Review of Pilotage Issues Report to the Minister of Transport
Canadian Transportation Agency August 31, 1999 © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1999 Printed and bound in Canada The CTA report is available on the Agency’s Web site www.cta-otc.gc.ca Canadian Office Transportation des transports Agency du Canada
August 30, 1999
The Honourable David M. Collenette, P.C., M.P. Minister of Transport Transport Canada Building Place de Ville 330 Sparks Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5
Dear Minister,
In accordance with your request of August 12, 1998 that the Canadian Transportation Agency undertake the review of pilotage services specified in the Canada Marine Act and your Terms of Reference for the review, the Pilotage Review Panel is pleased to present to you the Final Report of the Review of Pilotage Issues. The report contains the outcome of the consultations with interested parties and the recommendations of the Pilotage Review Panel in respect of each of the issues that were examined.
Yours sincerely,
Marian L. Robson Jean Patenaude
Keith Penner Richard Cashin
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0N9 Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0N9 www.cta-otc.gc.ca www.cta-otc.gc.ca 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Table of Contents 40º
50º Acknowledgements...... vii
Abbreviations and Terminology...... ix 60º
Introduction...... 1 70º Background ...... 1
Conduct of the Review ...... 1 80º Report Outline ...... 4
Section 1 — Compulsory Pilotage Area Designations ...... 5 90º Introduction...... 5 100º Criteria Used to Designate Compulsory Areas...... 10 Background ...... 10 110º Issues...... 12 Analysis...... 13 Panel Recommendation No. 1 ...... 14 120º Determination of Sizes and Types of Canadian Vessels Subject to Compulsory Pilotage ...... 15 130º Background ...... 15 Issues...... 15 140º Analysis...... 16 Panel Recommendation No. 2 ...... 16 150º Granting of Waivers...... 16
Background ...... 16 160º Issues...... 17 Analysis...... 17 170º Panel Recommendation No. 3 ...... 18 Double Pilotage...... 18 180º Background ...... 18 Issues...... 19 Analysis...... 20 190º Panel Recommendation No. 4 ...... 20 200º
210º
iii 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Docking Pilots at Québec and Secondary Ports in District 2 ...... 21 Background ...... 21 Issues...... 22 Analysis...... 22 Panel Recommendation No. 5 ...... 23 Two-Pilot Assignments in the Pacific Pilotage Authority Region...... 23 Background ...... 23 Issues...... 23 Panel Recommendation No. 6 ...... 24
Section 2 — Training and Licensing Requirements for Pilots...... 25 Introduction...... 25 National Standards ...... 25 Background ...... 25 Issues...... 28 Analysis...... 28 Panel Recommendation No. 7 ...... 30 Pool of Pilot Candidates...... 30 Background ...... 30 Issues...... 30 Analysis...... 32 Panel Recommendation No. 8 ...... 32 Pilot Quality Assurance ...... 32 Background ...... 32 Issues...... 32 Analysis...... 33 Panel Recommendation No. 9 ...... 34 Pacific Pilotage Authority Coast-wide Licensing and Dispatching ...... 34 Background ...... 34 Issues...... 35 Analysis...... 36 Panel Recommendation No. 10 ...... 37 Pilotage Services at Prince Rupert...... 37 Background ...... 37 Issues...... 37 Analysis...... 38 Panel Recommendation No. 11 ...... 38
iv 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Section 3 — Pilot Certification Process for Masters and Officers...... 39 20º Introduction...... 39 Atlantic Pilotage Authority...... 41 30º Background ...... 41 Issues...... 41 40º Analysis...... 41
Panel Recommendation No. 12 ...... 42 50º Certification of the Canaport Mooring Master ...... 42 Panel Recommendation No. 13 ...... 43 60º Laurentian Pilotage Authority ...... 44 Background ...... 44 70º Issues...... 44 Historical Background...... 45 Analysis...... 47 80º Panel Recommendation No. 14 ...... 51
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority...... 52 90º Background ...... 52 Issues...... 53 100º Analysis...... 54 Panel Recommendation No. 15 ...... 56 110º Pacific Pilotage Authority ...... 56
Pilotage Act Provision for Certification of Masters and Officers ...... 56 120º Background ...... 56
Issues...... 56 130º Analysis...... 57
Section 4 — Financial Self-Sufficiency and Cost Reduction ...... 59 140º Introduction...... 59 150º Financial Self-Sufficiency and Cost Reduction ...... 59 Background ...... 59 Issues...... 60 160º Analysis...... 62 Panel Recommendation No. 16 ...... 63 170º Structure of the Board of Directors ...... 63 Background ...... 63 180º Issues...... 63 Analysis...... 64 190º Panel Recommendation No. 17 ...... 64
200º
210º
v 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Consultation ...... 64 Issue...... 64 Analysis...... 65 Panel Recommendation No. 18 ...... 65 Accountability...... 65 Reporting of Incidents...... 65 Issue...... 65 Analysis...... 66 Panel Recommendation No. 19 ...... 66 Complaints...... 66 Issue...... 66 Analysis...... 67 Panel Recommendation No. 20 ...... 67
