Recent Articles

When the job vacancy numbers for the end of Q2 were released, they really weren’t all that surprising. Anyone delivering construction projects this summer could have offered the same insights: vacancies were up and prospective workers were as scarce as hens’ teeth. 

For Saskatchewan, the number of jobs going unfilled at the end of June had virtually doubled from the days prior to the pandemic declaration, going from 2.2 per cent to 4.2 per cent. And that was actually one of the better news stories in the country. B.C., for example, hit six per cent.

So, where have all the workers gone?

Experts are scrambling to answer that question, offering up a variety of explanations ranging from post-pandemic life reassessments to simply catching up, as people who had postponed retirement when COVID surfaced now deciding to depart the workforce permanently.

Signs of this development may well have been evident prior to COVID but the pandemic magnified or amplified them. The arrival of asset-sharing firms such as Uber or SkipTheDishes not only addressed a consumer need; it also filled a void for workers eschewing the traditional bond between employer and employee in favour of the so-called “gig” arrangement, where the worker can pick and choose assignments on a piecework basis rather than on a shiftwork structure. 

Could it be that vacancies are nothing more than an outdated methodology for measuring labour availability? Is the traditional worker-employer relationship seeing its first cracks? 

There are reasons to come to this conclusion from both perspectives. For the worker, we have been told repeatedly that today’s employee favours flexibility over pay, while employers are increasingly under pressure to raise wages (consider all the debate over a $15 an hour minimum wage, for example). Payroll-loading – CPP, EI, WCB, benefits, etc. – is unabated or accelerating, causing employers to question whether they actually want to formalize an employee-employer relationship when the “gig” concept is gaining acceptance.

And the other factor at play, one that will no doubt help employers, is immigration. Largely suspended during COVID, it is reasonable to assume we will restore the flow of international migration, a development that will offer some relief. 

But none of these addresses the primary underlying question for a province like Saskatchewan. In simple terms, we don’t have enough people. Population growth should become one of the most important issues to ensure we not only have enough people to fill the jobs our economy is creating, but to enhance our political clout on the national stage as well.  

Could it be that vacancies are nothing more than an outdated methodology for measuring labour availability?

A strong, well-documented return to work program will limit an employer’s financial liability and reduce days lost to workplace injury

Happy fall to one and all.

As we rush to complete current projects before Old Man Winter arrives, there is one interesting phenomenon that always comes along at this time of year: seasonal layoff injuries!

I know, we all thought they were only a myth. After all, just like the Tooth Fairy, Big Foot and the swamp monster, no one really sees them – but lo and behold, we do see the statistics.

Seasonal layoff injuries really do exist. We in the injury management business see them yearly. They are real, they are extremely frustrating and they can be very, very costly to your business in lost time, in dollars and cents, and in company morale.  

How do you spot one of these not so mythical creatures? We have often been told to watch for these significant signs:

Someone who repeatedly asks when layoff is, inquires whether there are any projects coming after this one, asks about their seniority position for layoffs, asks about the first, second and third rounds of layoffs, etc.  

 Someone who complains of having to work later into the year than expected and wishes layoffs were coming sooner.

Someone who does not want to travel to the next project and would much rather stay closer to home – or on the other hand, they prefer to stay further away from home, etc.

Often, people will report an injury that just happened to occur out of sight of everyone else; something that is unusual for their respective type of work, or something that happened when they strayed from their normal job to do something else.

Now, as we all know, if an injury is reported at work the WCB views all injuries as no fault – so they will be covered, and your company will be held financially responsible. The injured worker will go to his or her respective doctor or primary care provider, who will take them off work for a period of time. If the worker really wants to be off for a while, they can play it up and get that time extended. They will be given a referral from the doctor for rehabilitative physical therapy. Again, if they wish to drag this out, they can try to get onto a wait list at some of the more preferred clinics. Then the rehab begins – and that can take months when an injured worker wants to drag things out and perhaps embellishes their symptoms and limits their physical abilities just a little. I know, I am so jaded!  

