Engagement for the new Damage Prevention Regulations Survey Results

NEB Regulations for Pipeline Damage Prevention

The National Energy Board (NEB) provides regulatory oversight for both the people planning activities near pipelines and the pipeline companies themselves with new Damage Prevention Regulations (DPRs). The NEB is fostering a cooperative approach to increase the understanding of the responsibilities of those who have an interest in pipeline right-of-ways, or who may disturb the ground near underground infrastructure.

The National Energy Board is developing engagement strategies and additional guidance materials that will help us reach relevant parties for outreach and education. To do this, we asked our Canadian stakeholders and association memberships to tell us, in a recent survey, who they are, how best to reach them and what tools should be used going forward. Also sought were suggested key messages in the guidance materials that will help educate stakeholder groups.

Following is a summary of the results.

Basic information

Languages: English and French

Statistics

  • Number of accesses: 453
  • Number of participants: 169
  • Number partially completed (in progress): 52
  • Number entirely completed (submitted): 117
  • Response rate (submitted): 69.23%
  • Date of last submitted response: 2016-09-30 06:44:4

1. Of the following Damage Prevention topics, which three are most important to you/your members?

A slightly higher number of respondents indicated that Pipeline Company obligations and responsibilities is the most important of Damage Prevention topics. A close second is Planning a ground disturbance or construction of a facility. A close third and of equal importance are ‘Knowledge of the prescribed area’ and ‘Protection of pipelines and the environment’.

1. Of the following Damage Prevention topics, which three are most important to you/your members?

2. In the Guidance for the DPRs, we have covered many key messages (i.e., strong statements about a particular issue about which the organization takes a stand). What three Key Messages are the most meaningful for you/your group?

The vast majority of respondents believe that Click or Call Before You Dig is the most meaningful Key Message for them/their group.

2. In the Guidance for the DPRs, we have covered many key messages (i.e., strong statements about a particular issue about which the organization takes a stand). What three Key Messages are the most meaningful for you/your group?

3. What are the three most effective events for face-to-face engagement with your members?

The vast majority of respondents chose Presentations to Associations and Community Meetings and Board Meetings as the most effective event for face-to-face engagement with members. This was followed by Member / Community Meetings and Workshops.

3. What are the three most effective events for face-to-face engagement with your members?

4. What are the top three most effective delivery methods for reaching your members?

The highest number of respondents chose online methods (blogs, vlogs, videos, youtube, facebook), as the most effective means of communicating to members. Online Courses to explain aspects of the regulations was their second choice, followed closely by NEB publications as third choice.

4. What are the top three most effective delivery methods for reaching your members?

5. To what extent do you feel that you understand the regulatory requirements through using the existing educational and engagement products currently available?

The vast majority (73%) of respondents understand the regulatory requirements somewhat; 23% understand completely and 7% do not understand at all.

5. To what extent do you feel that you understand the regulatory requirements through using the existing educational and engagement products currently available?

6. Do you know where to find all the information on the regulations that you need?

56% of respondents know where to find information on the regulations and 44% do not.

6. Do you know where to find all the information on the regulations that you need?

7. How likely are you to visit the NEB website for information on the Damage Prevention Regulations?

With 4% not at all likely to visit the NEB website, most respondents will visit the NEB website, with 35% are very likely and 26% are moderately likely to do so.

7. How likely are you to visit the NEB website for information on the Damage Prevention Regulations?

8. How easy is it for you to access or find the regulatory requirements on the NEB website?

Agreement is strongest that accessing regulatory requirements on the NEB website is easy from time to time, (37%).

8. How easy is it for you to access or find the regulatory requirements on the NEB website?

9. Which of the following websites would you/your members most likely use to access regulatory information?

Of the choices listed, the majority of respondents prefer to access the NEB website for regulatory information, followed by CEPA and all forms of Common Ground Alliance (Canadian and provincial). By far, however, were the Other sites that members would be likely to access.

9. Which of the following websites would you/your members most likely use to access regulatory information?

10. Which of the following Social Media sites would you/your members consider using to access regulatory information or guidance on regulatory information?

