Evidence of meeting #140 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pilots.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Thank you to all our guests for their presentations today.
This act, of course, is crucially important to the riding that I represent in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly Placentia Bay, as Mr. Griffiths just referenced. I have had numerous conversations with the pilotage authority of Atlantic Canada and others, and I appreciate the information that has been provided to all of us over the last number of months and years.
You made reference to 1,000 to 1,100 tankers in one given year. Obviously, that is a huge concern for the fishing industry and other people in our province. I applaud you for your impeccable safety record.
I'm hearing from you that the bill as it's currently proposed as a package is fine. Given our safety record, as it currently stands, will there be the same kind of expectation that we will be able to maintain that safety record going forward?
12:10 p.m.
Capt Sean Griffiths
I believe there has to be. We wouldn't be doing our jobs if we didn't strive for 100% safety at all times. That should not change one bit as a result of this act's amendments.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
I can recall when offshore oil and gas became a major industry in Newfound and Labrador. I refer to that because it's the one I'm most familiar with, Bull Arm and Arnold's Cove within that area of Placentia Bay, which coexists with the fishing industry and an aquaculture industry project and others. It's a very busy location.
When I look at this bill and I see your group endorsing where it's going, and keeping in mind that you made reference to the safety and needs of the industry, do you think there's a good balance in all of that?
12:10 p.m.
Capt Sean Griffiths
I believe there is, and it comes back to community outreach and stakeholder engagement. I think Placentia Bay sets the model going forward for consultation and engagement with the Placentia Bay Traffic Committee, which comprises fish harbour service, pilots, tanker operators, masters, tugs and anyone in that sector who is involved in some way in the industry. We meet regularly, discuss our problems and come to some fruitful solutions each time.
That is a positive that will never change no matter who takes the regulations. That outreach and community engagement will continue. It has to.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
For any of the witnesses here today, I know in some earlier conversations that some concerns were expressed about the long consultation process and some of the points that were being raised. Mr. Lewis-Manning, do you think this bill addresses most of these issues?
May 2nd, 2019 / 12:10 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia
I don't think it addresses all of them. Of all the consultation on anything under the oceans protection plan, this suite of amendments has had the most consultation. It's been pretty comprehensive.
12:10 p.m.
President, Shipping Federation of Canada
Yes, if you're talking about the tariff process, I just want to say that industry, at the end of the day, pays for everything. If an authority in the past had a loss one year, industry would end up paying for the next year.
I don't think the amendments here are going to make a huge difference. They might speed up the process a bit.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Do you anticipate that there might be additional costs for the shipping industry as a result of the changes proposed here?
12:10 p.m.
President, Shipping Federation of Canada
As I mentioned, our only concern would be the administrative costs of Transport Canada being transferred to the industry. I think we're not dissatisfied with the fact that they don't have to go to the Gazette to publish a tariff.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Pelletier, I guess you made reference to and saw the effect of safety as paramount in this whole process. I'm going to ask you a very simple question.
Do you think this bill meets your needs and expectations?
12:10 p.m.
Capt Simon Pelletier
Certainly the bill reaffirms the basic principles to have a sound and safe pilotage system. Of course, I think it will help increase safety in a couple of ways. I'm thinking about the added clarity in the principles of the act. I think it's going to help the stakeholders to be focused more on safe delivery. I think the new enforcement and compliance regime will also help in that regard.
One thing that might not be obvious would be to have a systematic risk assessment process in any change or any new way of doing things. I think this will increase the safety level.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank everyone for joining us this morning.
I'll use my allotted time to try to benefit from your expertise in order to understand some notions that seem a little unclear and that you may be able to address.
The consensus is that marine transportation in Canada has an A1 safety record, and everyone agrees to maintain it.
Clause 226 of the bill proposes principles to support the Pilotage Act. According to one principle, “the pilotage services [must] be provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner.” That's understandable. Another principle states that “evolving technologies [must] be taken into consideration” and that “risk management tools [must] be used effectively.” That's when things become a bit unclear. Things become even more unclear when I see that it's possible to obtain a three-year exemption from certain provisions of the act for research and development activities.
In the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we've talked a great deal about smart cars, autonomous cars and drones. In short, we've discussed the technology of tomorrow that's already almost at our doorstep.
With regard to research and development, are we moving towards technological support in pilotage that would make it possible to remove pilots from vessels?
My question is for Mr. Pelletier. However, if other people want to respond, they should feel free to do so.
12:15 p.m.
Capt Simon Pelletier
Thank you for the question.
The proposed subclause 52.1(1) does refer to exemption orders. I think that's the change you're referring to. If we interpret the proposal literally, the subclause states that these types of orders would be issued only if the proposed activities could enhance marine safety. This is an important condition for me. I imagine that risk analyses, which I mentioned earlier, will be carried out. I think that the proposal in this subclause, if we interpret it literally, won't reduce safety. That's my current interpretation.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you. You've reassured me.