So, what can employers do? Well, as we have said before in our articles, you should have a very strong, well documented and executable safety and return to work (RTW) program. This should be presented at each employee’s orientation and signed off by them at least once a year. This program is not just a paper document, but a real program, so you can severely limit your losses and reduce your liability to lost injury days.

Here is how it works: Your RTW program kicks into place as soon as someone is injured. The injured employee reports to the supervisor, if possible, then gets treatment. The supervisor ensures the injured worker is accompanied to make sure they are safe and securely transported to medical care. At that time, the medical care provider is given the company’s RTW paperwork. This will ensure the medical provider is aware the company can and will accommodate any and all physical restrictions. The company will offer to pay if there is any cost for the completion of this documentation, so the injured worker does not have to worry about it. Transport the worker home if necessary.  

The employer will now arrange to implement the necessary restrictions outlined by the medical care provider and will ensure the injured worker is following through on them. Provide necessary onsite facilitations such as ice packs, hot packs, a chair or cot to rest, etc.  

In this way, you, the company, will have very few lost days due to injuries. You will facilitate a culture of no lost time and, further, you will place the emphasis on RTW and quick and complete recovery. Also, when it is understood that there is no “holiday” for being injured, with time off at home and physio once or twice a week, the lure of the seasonal layoff injury will lose its shine.  

Clifford Gerow is executive director of Injury Solutions Canada.

What is the Employer’s Role in a Return to Work Program?  

As the employer, you are responsible to:

• Offer safe and suitable modified or alternate duties that are within the worker’s functional abilities;
• Be flexible and tailor the return to work plan to meet the worker’s individual needs in their recovery;
• Keep in touch with injured workers and the WCB throughout the return to work process – checking in with injured workers throughout their recovery helps them maintain a connection with the workplace and shows that they are valued;
• Ensure supervisors and co-workers support injured workers during recovery and participate in the return to work process;
• Educate your workforce on why return to work is good for business and outline the expectations for supporting a worker in a modified or accommodated role; and
• Outline the process your staff are to follow if they are injured at work.

The most successful return to work plans are those where the employer also has a designated contact person or return to work co-ordinator. This individual is the single point of contact with the WCB to ensure consistent handling and timely intervention.

– courtesy Workers Compensation Board (WCB) of Manitoba

Stimulus funding enables crucial maintenance and upgrades to rural roads and bridges

The days are getting shorter, the leaves are turning colour and you can find a pumpkin spice latte anyplace! As fall slowly arrives, there is a lot of beauty to be seen on the rural roads. There’s nothing better than packing a lunch, taking a day trip and exploring the palette of colours all around the province.

Saskatchewan boasts the most kilometres of rural roads in Canada. It’s these roads that lead us to Regina to watch the Saskatchewan Roughriders or simply to your favourite ice cream stand for a treat, not to mention the beauty and hidden gems of days gone by on Saskatchewan’s rural back roads.

The roads we travel to reach local regional parks are under the jurisdiction of the Rural Municipalities (RMs). The Ministry of Highways provides the Rural Integrated Roads for Growth (RIRG) funding to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM), which manages and distributes it to RMs to help support the upgrade of these tourism roads, bridges and large culverts throughout the years.

This year saw a huge influx of stimulus funding for SARM to manage on behalf of the provincial government: $44.2 million dollars, to be exact, and that was just for roads!

So far, the RIRG Stimulus Funding has provided road funding for over 100 RM projects throughout the province, and there’s more to come. The application process is open for RIRG capital projects until Oct. 29, 2021. 

Rural Saskatchewan also has bridges, lots of bridges – there are approximately 1,400 of them for fishing at your favourite spots.

So far, the Rural Integrated Roads for Growth (RIRG) Stimulus Funding has provided funding for over 100 rural municipality road projects throughout the province, and there’s more to come.

In Phase 1 of 2020, 28 bridge projects in 20 RMs were approved for a total estimated project cost of $23,506,645 and total estimated grant funding of $9,609,822.50.