Almost equal were the choices of no Social Media and Facebook preferred by the respondents, followed by LinkedIn and Twitter.

10. Which of the following Social Media sites would you/your members consider using to access regulatory information or guidance on regulatory information?

11. In your opinion, which of the following ways are the top three methods to reach your membership as a whole? 

Of the many ways to reach members / stakeholders, the top three methods suggested are Internet (77 respondents); Association or Membership face-to-face meetings (75 respondents); and 62 respondents chose Association/Community newsletters/publications.

11. In your opinion, which of the following ways are the top three methods to reach your membership as a whole?

Demographics
Now we would like to know a bit about you

12. Which category below includes your age?

12. Which category below includes your age?

13. In which Province do you live?

13. In which Province do you live?

14. Do you live on, own a business on or farm on land that contains a pipeline?

14. Do you live on, own a business on or farm on land that contains a pipeline?

15. In what type of community do you live?

15. In what type of community do you live?

16. In what type of community does most of your group or membership live?

16. In what type of community does most of your group or membership live?

17. What role or group are you representing (for the most part)?

17. What role or group are you representing (for the most part)?

18. Is there anything else that you would like to say on how the NEB can best engage you/your group/your members?

Number of respondents: 38

  • I know you've provided lists of choices for engagement, but I think that, once you've finished with the top choices, you should continue to follow through with ALL the choices you've given us. Because each generation uses different methods of engagement, using all of them would ensure that you reach each generation. (I.e., older generation would attend meetings of any kind and read publications; younger generation uses social media sites of all kinds.) Extend your reach this time and see what the outcome is. Thanks for providing this opportunity to talk to you – we want more of these two-way communication opportunities.
  • Thank you for presenting at CFA Calgary meeting in 2016. Sometimes, engaging a federal association, provincial associations and local associations, whenever possible is a very good policy.
  • 1. Eliminate the 3 day or 10-day wait periods for our group, this can be done through Blanket Exemptions for bonafide farmers. 2. Clarify or remove the 60 cm top of pipe to activity 3 m on either side of pipe for "soil Disturbance" such as tilling, ploughing & planting of crops. The rational is to have the pipeline company insure that all pipe on farmed land is 1.2 m deep. This is not so with the existing Trans Mountain pipeline through the Fraser valley as it is .8 m or less in most areas, thus ploughing or other types of normal farming methods of soil disturbance will always be in contravention of Damage Prevention Regulations. 3. The Control zone is far too wide. The 18 m provides for a 6 m safety zone. Consideration should be given to a 26 m RoW easement from 18 m and the control zone would remain 6 m separation from pipe with 10 m on either side of the exterior pipes, or if in the case of 1 pipe; 12 m on either side.
  • No.
  • your first priority on communicating NEB regulation should be making the website easy to navigate so relevant/up to date information is readily available.
  • Stay involved/Support CCGA!! Be involved with Construction/Safety Organizations and their workshops/conferences.
  • NEB through there pipeline companies operating regulated pipelines need to make the process for approval easier. As fear of the unknown is probably the hardest part of permitting.
  • a mixture of broad based information for Canadians coupled with targeted messaging or outreach efforts I believe are most likely to have the greatest and effective reach. examples of the first being twitter posts and youtube videos for example, coupled with community or membership level meetings and short articles or advertisements in newsletters (print and electronic means)
  • N/A
  • As we have few pipelines, it might be difficult and your energy and time could best be spent elsewhere right now.
  • The NEB has made positive strides engaging interested parties in the development of the latest version of the DPR, however, it has never provided public feedback indicating why suggested language was not incorporated into the regulations. Doing so would have provided interested parties with greater certainty of the reasons for denying various comments over the many years of development that went into the DPR.
  • promoting safety culture with the public at large and the farming community is key. A simple message of call / click before you dig needs to be central to this. less emphasis on trying to understand area limits and jurisdictional issues.
  • Reinforce the need for 1-Call systems to be mandated federally everywhere pipelines are present
  • Think about focus groups made up of a good cross section of all stakeholders.
  • In rural areas, direct contact with individuals even if invited to a group presentation is critical. However, visits to homes has best results.
  • Les gens ont premièrement besoin d'être informé afin de pouvoir participer aux débats. Le site Web est un bon moyen pour offrir cette information. La création d'un groupe où les gens peuvent s'abonner pour recevoir des nouvelles serait bénéfique. L'utilisation de nouveaux moyens de communication en direct comme Telescope pour s'avérer utile tout en offrant la possibilité de questions des participants.
