. In Atlantic Canada, information is reported directly by participating infrastructure owners. Manitoba does not submit data to the CCGA DREC.

    The purpose of the National DIRT Report is to identify national trends over time. The challenge to this point has been that only Quebec, Ontario and to a lesser-extent, British Columbia have collected enough data over a significant amount of time to begin identifying trends with real confidence in the data. In addition, bringing in data from new provinces each year requires re-balancing the dataset, which can have unintended effects on trend analysis if you are looking at specific regions.

    That is not to say that the national data does not have value, but only that in its current state, the data has to be analyzed in deeper detail in order to fully appreciate its indications. For example, if one province has an increase in construction activity, it will show a corresponding increase in reported damages; or if the provincial notification centre reduces overall notifications per ticket, the analysis will show an increase in damages per notification. Over the next 2-3 years, national data will continue to increase and improve in quality to where it will have enormous value in making recommendations on a national scale, as well as giving the damage prevention industry a relatively accurate estimate of the societal costs of third party damages on underground infrastructure.

    In order to see the most accurate trend analysis for a particular region or province, it is best to go to the originating data source and review the DIRT report specific to that regional partner:

    Ontario 2015 DIRT Report

    Quebec 2015 DIRT Report

    Western Canada 2015 DIRT Report

    We hope that the presentation of National Data is useful to your organization. We encourage you to participate in reporting damages to your provincial CGA or provincial Virtual Private DIRT and say thank you to everyone who already does so. The data collected can have significant impact on training, education and marketing initiatives in the damage prevention industry.


    Sher Kirk, Chair
    Data Reporting and Evaluation Committee


  • 14 Nov 2016 1:20 PM | Anonymous

    The CCGA released Version 2.0 of the National Best Practices at the 2016 CCGA Damage Prevention Symposium in Banff, Alberta. If you wish to secure hard copies ($10.00 each, plus shipping), please contact Ms Gloria Jackman


  • 04 Nov 2016 7:00 PM | Anonymous

    The CCGA is this year's Safety Sponsor for the Grey Cup and we're celebrating by offering two tickets to the big game in Toronto as well as two tickets to the CFL Awards and CFL Alumni Association Luncheon. 

    To play, all you have to do is follow @CanadianCGA on Twitter and retweet our Grey Cup message for a chance to win the tickets.

    Please select this link to see our 2016 Grey Cup Tickets Giveaway Rules.

    And remember - always #DigSafe and #ClickBeforeYouDig

  • 03 Nov 2016 10:27 AM | Anonymous

    Senator Don Plett rose in the Senate yesterday to support The Underground Infrastructure Safety Enhancement Act - Bill S-229. 

    His speech can be accessed HERE.

  • 13 Oct 2016 7:22 PM | Anonymous

    The Canadian Common Ground Alliance (CCGA) strongly supports Bill S-229, An Act respecting underground infrastructure safety, introduced by Senator Grant Mitchell, which entered Second Reading debate on October 4, 2016. This legislation will reduce the costs and increase safety associated with damages to our underground infrastructure by addressing the need for a mandated comprehensive call/click-before-you-dig notification system across Canada.

    The members of the CCGA, which include the Canadian Gas Association (CGA), the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), as well as other industry associations representing excavators, locators, road builders, telecommunications, railroad, water, landscapers, construction, engineering and design, encourage all Senators and Parliamentarians to support Bill S-229 and for the federal government to mandate a comprehensive notification system for locate requests before digging.

    There is a system of underground infrastructure that delivers and transports the services that support us in our daily lives, including energy, television, telecommunications, water and sewage. As Senator Mitchell stated in the Senate “It’s a web of wires, pipes, fibre optics and oil and gas pipelines that are at the root of our quality of life and our standard of living.”

    This legislation is in response to a report published by the Senate Committee on the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources in December 2014 that recommended all jurisdictions mandate the use of this type of notification system. While currently there are Call/Click Before you Dig systems in Canada, there is no legislation, except in Ontario, to require its use. Bill S-229 would ensure the system is comprehensive and effective for underground infrastructure on federal lands.

    There is a significant amount of cost and damages from people who hit underground infrastructure when they are digging, whether it is from major construction projects or homeowners digging in their yard. In 2015, there were more than 10,000 voluntary reports of damage to underground infrastructure in Canada, of which 79 per cent caused a disruption to services.

