September 26, 2011
Mr. Robert A. Morin Secretary General Canadian Radio‐television and Telecommunications Commission Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
Re: Canadian Common Ground Alliance (CCGA): 8698C187201110973 Application to broaden the assignment and use of the 811 Dialling Code 20110715
Dear Mr. Morin:
On July 15, 2011, the Canadian Common Ground Alliance (CCGA) filed an Application pursuant to Part 1 of the CRTC Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting that the Commission broaden the assignment or use of the 811 dialing code. Interested parties were invited to file comments on the Application by September 16, 2011. The following constitutes the Reply comments of the CCGA.
1. The CCGA is in receipt of over 210 comments filed by interested parties. The vast majority of comments filed by both public sector and private sector organizations were strongly supportive of the application. Exactly 200 parties, many representing important public sector organizations and large private sector companies, filed letters of support. Approximately 12 parties opposed. The CCGA will first review some of the comments and submissions made by parties supporting the Application. It will then address the arguments raised by those opposed. To the extent that the CGAA does not address every argument or point raised by a party opposed, it should not be taken that the CCGA accepts or agrees with such statements.
2. Broad Support expressed by many significant Public Sector and Private Sector parties from across Canada
3. At the outset, the CCGA notes that the application has garnered strong endorsements from a very broad and likely unprecedented array of important public institutions, elected officials, regulatory agencies and private companies. The common theme that runs through these submissions is the importance of taking all reasonable measures to protect public safety and, by doing so, safeguard Canada’s critical infrastructure services.
canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 1
For example, in their letter of the intervention, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs stated:
i. The greatest risk to Canada’s critical underground infrastructure is excavation by homeowners and commercial excavators. ii. The Canadian Association of fire Chiefs supports the CCGA application for shared use of 811 in Canada. We strongly believe that achieving this goal will significantly enhance public awareness, increase public safety, and ultimately help protect Canada’s critical infrastructure. [Emphasis added]
4. In their intervention, the National Energy Board also emphasized the important public safety benefits that would follow from granting the application for the shared use of 811:
i. A national three‐digit “Call Before You Dig” number will eliminate the confusion of multiple numbers, and provide a simple and effective means for the public to obtain accurate information about potential underground hazards, including pipelines, prior to conducting excavation activities. The location of buried infrastructure is an essential step in protecting the public and environment from accidental damage.
ii. The NEB regulates approximately 71,000 kilometers of oil, gas and commodity pipelines, the vast majority of which are underground. Unsafe or uninformed excavation near NEB‐regulated infrastructure poses a risk to the safety of those people living and working in close proximity, as well as to the environment, and the underground infrastructure. The NEB supports this initiative as it makes it easier for the public and digging community to have the location of buried infrastructure identified before any excavation takes place. [Emphasis added]
5. In a letter sent to the Chair of the CCGA (attached), the Minister of Public Safety, the Hon. Vic Toews, expressed his support in the following terms:
i. The “Call Before You Dig” initiative is an important service that allows the public to identify the location of buried utilities, and a proposal to broaden the use of the Canada wide 811 number would help to protect Canada’s underground critical infrastructure and enhance public safety.
ii. Public Safety Canada recognizes that the 811 number currently provides a valuable service to the public by offering around‐the‐clock health information and non‐urgent medical advice. Broadening this service to include “Call Before You Dig” would help mitigate unnecessary risks to the public, and reduce interruptions of services provided by critical infrastructure sectors. [Emphasis added]
6. Similarly, Canada’s national association of energy and utility regulators, CAMPUT, expressed its support for the Application as follows:
CAMPUT accepts that a great risk to Canada’s critical underground infrastructure is excavation by homeowners and commercial excavators. Currently there are canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 2
multiple 10 digit telephone numbers that must be called in order to determine the location of underground infrastructure. The result can be public confusion, lack of awareness, and thus increased disruption of essential public services.
CAMPUT agrees that a sensible solution is one nationwide three‐digit telephone number for call before you dig in Canada. Replacing the multiple ten‐digit telephone numbers with one nationwide three digit number is, we believe, in the public interest.