    < People first need to be informed in order to participate in the debates. The website is a good way to provide this information. The creation of a group where people can subscribe to receive news would be beneficial. The use of new live media as Telescope to be useful while offering the opportunity to participants' questions. >
  • As a landowner I understand the need to have transmission pipelines, but continue to be frustrated by the seeming lack of landowner rights and privileges versus the $$ power of the pipeline transmission industry and their partners.
  • Everyone in Canada is aware of the Tim Hortons coffee shops, McDonalds and Burger King fast food restaurants and there is a very simple reason for this......They never allow us to forget about them due to the constant advertising of their message. Do the same thing!
  • Do NOT leave it up to the pipeline company to contact us. This one point of contact dilutes the requirements a municipality needs, and the complexity of their needs are not always reflected in the consultant's reports submitted to the NEB by the company. The municipalities could always file as interveners, but that wastes time and money for all parties.
  • No
  • Television and radio advertising to raise awareness and direct people to relevant internet sites
  • -Contact the SLSA directly. www.slsa.sk.ca
  • je suis contre vos pipeline 
    < I am against your pipeline >
  • NEB can hold Open Houses in different areas to engage with individuals and do a better job at being present and visible in the communities
  • Please make sure this information is available on the provincial one call websites/newsletters and applicable associations such as CAPULC, ABCGA, BCCGA, ACSA and CGA. Could also consider having brochures at the upcoming Common Ground Alliance symposium in Banff in October 2016. Could also consider having brochures available to suppliers involved in excavation that can be ordered from the NEB site. Possibly broadcasted at large trade shows (such as Lethbridge and Grande Prairie).
  • Each area is unique meeting with these groups, communities, landowners, farmers, ranchers getting their input. Shortfalls happen when people making decisions never get out to the area that will be affected whether it be good or bad.
  • Have more localized meetings. Not everyone gets to the bigger centers or conferences. If there is a controversial project, talk to the people that live in the area.
  • NO
  • Better and relevant stakeholder engagement. Stop turning road right-of-way into pipeline right-of-way (i.e. Future Kinder Morgan pipeline along Whitemud Drive between Anthony Henday Drive and 215 Street NW). You have handcuffed the municipality for operating and maintenance around the pipeline. This is not a simple road crossing planned but allows the pipeline to run parallel for a 400m length effecting roads and approximately 40 private residential properties.
  • This survey appears disingenuous, and presupposes that the selections given both were appropriate and could be ranked. In some cases, the selections were appropriate, so not a complete waste of time. However, the results of this survey could only be described as biased in the statistical sense and not well done. If you want persons to respond for a group, would it not be wise to send a copy of the completed survey to the filler, for example? Similarly, the survey tries to put individuals with groups, therefore the questions about personal aspects do not fit with group answers. Very problematic. I suspect there will be more than a few who will not fill out this survey as they will get part way through and realize the poor design. I can respect the intent of the effort, the survey itself is poor.
  • This survey is akin to closing the gate after the cattle have left the barn. Where was the consultation with landowners before these regulations were drafted? There was no consultation. Where is the compensation for restricting farming practices contrary to the easement ROW? Where is the compensation for the loss of land value now that the NEB has restricted use of farmland far beyond the original easement? Where in the NEB Act is there specified protection for landowner/farmers from unscrupulous pipeline companies? There isn't any.
  • So far your information to us has been non-existent. This is the first time we have received any contact from the NEB.
  • This survey looks to me as how is it best and most effective way to inform us of this new regulation. But why weren't we (Land Owners) asked for input when these regulations were in the planning stages?
  • Transparency- still waiting to hear final KM route in writing!
  • Advertise with major Canadian newspapers (e.g. Globe & Mail) and local affiliates (e.g. Calgary Herald).
  • Si vous organiser des ateliers, vous devriez prévoir des conférences web pour les sociétés pipelinières vivant loin de Calgary. Souvent, il serait très onéreux de se déplacer pour assister à vos réunions.
    < If you organize workshops, you should provide web conferences for pipelines living away from Calgary. Often it would be very costly to travel to attend meetings. >
  • The NEB can do its duty and protect landowners/farmers from a ruthless pipeline company which has just extended it's right of way by 60 meters without consent or compensation.
  • In the event there are opportunities for participation and input to energy pipeline safety and particularly environmental protection of watersheds, Trout Unlimited Canada requests inclusion. TUC for instance, a 2016 Oct 27 NEB hosted workshop run by CSA and initiated by CEPA on pipeline safety indicators, needs to have Canadian NGO/public participation for transparent effectiveness.