    According to a report conducted by CIRANO, an organization based in Quebec, entitled Socio-Economic Cost Assessment for Damages to Underground Infrastructures, there are more than the obvious direct costs, including the cost of the materials, labour costs and administrative costs related to the damages. There are also indirect costs related to the damage, including intervention of emergency services, evacuations, loss of products, environmental impact, economic impact on businesses and risk of injury or death.

    While Bill S-229 covers underground infrastructure that is federally regulated or on federal lands, it is a positive step in the right direction. As Senator Mitchell stated, “this federal initiative can contribute to momentum for a national system. It is an opportunity for positive, collaborative national leadership.”

    The CCGA’s vision is to be Canada's unified damage prevention voice and attract members from all Canadian national organizations and associations who share common damage prevention and public safety solutions.

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    Mike Sullivan

    Canadian Common Ground Alliance (c/o Alberta One-Call)

    msullivan@canadiancga.com

    403.531.3700


  • 05 Oct 2016 10:38 PM | Anonymous

    Senator Grant Mitchell rose in the Senate October 4, 2016 and moved the second reading of Bill S-229, An Act respecting underground infrastructure safety.

    Please click HERE to read his speech.

  • 29 Sep 2016 3:01 PM | Anonymous

    Suite à des mois de rédaction et de révision et après plusieurs périodes de commentaires avec les intervenants, le projet de loi visant à accroître la sûreté des infrastructures souterraines a été déposé au Sénat cet après-midi par le sénateur Grant Mitchell.

    Le texte établit un régime fédéral de notification sur les infrastructures souterraines qui exige notamment :

    a)      que les exploitants d’une infrastructure souterraine qui relève de la compétence fédérale ou qui se trouve en territoire domanial l’inscrivent à un centre de notification et fournissent des renseignements à son sujet;
    b)      que les personnes qui prévoient effectuer une perturbation du sol présentent une demande de localisation aux centres de notification concernés;
    c)      que les exploitants d’une infrastructure souterraine inscrite, par suite d’une demande de localisation, soit marquent au sol l’emplacement de l’infrastructure souterraine, soit fournissent par écrit toute autre description claire et precise de l’emplacement de l’infrastructure souterraine, soit  encore déclarent que la perturbation du sol n’est pas susceptible d’endommager l’infrastructure souterraine.

    Enfin, le texte comporte un mécanisme permettant l’application de ce régime de notification aux réserves et à certaines autres terres assujetties à la Loi sur les Indiens, après consultation des conseils de bande concernés.

    Le processus législatif du Sénat ressemble à celui de la Chambre des communes. Il comporte cinq étapes:

    1.      Première lecture
    Le Sénat reçoit le projet de loi, qui est imprimé et distribué aux sénateurs. C'est une procédure de présentation au Sénat sans débat ni vote.

    2.      Deuxième lecture
    Les sénateurs débattent du principe du projet de loi en chambre. S’agit-il d’un projet de loi judicieux? Pour y voir clair, le Sénat peut renvoyer le projet de loi à un comité sénatorial qui l’examinera de plus près avant de se prononcer à savoir s’il y a lieu d’y donner suite ou non.

    3.      Étude en comité
    Le Sénat renvoie le projet de loi à l’un de ses comités. Le comité peut tenir des audiences publiques au cours desquelles il invite des ministres du Cabinet, des représentants du gouvernement, des spécialistes et de simples citoyens qui s’intéressent au projet de loi à discuter du projet de loi et à exprimer leur point de vue à ce sujet. Les membres du comité font ensuite l’étude détaillée du projet de loi, article par article, processus au cours duquel ils peuvent proposer des modifications du projet de loi, appelés amendements. 

    Après avoir terminé l’examen détaillé du projet de loi, le comité adopte un rapport sur le projet de loi dans lequel il recommande au Sénat d’adopter le projet de loi tel quel, de l’adopter avec des amendements ou de le rejeter. Les comités joignent souvent à leur rapport des observations à propos des points qui ont été soulevés pendant l’étude du projet de loi.

    4.      Étape du rapport
    Si le comité recommande d’adopter le projet de loi tel quel, c’est-à-dire sans amendement, il n’y a pas d’étape du rapport au Sénat et le projet de loi passe directement à la troisième lecture.

    Si le comité propose des amendements, les sénateurs doivent débattre du rapport au Sénat et accepter, modifier ou rejeter les amendements, en tout ou en partie. 

    5.      Troisième lecture
    Dernière étape du débat au Sénat. Les sénateurs peuvent proposer d’autres amendements à ce stade avant le vote aboutissant à l’adoption ou au rejet du projet de loi.