Implementing the Recommendations ...... 69 Panel Recommendation No. 21 ...... 69
Postscript ...... 71
Appendix I Terms of Reference...... 73
Appendix II Interested Parties ...... 78
Appendix III Written Submissions ...... 86
Appendix IV List of Meetings...... 88
Appendix V Participants at Meetings...... 91
Appendix VI Recommendations and Potential Impact...... 95
vi 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Acknowledgements 40º
The Pilotage Review Panel would like to there was extensive debate at the table, the 50º express its appreciation to all who participated parties treated each other with respect for their 60º in the Review of Pilotage Issues. During the differing views. review, hundreds of people representing a wide During the review period it became evi- 70º range of interests have spent countless hours dent to all that there were already positive signs researching, preparing briefs and attending of change in the pilotage system across the 80º meetings across the country. Their contribution country. It is a credit to the Authorities, the to the work of the Panel has been invaluable. pilots and the users that, despite some differ- 90º The participants in the pilotage system ences, they can work together to improve the have a great deal at stake in the outcome of system. It is in that spirit of cooperation that 100º the review, and they have put forward their the Panel trusts that this report will contribute positions vigorously and effectively. The topics to improvements in the pilotage system across 110º under review have been controversial and, while Canada. 120º
130º
140º
150º
160º
170º
180º
190º
200º
210º
vii 220º 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Abbreviations and Terminology 40º
AGENCY FRPA 50º Canadian Transportation Agency Fraser River Pilot Association
60º APA GAUTHIER REPORT Atlantic Pilotage Authority Investigation of proposed amendments to the Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations as published 70º BERNIER REPORT in the Canada Gazette, May 14, 1988 by Study of Canadian Pilotage Regulation Johanne Gauthier (February 1990) and General Recommendations, 80º byYves Bernier (1968) GLPA
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority 90º BCCP British Columbia Coast Pilots GRT Gross Registered Tons 100º BLOUIN REPORT Study of Operations with a View to Increasing KPMG REPORT Productivity while maintaining a Safe and Examination of the Laurentian Pilotage 110º Efficient Pilotage Service, by Pierre Blouin Authority Certification Process, by KPMG
(1987) (1997) 120º
BRM LPA Bridge Resource Management Laurentian Pilotage Authority 130º
CSA NRT 140º Canadian Shipowners Association Net Registered Tons
CSBC PANEL 150º Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia Pilotage Review Panel
CTC PPA 160º Canadian Transport Commission Pacific Pilotage Authority
170º DANCOSSE REPORT SLSA Examination of Compulsory Double Pilotage St. Lawrence Shipoperators Association in the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Area, 180º by Guy P.Dancosse (November 1992) TSB Transportation Safety Board of Canada DWT 190º Dead Weight Tonnage
200º
210º
ix 220º 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Introduction 40º
Background Reference1 and to submit the results of the 50º The passage of the Canada Marine Act in review to him no later than September 1, 1999. June 1998 resulted in amendments to the The Terms of Reference contained the 60º Pilotage Act. One of these amendments required following directions regarding the review’s 70º the Minister of Transport to review specific objective, scope and recommendations: issues related to marine pilotage services and • the review will be forward looking, to meet 80º to submit a report to Parliament on the findings ongoing and long-term user expectations; of the review. Specifically, the following section • the review will examine five subject areas, 90º was added to the Pilotage Act. as described in the new section 53; 53. (1) The Minister shall, in consultation • the review will include research, consultation 100º with each authority, its users, and other per- and recommendations; sons affected, at the latest one year after the 110º • the consultations will include two national coming into force of this section, review the pilot certification process for masters and offi- meetings; 120º cers, training and licensing requirements for • the review will assess the impact of the pilots, compulsory pilotage area designations, recommendations; and dispute resolution mechanisms, and the 130º measures taken in respect to financial self- • where there is no consensus on solutions, the
sufficiency and cost reduction, and prepare report will include alternative recommenda- 140º a report on the findings. tions of interested parties.
(2) The Minister shall have a copy of each 150º report laid before each House of Parliament Conduct of the Review on any of the first thirty days on which Upon receiving the ministerial mandate to that House is sitting after the Minister 160º prepares it. review marine pilotage issues, the Agency established a Pilotage Review Panel (the Panel) 170º In August 1998, the Minister appointed the consisting of the following individuals: Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) Marian Robson, Chairman 180º to undertake the review described above. In Jean Patenaude,Vice-Chairman his letter of August 12, 1998 to the Agency, the 190º Keith Penner, Member Minister asked the Agency to undertake the Richard Cashin, Member review in accordance with the Terms of 200º
1 The Minister’s letter and Terms of Reference are reproduced in this report as Appendix I. 210º
1 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
By letter dated August 28,1998, the Panel the view that all aspects of pilotage services notified interested parties across Canada2 that should be examined, including the structure the Minister of Transport had given the Agency for providing services. Some parties advocated the mandate to conduct the review of marine commercializing or privatizing pilotage services. pilotage issues.At that time, the Panel advised Before the first national meeting, which parties that, in addition to the two national was held on January 18 and 19, 1999, the meetings specified in the Terms of Reference, Panel distributed a discussion paper to inter- the Panel intended to hold a series of regional ested parties. In this discussion paper, the Panel consultations. In addition, as part of the consul- commented on the scope of the review as tation process, the Panel invited interested follows. parties to submit their written comments on In this regard, the Panel wishes to the pilotage issues under review and indicated emphasize that it is conducting the that such comments would form part of the review in the context of the current structure of pilotage services; i.e., the public record of the review.3 The Panel advised services are provided by four pilotage parties that the first round of regional consulta- authorities, each of which is a Crown tions would be informal, consisting of separate Corporation. The structure of pilotage discussions with various groups. services was the subject of debate prior to the passage of the Canada Marine The Panel held the first round of Act; however, there were no amend- regional consultations with interested parties ments to the structure of pilotage ser- in October 1998.4 Although the Terms of vices contained in this legislation when it was passed by Parliament. The man- Reference established five specific pilotage date of the Panel does not extend to issues to be examined, the Panel asked revisions to existing legislation as the interested parties during this first round of government made a conscious decision consultations to comment on all aspects of on the structure of pilotage services with the passage of the Canada Marine pilotage services, to give the Panel a better Act. The current structure is therefore overall understanding of Canadian pilotage the framework within which the Panel services and related issues. This approach is carrying out the review. brought out a number of concerns, some of At the first national meeting, the Panel which went beyond the scope of the review clarified this idea further, saying that while as outlined in the Terms of Reference. During the review did not extend to revising legislation these discussions, a number of parties expressed to change the structure of pilotage services,
2 See Appendix II for a list of the interested parties who participated in the review. 3 See Appendix III for a list of all written submissions the Panel received. 4 See Appendix IV for a list of regional and national meetings and Appendix V for a list of participants at regional and national meetings.
2 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
the Panel could consider other legislative between pilotage services and authorities that 20º changes where appropriate to solve issues it characterize Canadian marine pilotage. was examining. At the close of the first national meeting, 30º In the discussion paper, the Panel indicated the Panel advised parties that it would give that the discussions at the first national meeting them an outline of topics and associated ques- 40º would focus mainly on national issues and tions to provide a framework for the following 50º would allow the Panel and the parties to round of regional discussions. This approach explore ways of making progress on or resolv- allowed the Panel to focus on the most con- 60º ing controversial issues. This meeting would tentious issues and to identify issues where the also set the stage for talks on more regional interested parties appeared willing to work 70º matters at the next round of regional meetings. towards achieving resolution during the
At the beginning of the first national meet- February/March 1999 public and individual 80º ing, the Panel informed parties that the number meetings. of issues under review had been reduced to The Panel was encouraged by the parties’ 90º four from five.The Panel indicated that it was progress and by their willingness to find no longer necessary to examine dispute resolu- common ground for acceptable solutions to 100º tion mechanisms during the review since the problems during the February/March 1999 110º Canada Marine Act had been amended to pro- consultations. Consequently, the Panel decided hibit pilots from refusing to provide services that a third round of regional meetings would 120º while a contract with an authority is in effect be beneficial. or is being negotiated. In addition, the Panel During the April/May meetings, the Panel 130º learned during the October 1998 consultations observed that the pilotage authorities, the pilots that most employee pilots had voluntarily agreed and the industry in certain pilotage regions 140º not to withdraw their services. were making substantial progress in resolving