Thank you for your time.
If you have questions about the survey or damage prevention, please e-mail dpinfo@neb-one.gc.ca.

Link to survey questions

1. Of the following Damage Prevention topics, which three are most important to you/your members?
Choice Total Total points
Pipeline company obligations and responsibilities 66  
Planning a ground disturbance or construction of a facility 65  
Knowledge of the Prescribed Area 63  
Protection of pipelines and the environment 63  
Knowing who to contact in case of emergency 57  
Requirements for Locates 43  
Constructing a facility near a pipeline 34  
Depth of cultivation or ground disturbance 32  
Obtaining consent from a pipeline company 10 days before starting your project 22  
What is the Duty to Inform? 22  
Vehicle Crossings 20  
Other (please specify below) 10  
How to make an application to the National Energy Board 7  

Number of respondents: 169

Other (Description)

  • Obviously all of the above are important.
  • Damage prevention
  • Having consistent national standards across Canada, enforced by consistent regulations (provincial and federal) with consistent procedures for ensuring safety.
  • The 30 meter safety zone that affects my property is off original easement and no compensation has ever been offered for restrictions to activity in that area. My property line was the original demarcation line of the easement expropriated for the subject Union Gas lines in the early 1960s
  • protecting our drinking water and pond from further damage from enbridge
  • Denial of the project
  • Proper completion of locates.
  • Have a meeting with residents of farms, villages and cities within a 2 mile radius of underground pipelines. Plans in place to protect the environment and residents if there was a break or lines or spill.
  • Education for land tenants and Custom work contractors.

Link to survey questions

2. In the Guidance for the DPRs, we have covered many key messages (i.e., strong statements about a particular issue about which the organization takes a stand). What three Key Messages are the most meaningful for you/your group?
Choice Total Total points
Click or Call Before You Dig 91  
Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility 69  
Anyone disturbing the ground in a prescribed area must inform all those working on their behalf of the Regulations 67  
Anyone excavating in the Prescribed Area must give the pipeline company 10 working days to grant or refuse consent 56  
Call the One-Call Centre 3 working days before beginning work within a Prescribed Area 47  
A Prescribed Area is a strip of land measured 30 metres perpendicularly on each side from the centreline of a pipe 46  
How to request a Locate 39  
Anyone operating a vehicle or mobile equipment across a pipeline must inform all those working on their behalf of the Regulations 36  
Other (please specify below) 5  

Number of respondents: 153

Other (Description)

  • clarity on contract workers with casual employees, those who have little to no English (French) language skills, may not deem the DPR as important, even though the landowner has fully briefed the contractor of the DPR's. Worried that AMP's could be levied for DPR issues out of landowners cntrl.
  • Damage prevention starts with good route planning by the pipeline company -- which needs to understand the impact on municipalities and their operations, not just their pipeline work.
  • getting previous problems fixed and protecting our drinking water from further damage
  • ALL SURVEY MONUMENTATION MUST BE INVENTORIED BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION CCC SECTION 442 & 443
  • Ground Disturbance is a shared responsibility and one call is only one step of that process.