    Si le projet de loi a été présenté au Sénat, il est envoyé à la Chambre des communes, qui l’étudie selon un processus similaire en trois étapes de lecture. Si le projet de loi a été présenté à la Chambre des communes et qu’il n’a pas été amendé par le Sénat, il est prêt à recevoir la sanction royale.

    Par contre, si le projet de loi a été présenté à la Chambre des communes et qu’il a été amendé par le Sénat, un message concernant ces amendements est expédié à la Chambre des communes pour lui demander son assentiment. Si le Sénat et la Chambre des communes ne s’entendent pas sur la teneur d’un projet de loi, ils peuvent proposer des amendements jusqu'à ce qu’il y ait entente à ce sujet. Lorsque les deux Chambres ont convenu d’une version finale, la sanction royale est octroyée au projet de loi par la reine ou l’un de ses représentants au Canada (habituellement le gouverneur général ou son remplaçant) et le projet de loi acquiert alors force de loi.


  • 29 Sep 2016 1:24 PM | Anonymous

    Following several months of review with stakeholders, including a transparent comment period in early 2016, the Underground Infrastructure Safety Enhancement Act was tabled by Senator Grant Mitchell in the Senate this afternoon.

    This bill creates a federal underground infrastructure notification system that requires, among other things,

    • a)      operators of underground infrastructure that is federally regulated or that is located on federal land to register that underground infrastructure with a notification centre and provide information on it;
    • b)      persons planning to undertake a ground disturbance to make a locate request to the relevant notification centres; and
    • c)      operators of registered underground infrastructure, as a result of the locate request, to mark the location of the underground infrastructure on the ground, provide in writing any other accurate and clear description of the location of the underground infrastructure or indicate that the ground disturbance is not likely to cause damage to the underground infrastructure.

    Finally, the enactment also provides a mechanism by which reserves and some other lands subject to the Indian Act can become subject to this notification system, after consultation with the council of any band in question.

    There are five steps to passing a bill in the Senate:

    1.      First reading
    The Senate receives the bill, and it is printed and circulated among senators. This is an introductory proceeding in the Senate Chamber and takes place without debate or vote.

    2.      Second reading
    Senators debate the principle of the bill in the Chamber (Is the bill good policy?). To help with this process, the Senate may refer the subject matter of the bill to a Senate committee for closer examination before voting on whether to proceed with it.

    3.      Committee stage
    The Senate refers the bill to one of its committees. The committee may invite Cabinet ministers, Government officials, experts, and members of the public who have an interest in the bill to share information and perspectives in public hearings. Committee members then study the bill clause by clause. Members of the committee may propose changes to the bill (known as amendments) during this process.

    After it has completed the clause-by-clause analysis, the committee adopts a report on the bill. The report will recommend to the Senate that the bill be accepted as is; that it be accepted with amendments; or that it be rejected. Committees often also append observations to their report. These comments may highlight issues raised by the committee’s study of the bill.

    4.      Report stage
    If the committee’s report recommends adopting the bill as is (i.e., with no amendments), there is no report stage in the Senate and the bill goes directly to third reading. If, however, the report suggests amendments to the bill, senators must debate the report in the Senate Chamber and either accept, amend, or reject the amendments, in whole or in part.

    5.      Third reading
    This is the final stage of debate in the Chamber. Senators may propose further amendments at this stage before voting to pass or reject the bill. 

    If the bill was introduced in the Senate, it is sent to the House of Commons, which will examine it in a similar three-reading process. If the bill was introduced in the House of Commons and was not amended in the Senate, it is now ready for Royal Assent. 

    If a bill is introduced in the House of Commons and was amended in the Senate, a message about the amendments is sent to the Commons, asking for their agreement. If the Senate and the House of Commons do not agree on the contents of a bill, they may propose amendments until they reach agreement. Once the two Houses agree on a final version, the bill is granted Royal Assent by the Queen or one of her Canadian representatives (usually the Governor General or a deputy), making it law.


  • 22 Apr 2016 12:20 PM | Anonymous

    The CCGA wishes to thank Senator Grant Mitchell for recognizing DigSafe Month in the Senate yesterday, April 21, 2016. 

    Senator Mitchell has become a champion for safe digging in Canada and has been instrumental in helping the CCGA achieve greater safety for all Canadians and further enhancing the integrity of Canada's critical underground infrastructure.

    Please click HERE to read Senator Mitchell's speech or click this link to hear it: Mitchell_21apr16_DigSafeMonth.04.21.2016.mp3

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 

Copyright 2010 Canadian Common Ground Alliance

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software