7. It is clear from a review of the submissions by these public authorities and officials that they express a common rationale for their support of the application: expanded use of the 811 number would be an important step forward in enhancing the safety of the public, mitigating unnecessary risks and better protecting communities, the environment and Canada’s infrastructure.1
8. The proposed assignment for shared use of 811 attracted support from coast to coast including municipal, provincial and territorial representatives. For example, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) considered the issue from the perspective of its 1900 member municipalities from all parts of Canada:
This country’s critical infrastructure–‐‐including for hospitals, energy, telecommunications, air traffic control, banking, and emergency response–‐‐are valuable assets for Canadians. Much of Canada’s vital energy and telecommunications infrastructure is underground, supporting public safety and national security, and sustaining our economy. It is in our national interest to maintain the integrity and reliability of this infrastructure. Canadians expect all reasonable measures be taken to do so. [Emphasis added]
9. The Association of Yukon Communities expressed very similar views. It is worth noting that many of the municipalities represented by these associations are located in the four provinces and one territory where 811 is currently in use for non‐urgent health information. While they recognize the importance of the current use, in their view (like that of the Minister of Public Safety, expressed above), the enhancement of the safety and security of people and communities is an important and complementary service that can and should be delivered via the 811 code.
10. The application is strongly supported by a large number of major operators of Canada’s critical infrastructure networks‐ including both publicly traded and Crown‐owned entities For example, Hydro‐Québec, Ontario Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, the Canadian Electricity Association, CN Rail, TransCanada, Enbridge, Alliance Pipeline, ATCO Pipelines, Union Gas and many others filed interventions in support.
11. From the communications sector, MTS Allstream reviewed the merits of the application and concluded as follows:
1 Notwithstanding the submissions of Shaw, it cannot be suggested that the application primarily serves private commercial interests rather than the public interest. The Fire Chiefs, the National Energy Board, the Minister of Public Safety, CAMPUT and the FCM would not make the above submissions to protect private commercial interests. They did so in order to protect the public interest. canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 3
In conclusion, MTS Allstream supports the CCGA’s request for the use of 811 for noncommercial access to a CBYD service providing a communications service for multiple underground infrastructure operators. The goal of protecting and ensuring the continued operation of Canada’s critical underground communications and energy infrastructure warrants assignment of an N11 service code, and any necessary public awareness campaigns needed to ensure effective dual‐use with other services.
12. After reviewing all of the numerous supportive submissions from public officials, government agencies, municipalities and network service providers, it is clear that most parties have focused on the public interest issues at stake. More particularly, they all recognize that the approval of the application will be an important step in protecting the personal safety of Canadians and enhancing the security of their communities and essential public services.
They see this enhancement of public safety and security as a complement to the provision of health information currently available to some Canadians via 811.
Interventions Opposing the Application
13. There were a number of opposing interventions filed by provincial health departments, including departments currently using the 811 code for access to non‐urgent health information. No intervention was received from the province of Québec, a province in which 811 is currently used. There were also interventions filed by health departments in provinces where the 811 code is not currently in use.
14. Before addressing the substance of these interventions, at the outset, it should be noted that it has been six years since the assignment by the CRTC, in Telecom Decision 2005–39, of the code 811 to provide access to non‐emergency health information. After six years, six of the ten provinces and two of the three territories are not using the 811 code. One territory, the Northwest Territories, had been using the code but subsequently dropped it.
The health department of Alberta sponsored the original application filed in 2004. However, since that time, notwithstanding its leadership role, it has not implemented the service it proposed. None of the health departments not currently using the 811 code offered any explanation for their delay in implementation, nor did they provide any target dates for future implementation.
In this regard, the CCGA notes that one of the criteria specified by the Commission for the assignment of N11 numbers in Telecom Decision 2001–475 states that:
The services to be provided through N11 dialing are to be widely available geographically…
It is clear that this N11 code is not “widely available geographically” and is greatly underutilized. It is a scarce public resource that is not delivering the full public benefits to Canadians that could be achieved from increased use.