Link to survey questions

3. What are the three most effective events for face-to-face engagement with your members?
Choice Total Total points
Presentations to Association/Community Meetings, Board Meetings 113  
Member or Community Meetings 72  
Workshops 52  
Conferences (Keynote Address or Workshop Sessions) 49  
Virtual workshops – Webinars; Livestream workshops 42  
Customized/special-purpose meetings with individual organizations, by request. (If chosen, let us know who you are under Other – Description) 37  
Tradeshows 31  
Open Houses 29  
Other (please specify below) 7  

Number of respondents: 144

Other (Description)

  • The question won't let me through unless I add a response here.
  • n/a
  • Kersley Farmers Institute, Quesnel, BC Information not available
  • CGLAP. Agriculture business in the Fraser Valley of BC
  • The enlargement of the easement, my existing residence is now within the new wider easement. How will this effect me?
  • explain regulation and responsibility of pipeline operator to report unsafe conditions by third party who have been issued a UA. This is socially responsible and the law not bullying by pipeline
  • Kiewit Infrastucture co.
  • N/A
  • Common Ground Alliance Regional Partners across Canada.
  • Upstream Oil and Gas Production
  • Independant Contractors, Forestry Groups
  • City
  • Pipeline Operator
  • Manitoba Petroleum Branch (Provincial Government)
  • CGLAP
  • Municipalities
  • Halifax Regional Municipality – Development Engineering
  • Halifax Regional Municipality, multiple sections
  • there are no face to face meetings when there is a problem
  • I think it could be beneficial to present at association confrences such as roadbuilder or ICBA of BC
  • Information not available the municipal urban planning department of the NB city
  • Saskatchewan Land Surveyors Association
  • Lac Baker municipal environmental advisor Information not available
  • personal visits
  • CAPULC and ABCGA and BCCGA
  • Meet with people that have land within an 2 mile radius, Municipalites
  • Town of Maple Creek
  • sfd
  • How about a Working Near Pipelines Licence? Complete an online course much like a boating licence course, and this is used to educate Foreman, Site Engineers and Project Managers for work around pipe.
  • n/a
  • Real involvement prior to creating a system.
  • Information not available of the Fraser Valley Association of Pipeline Landowners (FVAPL). A meeting with NEB officials.
  • CGLAP
  • Phone calls or hot lines to receive specific instructions or answers without delay – direct line
  • CGLAP
  • Meet with land owners on an individual basis to discuse directly on how this regulation affects their land management practices.
  • CGLAP
  • Pipeline company
  • Trout Unlimited Canada with HQ in Calgary and Chapters across Canada; of particular interest to the Ted Knott Chapter in Halton, Hamilton, Wentworth Regions due to a TNPI spill in 2010 to Bronte Creek

Link to survey questions

4. What are the top three most effective delivery methods for reaching your members?
Choice Total Total points
Online: NEB Website; Blogs; Vlogs; Videos; Youtube; Facebook 84  
Online Courses to explain aspects of the regulations
(e.g., Right-of-Ways, Crossings)
74  
NEB Publications: brochures, flyers, pamphlets, leaflets 70  
Pipeline companies distributing NEB print media to your membership
(e.g., landowners)
64  
Articles in your group/association’s magazines, newspapers, newsletters 58  
Articles on your group/association’s website 47  
Other (please specify below) 11  

Number of respondents: 136

Other (Description)

  • Any of the NEB information package delivered is thrown in the garbage almost immediately. in order for pipeline companies to ensure crossings are completed safely, someone is going to have to sit down and discuss each companies individual crossing policy.
  • community or synergy groups
  • Canada Post
  • CCGA, Construction Associations and other conferences.
  • Newsletters and mass emails
  • Face to face meetings with the municipality, followed by project specific information being distributed -- not just the usual NEB general info.
  • Personal visits and information material
  • Federal Funding provided directly to municipalities, villages, towns, and counties for the purpose of educating government employees and contractors for working around pipelines.
  • None of the suggested methods are really appropriate.
  • email
  • In person because some land owners may have questions specific to their property and the feed-back can be more accurate information collected.
  • By providing our pipeline company’s employees with corporate training on the Board and its various regulations

Link to survey questions

5. To what extent do you feel that you understand the regulatory requirements through using the existing educational and engagement products currently available?
Choice Total Total points
Understand Somewhat 95  
Understand Completely 31  
Do not understand at all 9  