In Phase 2 of 2020, 20 bridge projects in 18 RMs (the RM 152 project is shared with RM 151 as the Qu’Appelle River serves as an RM boundary between them) were approved for a total estimated project cost of $17,035,983 and total estimated grant funding of $6,950,491.50.

We would like to thank SHCA contractor members for the great work done in rural Saskatchewan this summer. Our hope is that the fall continues with nice warm days conducive to safely working on the rural roads, bridges and large culverts in the province.

SARM wishes you a safe, healthy fun-filled fall and encourages you to explore rural Saskatchewan!  

Terry E. Hoeving is IDC advisor and RIRG lead at the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM). 

Building trust through community presence and open communication is easy to say and very hard to do – but it’s worth the effort

For companies operating in the mining and energy sectors, community engagement is an important component of many projects and sites – from exploration through operation to remediation. A key to success is the integration of local knowledge into operational and closure plans. However, before this knowledge can be integrated, local trust and project understanding must be established. This can only be developed through a principle-centred approach to a shared project vision, two-way communication of knowledge, alignment of project goals and understanding the local needs early in the project. Once community confidence is obtained, this local trust and project understanding must be maintained throughout the entirety of the project. An important principle of this approach is to co-generate plans and activities with communities and not just develop them on the communities’ behalf. 

During exploration and environmental assessment phases, integration of local knowledge can include the development and implementation of land use surveys to determine realistic travel and occupancy needs, specific traditional knowledge and land use studies to develop a detailed working knowledge of local land use, resource utilization, country food intake and human history of the site(s). The local knowledge gained during the assessment process is invaluable as it provides the information required to support project planning, such as valued ecosystem components, human trophic utilization, length of site occupancy, cultural value assessment and future land use considerations.

This approach involves an open planning method that requires the proponent to not only communicate with local communities, but also to be open and prepared to adjust project planning to accommodate the direction provided through these processes. For meaningful dialogue to take place, a relationship of trust and joint understanding must be built. Building trust through community presence and open communication is very easy to say, but very hard to do, and it takes a lot of time and effort. Gaining trust means you have the social licence needed to work in the region. Not only is it important to gain trust, but it also takes work to maintain it.

Community leaders tour the modern-day Gunnar Mine site. The facility operated from 1955 to 1963 and officially closed in 1964 with little to no decommissioning.

The role SRC is playing

The Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) is managing Project CLEANS (Cleanup of Abandoned Northern Sites) – a multi-year, multimillion-dollar project aimed at assessing and reclaiming Gunnar Mine and Mill site, Lorado Mill and 35 satellite mine sites in northern Saskatchewan, near Lake Athabasca. The project is funded by the Governments of Saskatchewan and Canada. 

Uranium from these sites was mined by private companies from the early 1950s to the mid-1960s. When the mines and mills were abandoned, there was very little decommissioning completed. Because of this, the sites pose potential risks to the surrounding communities and the environment. SRC has been working since 2006 to safely reduce these risks through extensive decommissioning, remediation and monitoring work.

Engagement of local communities has been key as SRC’s Project CLEANS team maintains working relationships with local residents and their leadership within the communities. SRC holds regular community meetings to provide updates and receive feedback from northern residents. Key concerns addressed through this engagement process include human and environmental health, employment and business opportunities, remediation options and potential site end-uses. 

The way forward

SRC developed an adaptive and open process to engage local communities that continues to evolve as community leadership changes, local expectations increase with project success, and the project parameters progress and change. 

Although SRC’s approach to the development of communications, trust and traditional knowledge integration has been specifically applied to Project CLEANS, the approach and concept is applicable through the entirety of the mining cycle (exploration, assessment, construction, operations, remediation and divestment), in any geographic region. 

For more information on SRC’s community engagement work with Project CLEANS,
visit https://www.src.sk.ca/project-cleans.  

Ian Wilson is the remediation manager in the Saskatchewan Research Council’s Environmental and Biotech Division.

Who is responsible for delays in multi-party projects? What happens when there are multiple independent causes of delay in the same time period? How do courts determine if a delay impacts the critical path of the project schedule?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice was faced with these issues in the recent case Schindler Elevator Corporation v Walsh Construction Company of Canada,¹ where several subcontractors, including Schindler Elevator Corporation (“Schindler”), had delayed the performance of their respective  contracts. These delays allegedly impacted the critical path of the Women’s College Hospital Capital Redevelopment Project (the “WCH Project”) led by Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership (Walsh Construction Company of Canada and Bondfield Constructed Company Limited, collectively “WBP”). 

This case provided a thorough analysis on apportioning liability to one of multiple parties in a complex commercial construction project and a lengthy review of documented evidence and expert testimony on calculated impacts. The case also defined the meaning of “concurrent delays” to be used in future construction disputes to ensure a fair and just assessment of responsibility for delays. 

Background

In 2010, Women’s College Partnership (“ProjectCo”) entered into a construction contract with WBP for the design, construction and maintenance of a new 624,000-square-foot hospital replacing the old Women’s College Hospital in downtown Toronto for a price of $272 million.² The contract followed the same deadlines of ProjectCo’s project agreement with Women’s College Hospital (“WCH”), which was to contractually achieve interim completion by April 29, 2013, and achieve substantial completion by  Sept. 9, 2015.³

WBP subcontracted Schindler to fabricate, deliver and install all 10 elevators for the new hospital facilities at an agreed base subcontract price of $2.1 million.⁴ It also engaged a substantial number of other subcontractors for the project, including trades for curtain wall and glazing work, mechanical and electrical work, supply and installation of precast panels, painting services and various interior civil works.⁵

The critical path delay

Before Schindler commenced work and throughout the installation, there were a number of project delays occurring around the same time.⁶ Upon Schindler’s delay in its own work, WBP had issued numerous written notices of default and withheld all further payments.⁷ The court found that there were some events that were out of Schindler’s control and extended the time accordingly.⁸ However, Schindler was ultimately found to be liable for breach of its subcontract due to the delayed completion of the elevator work.⁹

Schindler registered a claim for lien for almost $1 million in unpaid services and materials.¹⁰ WBP counterclaimed for $2.2 million in damages and contractual penalties for Schindler’s delayed performance.¹¹ However, in order to determine liability for overall project losses, it was necessary to find that Schindler caused critical path delay to the WCH Project. The “critical path” was defined as “the longest chain of logically connected activities in a project schedule that, if delayed, will delay the end date of a project”.¹²

WBP had the evidentiary onus of proving a causal connection between each of Schindler’s delays and WBP’s delay and impact losses, on a balance of probabilities, in order to indemnify WBP’s costs for mitigation and delay penalties.¹³

Defining concurrent delay

WBP acknowledged that other subcontractors also contributed to the project delay through the same period.¹⁴ In describing the concept of simultaneity of delays from two or more sources in large-scale construction projects, the court turned to Glenn Grenier’s article: “Evaluating Concurrent Delay: Unscrambling the Egg”.¹⁵ Grenier illustrated that evaluating a concurrent delay is a “much more involved and speculative process compared to an isolated or singular cause of delay” and the parties and the court must break down the overall project delay into its component parts to apportion the time, responsibility and costs.¹⁶

The court rejected Schindler’s expert testimony that concurrent delay meant there were two co-critical, co-controlling activities that had the same timing and duration.¹⁷ Instead, it relied on the observation that delays starting and ending at the same time were rarely the reality and concurrent delays were more commonly experienced as overlapping events.¹⁸ At least in more complex cases of concurrency, a more flexible definition would avoid one party being held solely responsible for a project delay and would more likely lead to a fair and just result where it is supported that multiple parties delayed the project.¹⁹ 

The court ultimately found that there was no clear evidence that Schindler materially contributed to the overall critical path delay. While there was a delayed turnover of the freight elevators which directly impacted the immediate subsequent activity, the manner in which the subsequent activity caused delay to the overall project was not shown.²⁰ Therefore, the court concluded that Schindler did not cause or materially contribute to the failure to achieve the interim completion deadline.²¹

However, in light of the extent of Schindler’s performance delay, the court concluded it would be inequitable to absolve Schindler entirely of causally connected losses and damages.²² The court reviewed each of Schindler’s disputed activities which allegedly caused the delay and assessed the evidence for each claim. The finding was that Schindler owed a total of $51,653.79 to WBP for its delay and the court dismissed WBP’s remaining claims for damages.²³ The net result was WBP owing a sum of $650,786.20 for unpaid amounts to Schindler. 

Key takeaways

Following the Schindler decision, future dispute resolutions for delays in large, multi-party projects may see a flexible approach in defining concurrent delays to fairly distribute the responsibility of events where responsibility is due. Determining causation of the critical path delay will require clear evidence of the subcontractor’s specific performance delay and how it materially contributed to the overall project delay.   

It is important to maintain a distinction between liability for breach of a subcontract and liability for overall project delay and associated losses. To claim unpaid amounts in the subcontract, Schindler had the evidentiary onus of proving any delays, impacts and its right to an extension of time in accordance with the subcontract. To counterclaim losses for the overall project delay, WBP had the evidentiary onus of proving a material causal connection between Schindler’s delays and the critical path delay. Thus, a breach of a subcontract does not necessarily mean liability for overall project delay losses. 

Accordingly, unanticipated delays should not hinder compliance with the contractual terms which govern project delays. In Schindler, the court made evident that both WBP and Schindler were sophisticated parties who agreed to detailed terms dealing with payment, delay, notice of default and default remedies.²⁴ Significant weight was given to the contractual interpretation of the subcontract which governed the time period and remedies used in the court’s analysis. 

The decision in Schindler underlines the need for assertions of overall project delay to be supported by evidence that connects the contractor’s delays or defaults with the project’s critical path. Claims of overall project delay, in the absence of such evidence, are unlikely to succeed.   

Finally, co-operation, collegiality and organization were recognized as key throughout the course of the lengthy and complex trial. The professionalism and the preparation of all the parties involved were “a model example” of how to present these cases to the court.²⁵ It is good practice to keep records of all work done for projects, including items such as work tickets, emails, incidents, shop drawings, shutdowns due to safety concerns, monthly reports and schedules, game plans, letters, invoices, cheques and timesheets that clearly support their relation to the operation, the dates the work was performed, and when the work was undertaken. Detailed and diligent documentation by the parties involved will be important to support any future claims when projects get delayed.  

Khurrum Awan is a partner in the Saskatoon office of Miller Thomson LLP. For inquires contact him at kawan@millerthomson.com.Disclaimer: This publication is provided as an information service and may include items reported from other sources. We do not warrant its accuracy. This information is not meant as legal opinion or advice.

1. 2021 ONSC 283 [Schindler].
2. Ibid at para 11.
3. Ibid at para 10.
4. Ibid at para 21.
5. Ibid at para 24.
6. Ibid at para 26.
7. Ibid at para 35.
8. Ibid at para 27.
9. Ibid at para 266.
10. Ibid at para 5.
11. Ibid at para 268.
12. Ibid at para 296.
13. Ibid at para 292.
14. Ibid at para 37.
15. (2006), 53 CLR (3d) 46. This paper was presented by Grenier at the Ontario Bar Association Conference for the Construction Law Section in Toronto in 2006. Grenier was a Partner and Head of the Construction Law Practice Group at Lang Michener LLP in Toronto.
16. Schindler, supra note 1 at para 303.
17. Ibid at para 346.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid at para 347.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid at para 348.
23. Ibid at para 448.
24. Ibid at para 136.
25. Ibid at para 458.

Taking advantage of risk management will allow heavy construction operators to take advantage of opportunities

Much has changed in the heavy construction industry in the last few decades, including new technology, improved work practices and the advent of social media. Although these changes are readily acknowledged, there is less focus on another changing aspect of the industry – the need for new risk management strategies.

“The opportunities and the risks have changed over time,” said Greg van Ginkel, a managing partner and the construction leader at EQUA Specialty Risk Partners Corporation (EQUA). “There has to be an assessment of those opportunities in order to mitigate risk. Taking advantage of risk management will allow heavy construction operators to take advantage of opportunities.” 

Risk management is important for clients, insurance companies and employees. Clients want to know their contractor is aware of all the safety and risk management factors. Insurance companies want to know that operators have utilized risk management strategies, which in turn, will enable the companies to take advantage of new business opportunities and remain competitive. Employees overall want their companies to properly manage risk because it impacts their safety and the viability of the business.

“It’s really a question of surviving as a business or not – you have to be agile, thoughtful and consistent with your use of risk management tools and standards to stay afloat, let alone compete,” said van Ginkel.

Nearly every industry has been impacted by environmental and social developments and the heavy construction industry is no exception. The introduction of new technologies has enabled companies to become more efficient, safer and more transparent with stakeholders. 

For example, GPS tracking and cameras are now available that assist companies in reducing equipment theft. If equipment gets stolen, the GPS unit will locate it. Underground construction once represented a significant risk to the industry, but new scanning tools which help identify geological structures have helped mitigate that risk.

Contracts have also evolved over time, allowing businesses and project owners to avoid assuming risk that is not appropriate for them. If a company is conducting testing and assessment work for a specific project, the associated risk should be passed on to them. In other words, if a government department or engineering firm is doing the testing, then the contract should stipulate that they are responsible for the associated risk and the efficacy of the results they produce, not the business or project owner.

“Owners must be aware of what’s in these contracts,” said van Ginkel. “They have to consider how a court will assess the contract wording.”

If an owner contracts a design firm and that firm provides an industry-standard contract, the owner may not be aware that the contract may exclude any risk for the design firm. The owner may then pass that risk onto the contractor.

“It’s a matter of being aware of where liability gets allocated and to which parties as part of the project process. This is best discussed at the beginning of a project between a contractor and the ultimate owner,” advises van Ginkel.

“It’s a matter of being aware of where liability gets allocated and to which parties as part of the project process.”

– Greg van Ginkel, EQUA Specialty Risk Partners Corporation

Changing landscape

These issues are all part of the changing landscape within the industry. All stakeholders are now assessing who is going to accept the risk on construction projects. Decisions must be made about whether the risk should be allocated back to the party that is most capable of accepting that risk, or if it should be passed to individual contractors, some of whom may not have the financial capacity to accept the risk.

Van Ginkel recommends that before embarking on a project, you review your vendors and partners to ensure they’re capable of assessing risk and understanding what risk should be passed along to insurance and what aspects cannot be. Some partners may have different contracts within their own organizations, which can also lead to uncertainty. 

“It can be helpful to have a risk expert, someone who understands risk and insurance, to join these discussions, to explain where risk lies, what needs to be assumed, and what can be passed onto insurance companies. It may also be useful to consolidate your contract structures.”

A risk expert would complement an existing team of lawyers and tax experts when reviewing contracts. Organizations shouldn’t assume that lawyers, who often draft and review contracts, have the proper depth of industry-specific knowledge for understanding risk management. Lawyers may use standard contracts without considering how the language may be applied in context due to the constantly changing landscape of insurance and risk management.

“You need to bring the expertise together so your legal counsel can get the opinions of everyone and craft the contract language according to the intent of the risk mitigation within your specific industry.”

Van Ginkel said there are strategies that you can employ to mitigate your risk. One of the main tools is education and the proper employee training programs can have a significant positive impact. With online reviews and social media, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure workplaces have zero tolerance for abuse and discrimination and that this standard is incorporated into employee education and training. Failure to do so could lead to some unflattering comments on the internet that create red flags around your organization.