15. The interventions of the health departments that oppose the application provided relatively terse but largely similar reasons for their opposition. Each of these arguments will be briefly summarized or paraphrased below followed by the response of the CCGA.
canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 4
16. It is argued that: “Adding to frontend routing would delay access to care; some calls to 811 are for urgent care purposes.”
17. In response, all parties recognize that 811 is assigned for non‐urgent, non‐emergency healthcare information. No one disputes that emergency calls should go to 911. In this context, it is important to examine the nature of the IVR system messages already put in place by the health departments using 811. Those IVR systems, right at the outset, advise any callers that may have urgent health issues to hang up and call 911 immediately.2 It goes without saying that the CCGA proposes no change to such front‐end messages. Any caller that may have urgent needs would receive this important message immediately, as he or she would today, before any other choices are offered.
18. Furthermore, all current IVR systems in use for 811 offer callers a series of choices. We propose that all of these choices remain as they are or as may be altered from time to time by the health information service. We propose to add one additional choice, for network locate services, after all choices related to health services have been presented to the caller. Any caller to 811 seeking non‐urgent health information would hear those options first and would make their selection, as appropriate, before the option for network locate services is presented.
Thus, there would be no additional delay for those seeking nonemergency healthcare information beyond the delay already inherent in the current IVR menu of choices already established by the existing 811 services. Furthermore, we would propose that the IVR system be programmed, if it is not already, to give those who regularly call 811 the option to skip past the menu and go directly to the option or service of their choice. This would save time for all users of 811.
19. Some provinces referred to the possibility of using 811 in the event of a nuclear event or a pandemic. If such a situation were to occur, a provincial government would surely have to use a variety of means to convey vital information to its citizens. To the extent that 811 may be one of those means for conveying non‐urgent health information, those options would, as described above, be prescribed by the health department and presented first to callers, before the option for network locate services
20. It is argued that: “The provinces have expended time and funds to create public awareness of 811; dual use of the number could adversely affect the public awareness achieved to date.”
21. As discussed above, the majority of provinces and territories have taken no steps to implement the 811 number to date. In those provinces, there is no public awareness.
22. In order to measure the level of public awareness of the 811 service in the four provinces currently using the number, the CCGA commissioned a professional survey firm to conduct a poll in those four provinces to test public awareness of 811. The results are summarized in the table on the following page. There is generally a low level of public awareness of the current 811 services in three of the four provinces. The exception is Nova Scotia. On a national basis, less than 17% of the population was familiar with the 811 number. The vast
2 The exception is New Brunswick, which does not include such a notice to callers in its IVR message. canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 5
majority, over 83%, in these four provinces does not know what, if any, service can be reached via 811.
Percent of Adult Population Question BC PQ NB NS Overall Familiar with 8‐1‐1 number 12.7 16.0 9.7 49.9 16.9 Have 'ever' used the number 4.3 10.6 2.2 12.3 8.3 Note: ‘Overall’ is the weighted population value for the four provinces
23. This minimal awareness is unfortunate since it clearly leads to much lower utilization of the 811 dialing code. Notably, the Commission anticipated this issue in its decision assigning the 811 code and imposed a public education requirement on provincial health departments that use that code:
The Commission considers it necessary and in the public interest for teletriage service providers to promote awareness of their 8‐1‐1 services, especially for the purpose of minimizing confusion between emergency and non‐emergency services and between 3‐1‐1 or 2‐1‐1 services. The Commission expects all teletriage service providers to undertake comprehensive and effective public awareness campaigns. [emphasis added]3
24. Having regard to the results of the public awareness survey, if there have been public education campaigns, they have not been effective in most provinces. This is an important issue because it goes to the very purpose of an N11 number. Such a scarce resource is assigned in order to provide the general public with an easy‐to‐recall three digit number that will be retained in the minds of the public and used to reach an important public service.
It is self‐evident that people who do not know about or cannot recall an N11 number will not use it. The low public awareness of 811 means that the number is not being utilized or promoted to the extent it should be in order to achieve its public purpose. In short, the full public benefits that could accrue from this number are not being achieved.