Number of respondents: 135

5. To what extent do you feel that you understand the regulatory requirements through using the existing educational and engagement products currently available?
Choice Total %
Understand Completely 31 22.96
Understand Somewhat 95 70.37
Do not understand at all 9 6.67
  135 100.00

Link to survey questions

6. Do you know where to find all the information on the regulations that you need?
Choice Total Total points
Yes 76  
No 59  

Number of respondents: 135

Link to survey questions

7. How likely are you to visit the NEB website for information on the Damage Prevention Regulations?
Choice Total Total points
2 Very Likely 46  
3 Moderately Likely 34  
1 Extremely Likely 25  
4 Slightly Likely 23  
5 Not at all Likely 5  

Number of respondents: 133

7. How likely are you to visit the NEB website for information on the Damage Prevention Regulations?
Choice Total %
1 Extremely Likely 25 18.80
2 Very Likely 46 34.59
3 Moderately Likely 34 25.56
4 Slightly Likely 23 17.29
5 Not at all Likely 5 3.76
  133 100.00

Link to survey questions

8. How easy is it for you to access or find the regulatory requirements on the NEB website?
Choice Total Total points
Easy from time to time 49  
Sometimes easy 34  
Rarely easy 18  
Never easy 17  
Very easy 15  

Number of respondents: 133

8. How easy is it for you to access or find the regulatory requirements on the NEB website?
Choice Total %
Very easy 15 11.28
Sometimes easy 34 25.56
Easy from time to time 49 36.84
Rarely easy 18 13.53
Never easy 17 12.78
  133 100.00

Link to survey questions

9. Which of the following websites would you/your members most likely use to access regulatory information?
Choice Total Total points
National Energy Board Website 124  
Canadian Energy and Petroleum Association (CEPA) website 112  
Common Ground Alliance (provincial and national) website 106  
Youtube 72  
Other (please specify below) 36  

Number of respondents: 127

Other (Description)

  • Association's website
  • don't know
  • synergy Alberta AER
  • our industry website
  • CGLAP Facebook Page
  • none
  • Provincial call centre
  • google information and choose
  • Google
  • In British Columbia I go to the FortisBC Energy Inc Website
  • Company websites, Kinder Morgan, Enbridge, Alliance
  • CAPP
  • AER website
  • Start at Territorial government
  • Conduct a google search. Navigating the NEB website is virtually impossible. Definitely not a browser-friendly site.
  • Regulatory websites
  • AAMNB
  • Manitoba Petroleum Branch Website
  • Member landowner association meetings
  • Other federal government departments' websites.
  • Heritage Gas has a line in Halifax
  • Facebook
  • Company guidelines, provincial regs (eg. AER)
  • google
  • Queen’s Printer
  • Newspapers
  • company websites
  • CAPULC and Alberta One Call
  • Professional engineers association website and/or construction association websites
  • Phone call.
  • EAPUOC in Edmonton, Alberta
  • email or letter to landowners
  • called Kinder Morgan
  • The pipeline company that is running threw my property.
  • Lawyer
  • Google
  • CGA

Link to survey questions

10. Which of the following Social Media sites would you/your members consider using to access regulatory information or guidance on regulatory information?
Choice Total Total points
None 78  
Facebook 73  
LinkedIn 57  
Twitter 46  
Other (please specify) 7  

Number of respondents: 127

Other (Description)

  • none, social media should not be used to access regulatory guidance
  • CGLAP in-house membership bulk email correspondence
  • Not sure I understand the question.
  • e-mail and Regulatory body web sites
  • Television, Board’s website
  • Social media is a personal choice and not appropriate for group answer. Only a few letters left.
  • This isn't information for everyone to state an opinion but if set up for land owners may be OK.