In the spirit of maintaining a five-star safety record, I've always advocated for the restoration of greater power to Transport Canada. I won't back down today.
I have a question about pilot certification. What's the difference between the pilot certification that you currently issue and the certification that Transport Canada could issue?
For example, in your association, do pilots receive lifelong certification to navigate a stretch of the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River? Do pilots need to renew their licence often? Do pilots take ongoing training? Could we expect the same requirements from Transport Canada, if that were the case?
12:15 p.m.
Capt Simon Pelletier
After reading the proposed amendments, I don't see any concrete difference between the current act and the act that would be implemented following this process. As you said, regulations are in place in the four regions. I gather from the bill that Transport Canada would develop the regulations under the new act. The principles proposed in Bill C-97 suggest that things would be basically the same.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I'll ask a more specific question.
The approach of the previous Conservative administration and the current Liberal administration aims to deregulate the industry. Are you concerned about this or are you not at all concerned?
12:15 p.m.
Capt Simon Pelletier
As it currently stands, the bill doesn't raise any concerns in this regard, since the certification scheme would remain basically the same. Only one word has been changed, but for us, it doesn't change anything.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
Would anyone else like to respond to one of my questions?
Go ahead, Mr. Turner.
12:15 p.m.
Vice-President, Operations, Chamber of Marine Commerce
Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that. As to where Transport Canada goes forward, that's up for consultation of course, but right now they, under the bill, will be taking on the responsibility for developing the standards and issuing pilotage certificates. When I refer to pilotage certificates as opposed to pilotage licences, they'll be doing both, but the pilotage certificates are what the masters and navigating officers on the ships receive in order to pilot their own vessels in pilotage areas.
This practice has been going on for decades in the Great Lakes quite extensively compared with the other regions. The certification process was formalized in 2012.
In 2013, I will just add that the Canadian shipowners developed a very rigorous and comprehensive training program in conjunctions with the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. This is a program that we'd like to see taken to other regions as well.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
First off, lady and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. I appreciate your input.
I'll preface my comments before getting into my question with this. I'm going to try to gear towards the bigger picture. As many of you know, we're working on a transportation logistics strategy. What is falling out of that is a trade corridor strategy. I'm going to concentrate on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River as well as the southwestern Ontario region, as we're working on a strategy for trade corridors in that area.
I'm going to allow Mr. Hardie to take care of the west end of the country.
With that the Detroit River, the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence are all attaching themselves to a multimodal system. That system includes connections to air, Pearson and Munro, as well as connections to rail, CN and CP, and of course to road. It's in a binational manner because a lot of the product that we see leaving Niagara, Ontario, is actually crossing over the border and being taken by ship from ports in New York and across the eastern seaboard. If not, it's down the river into the Montreal area.
My question is twofold. One, and I'll be broader here, is what is your vision? What is your vision specifically for your industry? Second, what is your vision attaching that to the broader vision of the economy when it comes to multimodal transportation and allowing us as a nation to perform with a lot more strength on the global stage when it comes to the economy?
I'm going to open it up as the first question in a broader sense and then I'm going to ask a second question. I'll give you a heads up right now that the second question is to find more efficiencies to then be more competitive on the global stage with respect to transportation.
I ask because I don't have much of an understanding of what you guys do with respect to pilots on the Great Lakes versus captains and the differences between them. I know that most of the captains do end up leaving and going to be pilots. Why is there no push, no move afoot, to train captains to otherwise do what pilots do on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River and, therefore, being that much more efficient?
I'll throw that open for all of you.
12:20 p.m.
President, Chamber of Marine Commerce
Perhaps I can take that question first.
I'll respond in English.
Mr. Badawey, I think that's a good question. From an industry perspective, our vision is for a very integrated multimodal system. You mentioned the Great Lakes. An average ship that would sail from, let's say, Montreal up to Duluth would be crossing the border 24 times on that route, so we need a very harmonized and competitive system of rules and regulations across this region. We don't really have that now. Ballast water is a good example. We've had some real challenges and we have some more work to do there, and there are a host of other issues.
We also have some cost issues to increase the competitiveness of the system. My vision would be of a system that is even more cost-competitive than it is today. It's a system that's contributing 180,000 direct and indirect marine-related jobs in Canada, so this is very important for this $6-trillion economy in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region. We're moving 185,000 tonnes of cargo at 50% capacity, so we have an opportunity with some additional investment.
On the shipping side, we're going to continue to invest. Our vision is to put even more than what we've already put into new ships. We've invested over $2 billion in the latest environmentally best vessels, with all the bells and whistles. We'll continue to invest, ensuring, though, that we're going to have a more integrated and a more harmonized system, where we're addressing some of the cost issues, like on pilotage, icebreaking, and squeezing the seaway system down even more so that we have more seasonality and optimized seasonality again as part of that vision.