Insurance is directly tied to modern risk management processes and that’s why items such as abuse coverage must be purchased separately – it is no longer part of a general insurance policy. If you can’t show an insurance company how you are mitigating the potential for abuse, insurance companies may not provide that coverage.

“Your insurance broker and risk management team are incredibly important in this process – you need to work with individuals who understand this landscape and who are dedicated to remaining apprised of developments,” concluded van Ginkel. “It’s not static. Risk management is dynamic and constantly evolving. Your team of advisers is key to ensuring your business will succeed.” 

“It’s not static. Risk management is dynamic and constantly evolving.” 

– Greg van Ginkel

Free online training course aims to reduce underground utility strikes and dangers due to soil collapse

“Youth is our future.” Is this just another tired cliché? Or is it something that many people take to heart?

For the Saskatchewan Safety Council (SSC), the Saskatchewan Common Ground Alliance (SCGA) and the Heavy Construction Safety Association of Saskatchewan (HCSAS), that phrase isn’t just empty words. It is a call to action that merited a united response during a special media event on July 15.

On that day at a Wappel Construction site in Regina, the three partners launched what is believed to be a North American first: a free online construction safety program aimed at youth aged 14 to 21.  

The “Ground Disturbance for Saskatchewan Workers” training initiative, available on the SSC website, will promote safe working practices to future young employees.

For SSC President Ryan Jacobson, the initiative is a game changer, especially in a larger and more sparsely populated province like Saskatchewan.

“Everyone that works in a ground disturbance industry, whether it be agriculture, landscaping, construction or road building, needs access to basic best practices to work safely,” said Jacobson. Citing the unique industry-created online course, he added that it provides a way “to get all those trained in rural Saskatchewan that may not have training agencies close at hand.”

If the participant passes the two-hour online course they will receive a recognized safety construction certificate, immediately downloadable upon completion. The program is a key component in the SSC’s Career Safety Education Program, which has been designed by industry experts to address the most common injuries to new workers in their respective fields.

SCGA President Derrick Mann said evidence shows injuries happen during complex construction work but also during more routine situations. 

Canada incurs $1 billion in underground facility damage annually. But Mann said the biggest issue remains eliminating the risk of personal injury and even death. These incidents are preventable with the right safety mindset.

“Developing safety habits when one is young produces a lifetime of benefits,” he added.

Construction activity in Saskatchewan has remained at historically high levels, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were 151,282 requests for line locates in 2020, a close to seven per cent increase from the previous year, and about 700 contacts with underground facilities in 2019. 

The new online ground disturbance course puts the industry “one step closer to being able to create that safety culture, that safety behaviour, right on site,” said Natalya Uchacz, chief operations officer at the HCSAS. “When we are able to start right at the beginning with our youth and help them become informed before they actually go into a construction site . . .  then overall we will have a safer industry.”

The three partners are confident this training can reduce the incidence of underground utility infrastructure strikes or soil collapse. The course includes content such as ground disturbance and hazards assessment, reporting damage and line locating, daylighting, control zones, colour codes, soil conditions and emergency assessment, among other things.

“Developing safety habits when one is young produces a lifetime of benefits.”

– Derrick Mann, SCGA president

Young workers and those new to jobs that work in soil, who are pursuing careers in agriculture, heavy construction, residential construction, landscaping or with companies that provide services to utility companies are encouraged to complete this free training course.

For Eli Sorenson, a young field worker, the course is the kind of encouraging development that shows the industry is committed to the health and well-being of its workers, in addition to providing competitive pay and a good working environment.

“As a person with my whole life and career in front of me, I want to work in a place where they take safety seriously,” Sorenson said at the media event in July.

That’s exactly the type of environment these three partners want to create in every construction workplace. They want to prove that working safely, much like investing in our youth, is definitely more than a cliché.  

Shannon Doka is the executive director of the Saskatchewan Common Ground Alliance (SCGA).