Link to survey questions

11. In your opinion, which of the following ways are the top three methods to reach your membership as a whole?
Choice Total Total points
Internet 77  
Association or Membership Meetings 75  
Association/Community newsletters and other publications 62  
Workshops 55  
Conferences 50  
Community Meetings 45  
Other (please specify below) 11  

Number of respondents: 125

Other (Description)

  • Membership bulk email correspondence
  • No Opinion.
  • face to face
  • UPA newsletter and website
  • Face-to-face consultation.
  • Direct contact with company or individual
  • Internal email systems
  • visits and mailouts
  • blast emails
  • Job training workshops
  • a meeting with landowners

Link to survey questions

Demographics
Now we would like to know a bit about you

12. Which category below includes your age?
Choice Total Total points
50 – 59 30  
40 – 49 29  
30 – 39 28  
60 – 69 25  
19 – 29 6  
70 or older 6  
18 or younger 0  

Number of respondents: 124

12. Which category below includes your age?
Choice Total Total points
18 or younger 0 0.00
19 – 29 6 4.84
30 – 39 28 22.58
40 – 49 29 23.39
50 – 59 30 24.19
60 – 69 25 20.16
70 or older 6 4.84
  124 100.00

Link to survey questions

13. In which Province do you live?
Choice Total Total points
Alberta 48  
British Columbia 29  
New Brunswick 12  
Saskatchewan 10  
Quebec 9  
Ontario 7  
Nova Scotia 4  
Manitoba 3  
Prince Edward Island 1  
Yukon 1  
Newfoundland 0  
Northwest Territories 0  
Nunavut 0  

Number of respondents: 124

13. In which Province do you live?
Choice Total %
British Columbia 29 23.39
Alberta 48 38.71
Saskatchewan 10 8.06
Manitoba 3 2.42
Ontario 7 5.65
Quebec 9 7.26
Newfoundland 0 0.00
New Brunswick 12 9.68
Prince Edward Island 1 0.81
Nova Scotia 4 3.23
Yukon 1 0.81
Northwest Territories 0 0.00
Nunavut 0 0.00
  124 100.00

Link to survey questions

14. Do you live on, own a business on or farm on land that contains a pipeline?
Choice Total Total points
No 94  
Yes 30  

Number of respondents: 124

Link to survey questions

15. In what type of community do you live?
Choice Total Total points
City or urban community 66  
Rural community 46  
Suburban community 10  
Other (please specify below) 1  
Indigenous Community 0  

Number of respondents: 123

Other (Description)

  • Land under the provincial ALR, with regs therein

Link to survey questions

16. In what type of community does most of your group or membership live?
Choice Total Total points
City or urban community 58  
Rural community 53  
Suburban community 8  
Other (please specify below) 4  
Indigenous Community 0  

Number of respondents: 123

Other (Description)

  • a combo of small and large acreage in 70 Km cor'dr
  • Not sure.
  • combination of rural and urban
  • Mixture of rural and urban

Link to survey questions

17. What role or group are you representing (for the most part)?
Choice Total Total points
Pipeline Company (employee; contractor) 34  
Association or Other (please specify below) 31  
Municipal Government (employee; contractor) 19  
Agriculture (Farmer, Rancher) 15  
Landowner 10  
Excavator 5  
Federal Government (employee; contractor) 4  
Provincial Government (employee; contractor) 3  
Indigenous 1  

Number of respondents: 122

Association or Other (Description)

  • Land Surveyor
  • BC Common Ground Alliance
  • Canadian Federation of Agriculture, BC Agriculture council, Horse Council BC, Kersley Farmers Institute.Farmer
  • CGA, OCSI
  • Contractor
  • construction contractor
  • Mutual Aid Alberta
  • Exploration company
  • Utility
  • NGO
  • Canadian Gas Association
  • Survey Company
  • Association
  • CAPP
  • Info-Excavation
  • Construction Industry
  • Prevention centre
  • individual – Common Ground Alliance
  • Professional Surveyors
  • Saskatchewan Land Surveyors Association
  • Engineering Firm
  • surveying
  • Land Surveyor
  • Université de Sherbrooke
  • common ground alliance provincial chapter
  • SARM represents all 296 rural municipalities in Saskatchewan.
  • Professional Surveyors Canada
  • landscape
  • ABCGA
  • Trout Unlimited Canada, conservator/protector/rehabilitation of watersheds

Link to survey questions

 

Date modified: