Evidence of meeting #32 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was authority.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 7th, 2009 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Chairman, you kind of stole my line of questioning, but it's okay.
I did want to go back to those losses that were reported in 2002 and 2007. We have a note that you plan to eliminate your deficit through the increased tariffs, and I wanted to know if you had reviewed the tariff structure going forward and what that might look like, and if you had looked at increasing volumes and how accurate projections might be, or decreasing costs.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
In 2008, we certainly had great forecasts when we started the year. We relied on a $20 million report issued by Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard telling us that traffic was going to go up 2% a year.
A funny thing happened around October 2008: someone called it a recession. We've lost 30% of our traffic in the last six months.
So our ability to forecast and plan traffic is practically impossible. That said, we work with our users and adjust our expenses accordingly. We watch the recession; we watch the economy.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Does that mean the tariff structure continues to increase to compensate for the difference?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
Yes, it does, for the short-term period.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Can you describe for us what that tariff structure looks like? Does it vary depending on the size or classification of vessel?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
The way the tariff is structured on the Great Lakes is that smaller ships pay less than larger ships. We charge on a per-tonne basis.
In our specific region we have four different sizes of vessels. The smaller ship will pay a base rate. If a ship can carry four or five times more cargo, well, they are paying four or five times more the pilotage rate for the service.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Is there anything that can be done marketing-wise to increase volumes?
4:10 p.m.
Chair, Board of Directors, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
Perhaps I could answer that; I thought we weren't going to answer your question on that.
We are at the bottom of the supply chain on this kind of issue. We're the tail at the end of the dog. There is nothing we can do--short of perhaps offering pilotage services for free, which might encourage more people to come into the system.
The business comes from the businesses on the Great Lakes who want products shipped. They go around the world looking for products to bring in, looking for markets for their products. We don't feel there is any role for us in trying to increase that business. We'd like it to increase, though.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Okay.
I'll change tacks quickly, then, if I can squeeze in one more.
We have a note saying that the stakeholders don't support the draft regulations. I wonder who they are and why that is.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
The stakeholders are the Canadian Shipowners Association. They represent three or four owners that have 80 ships that trade on the lakes.
Your note says that they don't support it; I'm not sure about that. They certainly don't support what had been proposed in the past. We're now working with them. Hopefully we're going to have things that will be acceptable to the users.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
It certainly seems to have taken a long period of time to get the regulations through.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you.
The interesting thing that came to mind as we read this report was the role of these pilots and what kind of certification they really require.
Is this something that any of the pilots of the ships can obtain themselves, or does it have to be somebody who is actually located in the specific waterway who can acquire the certification that's under discussion?
4:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
To obtain a pilot licence, the individual has to be highly trained; they have to know just a stretch of a river, maybe 60 miles of it, inside and out, without charts and without the aid of electronic equipment. That licensed pilot becomes our employee, our expert. The navigation officers who work for the Canadian fleet certainly have knowledge of the region they are sailing, but not as detailed as our pilot.
When a Canadian ship is trading in the Great Lakes, it has its own crew. The captain knows his or her own ship, whereas an employee pilot will be boarding a foreign ship that is not constructed for the Great Lakes. It's constructed for the high seas, and it has a crew that has grade two or grade three English and no idea where they're going.
So there's different interaction with a marine pilot and an officer of a Canadian ship. These are two different sets of skills to have.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Does that mean, then, Monsieur Lemire, that somebody who is on the ship to be piloted can acquire the licence required? Or must they be always two different people?
4:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
The people who are sailing on the Canadian ships are not called pilots; they're called deck watch officers. So whatever they obtain will be a pilotage certificate. The people we employ are pilots who are solely employed by us.
I guess your question is if the Canadian officer could obtain a licence. Yes, he could, but he would have to be employed by the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority solely.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
So it does create two classes of people?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
You can imagine situations where the deck watch person or your employee wouldn't be necessary to the safety and the health of the people on the vessel, but the requirement would still be there. So you would have, in some cases, at least, an unnecessary second class of person. Isn't that right?
4:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
I don't really understand the question.
4:15 p.m.
Chair, Board of Directors, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
If I could, I think I understood the question--I hope.
We wouldn't require pilots on the ship. The reason the ships in the current regime have had an exemption is that they have experienced personnel with that ship within the system. So that's been a recognition of those skills. They're not skilled to be a pilot because they're not skilled for multiple ships throughout the whole system, different kinds of ships. They're qualified for one particular ship.
In fact, the major source for us when we need pilots--when we have retirements, etc-- is usually the Canadian fleet of captains and mates that serve on Canadian ships, and then we train them. The training period can be shorter or longer depending on how long they've served on a Canadian ship and the skill level they bring to it. We examine them ahead of time to see if we would even let them sit the exam, if they're qualified or not, and then we would have them as a candidates list.
So it's one of those things. They are qualified in many respects to be in charge of a ship in Canadian waters. That's why the exemption process was allowed, and we see them as skilled mariners that are resources for us to train as future pilots. But our pilots are trained to a higher level in some aspects of ship handling and navigation than ships' officers are.