25. On the other hand, a public awareness campaign jointly planned with each province and significantly funded by the members of the CCGA would raise the level of public awareness substantially – to the benefit of both health and safety users. Greater public awareness leading to greater usage of 811 would result in greater public benefits from this scarce resource.4
26. It is argued that: “Sharing infrastructure would result in delays when changes are required; there are unresolved questions regarding ownership of the line and routing of calls.”
3 Paragraph 44 of Telecom Decision 2005‐39
4 In the Appendix to the Application, the CCGA provided examples of the publicity and public education materials used to enhance public awareness of 811 in the US. The CCGA proposes that it would work with the provinces to develop similar high‐profile publicity materials appropriate to the Canadian context. canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 6
27. The issues alluded to above are essentially technical issues. However, there is a lack of detail regarding the specifics of these issues. There is no clear explanation of what delays may be of concern. Nor are the “ownership” or “routing” issues explained. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the CCGA is willing to work with the four provinces and one territory in question on these technical issues. For example, we would cooperate fully on the IVR systems5 messaging to ensure that all public health options are presented first to callers; with the network locate option being presented last.
28. With regard to “routing” issues, the routing of all non‐urgent health calls would be, as is the case now, to any location(s) designated by the province. Calls requesting network locate services would be routed to the relevant One‐Call center serving that province. In other words, from the point of view of the provincial health department, the routing of all calls would continue to follow the network arrangements already in place.
29. In this regard, TELUS raised concerns6 regarding routing of calls and suggested that current telecom networks could not accommodate the service proposed by the CCGA. It appears that the concerns of TELUS are based on a misunderstanding regarding the routing of calls for network locate service. Calls for network locate service can be made from any location in the province. The originating point of the call has no relationship to the information conveyed regarding network locations. A single call made by a caller could be in regard to proposed excavations in several different parts of a province. All calls for network locate service are routed over an inbound calling network (similar to an 800 call) to a terminating point. This is exactly the same routing system used today for calls to 811 for non‐urgent health information. The CCGA proposes that calls to 811 for network locate service would continue to be routed over exactly the same network and in the same manner as calls are routed today for 811 service.
30. There appears to be a concern underlying the submissions of Shaw that the proposal for 811 may require all network operators to use the service or may exclude certain operators. However, the CCGA has not proposed that any network operator be required to use 811 rather than its own service. Any network operator would be welcome to use 811; most would for efficiency reasons, but each would be free to make its own decision.7
31. Finally, rather than leading to any adverse technical consequences, the joint use of a common inbound calling network and a common IVR message system has the potential, as described in the Application (at paragraph 25), to lead to lower total costs for telecom and IT services for the two applications combined. In a time of severe constraints on public budgets across the country, the potential for such savings should not be dismissed.
32. It is argued that “The joint use of 811 will cause public confusion and undermine public awareness.”
5 It should be noted that IVR systems are commonly physically located at the premises of and operated by a telecom service provider, pursuant to design specifications provided by the customer or user.
6 See paragraph 5 of TELUS comments.
7 In this regard, the Application is entirely consistent with the Commission’s conclusion in Telecom Decision 2004‐17. canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 7
33. In response, the primary issue that should be of concern is the currently very low level of public awareness and understanding regarding 811 service. In six provinces, there is no awareness at all since the number is not currently in use. In most of the provinces where the number is in use, the public survey results discussed above indicate that, even in those provinces, after six years, public awareness and understanding is extremely low. Until there is a significant increase in public awareness, the 811 number will remain vastly underutilized. However, the CCGA and its member organizations are prepared to work with each of the provinces on a jointly designed and properly funded public awareness campaign to enhance the public’s understanding of the services available through 811.
34. An appropriate public awareness campaign would reflect the fact that both services address parallel and related public issues: public health and public safety. For an individual, access to a broader 811 service could enhance either their personal health or personal safety. More specifically, by calling 811, a person may improve their health through better knowledge of health and medical conditions. Similarly, by calling 811, a person could protect their personal health and safety by avoiding potential explosions, fires or electrocution that may be caused by inadvertent disruption of a buried service. Once properly informed and aware, the members of the general public could call 811 for one of two related services: to protect their health through better knowledge or to protect their personal safety.
These two services are not simply compatible, they are mutually supportive. Public health and safety have long been required to work hand‐in‐hand to achieve a common public purpose: the protection of the public. Broadening the applications or services that can be reached by the public through 811 will fulfill this common public purpose.
Conclusion
The public merits and benefits from broadening the current assignment or use of 811 may be briefly summarized as follows:
The 811 dialing code could more effectively serve Canadians by enhancing Public Health, Safety and Security. 811 was made available by the CRTC in 2005 as an access code for non‐emergency health services. This service is currently available in only four of the ten provinces and one territory. It remains unused in six provinces and two territories. It is not “widely available geographically”, as the Commission required. Even in those provinces where the number is currently in use, public awareness and understanding of the number is generally low. One must conclude that this N11 number, a very scarce public resource, is vastly underutilized. The safety and security of Canada’s critical national infrastructure services is a high public priority across Canada. Our governments, including the health sector, our economy and social systems rely heavily on the continued operation of these infrastructure services. Even a temporary interruption and loss of these services can severely disrupt the economy, government services and the lives of citizens in the areas affected. Accidental damage to energy networks can, in some cases, also directly threaten the health and safety of those in the immediate area. canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 8
Canada has an opportunity to better protect public health, community safety and security by augmenting the current use of the 811 dialing code. The CCGA members have proposed that the 811 code be assigned for joint use to serve public health in the widest sense including public safety and security. As described above, there is simply no basis for any concern that callers to 811 for health services would encounter delays beyond those they encounter today. The IVR messaging systems would first deliver the menu of health options as currently prescribed, or as may be amended from time to time, by the provincial health department. The option to select network locate services would only be presented after all health options. By aggregating arrangements for telecommunications and IT services necessary to support these 811 public services, the provinces and the infrastructure network operators could jointly achieve savings and efficiencies that would not be possible if all such operations were arranged separately. More services could be delivered to the public at a lower cost. Given the pressure on public sector budgets throughout Canada, such savings and efficiencies would be an important benefit. The six provincial health departments not currently using 811 may be able to do so earlier than otherwise would be the case. As outlined in the Application, the assignment of the 811 code to the complementary purposes of Public Health and Public Safety is consistent with North American Numbering Plan and CSCN Guidelines. Other N11 codes, such as 311 or 211, where implemented, are used on a municipal or local basis, generally not on a province‐wide basis. In any province where both uses have been implemented, the general public would be properly informed of the broader services accessible via 811. Callers would be given a clear and simple choice between the services they can access, at no charge to the caller. A substantial, well‐funded public education plan in each province would be designed in conjunction with each provincial government. Furthermore, the majority of the costs of such a public education program would be funded by the membership of the CCGA. This funding would boost public awareness and usage of 811, thus benefitting the governments that now use or will use 811 for public health information.
Finally, we will close these submissions by referring to the letter filed by Richard Ballantyne, a Director of the British Columbia Safety Authority, who stated:
“I am a retired executive from the petroleum and natural gas pipeline industries. I also sit on the Board of Directors of the British Columbia Safety Authority. From both positions, I have seen firsthand the safety and environmental consequences of unauthorized excavation near underground utilities. Canada needs stronger damage prevention programs to protect vital underground utility services. More pointedly, I have met and shared the anguish of parents whose children died in an explosion in Bellingham, WA; one caused by unauthorized excavation near a petroleum pipeline.
We cannot wait until we experience the preventable deaths of Canadians before taking action.” [Emphasis added]
In matters of community and public safety, there is a collective responsibility that falls on regulators, relevant government departments, publicly owned networks and private network operators to take all reasonable preventive measures available. The public would expect nothing less.
canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 9
For all of the reasons set out above, the CCGA requests that the Commission proceed to broaden the scope of public services that can be reached by Canadians using the dialing code 811.
All of which is respectfully submitted this 26th day of September 2011.
Mike Sullivan Chair – Canadian Common Ground Alliance cc. Interested Parties
Attachment
canadiancga.com Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility Page 10