During the first national meeting, and in local issues. In other regions, however, there still 150º comments submitted by interested parties, the appeared to be some gaps between the positions Panel sensed a certain level of frustration about of the interested parties, although the Panel 160º the fact that some long-standing issues had not noted that discussions between parties contin- been resolved. The Panel noted, however, that ued. In some instances, the Panel specifically 170º the participants were willing to move ahead asked parties to discuss particular aspects of an 180º and to discuss these issues further. In this regard, issue where the parties did not appear to have a several parties indicated that they wished to good understanding of each other’s concerns. 190º discuss details of certain issues during regional As a prelude to the second national meet- consultations, rather than at a national forum. ing, held on June 9 and 10, 1999, the Panel 200º This desire reflects the regional differences distributed a discussion paper of preliminary
210º
3 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
conclusions and recommendations. The paper all authorities, the report examines all authori- highlighted various aspects of the issues under ties together. review that the Panel believed to be of the The report is divided into four sections, greatest importance in each pilotage region. one for each of the issues examined in the The Panel chose an abbreviated form of discus- review. Each section follows a similar format sion paper due to the short period between the with a summary of legislative provisions; back- end of the final round of regional consultations ground information; issues; analysis; and the and the national meeting. Panel’s recommendations. The Panel believes the second national Some of the Panel’s recommendations in meeting was successful because the parties were this report give authorities specific deadlines for able to arrive at a consensus on several aspects completing the recommended actions. Others of the issues being examined. This reflected the have no deadline and the Panel leaves it to each parties’ attitude that their solutions were prefer- authority’s discretion to set priorities and estab- able to solutions imposed by government — lish deadlines for these recommendations, based a view the Panel shared. Differences of opinion on the urgency of the issue and the availability remained, however, on some aspects of issues. of resources. Nevertheless, the Panel believes The Panel recognized that pilotage is that authorities should try to implement these regional by nature and that, therefore, the solu- recommendations as soon as is reasonably possi- tions are also regional. The discussions in each ble. In that regard, following the fourth section, region emphasized these facts.As a result, when the report contains a provision for the imple- preparing this report, the Panel decided to iden- mentation of those Panel’s recommendations tify achievable solutions to problems in each without specific time frames. pilotage region, rather than try to identify all- While there was a high degree of consensus encompassing solutions that would apply to all on many of the Panel’s recommendations, cer- pilotage regions. tain participants disagreed with the Panel and have submitted their own recommendations Report Outline with respect to the topics under review. Levels of concern about some topics and issues Appendix VI contains the Panel’s recommen- differed in each pilotage region. The report dations, alternative recommendations from par- treats each authority separately in such instances. ticipants and a brief discussion of the potential Where concerns applied more or less equally to impacts of the Panel’s recommendations.
4 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º Section 1 40º
Compulsory Pilotage 50º
60º Area Designations 70º
• Pacific Pilotage Authority (PPA): all Canadian Introduction 80º Each pilotage authority exercises jurisdiction waters in and around the province of British Columbia. over the waters within the geographical bound- 90º aries specified in the Pilotage Act for each pilotage The Pilotage Act also empowers each region. Each region is described below.5 pilotage authority to make regulations estab- 100º
• Atlantic Pilotage Authority (APA): all lishing compulsory areas within the Authority’s 110º Canadian waters in and around the four geographical boundaries.A brief description of the compulsory areas is given below. Atlantic provinces, including the waters of 120º Chaleur Bay in the province of Quebec • APA: 15 major ports, in addition to the waters south of Cap d’Espoir. under the Confederation Bridge linking 130º • Laurentian Pilotage Authority (LPA): all New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Canadian waters in and around the province • LPA: the St. Lawrence River from the 140º of Quebec, north of the northern entrance St-Lambert Lock (west of Montréal) to 150º to St-Lambert Lock, except the waters of Les Escoumins, and part of the Saguenay River. Chaleur Bay. • GLPA: the Canadian waters of the 160º • Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (GLPA): all St. Lawrence River west of the St-Lambert Canadian waters in the province of Quebec Lock to Lake Ontario, the Canadian waters 170º south of the northern entrance to St-Lambert of Lake Ontario, the Welland Canal, and the
Lock and all Canadian waters in and around Canadian waters of lakes Erie, Huron and 180º the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. Superior, as well as the connecting rivers and
channels between them and the Port of 190º Churchill, Manitoba. 200º
5 The pilotage regions and the compulsory areas are illustrated in the maps on pages 6 to 9. 210º
5 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
St. John's St.
Holyrood
Come By Chance
Compulsory Areas
Bay of Exploits Bay
Newfoundland
Humber Arm
Sydney APA waters APA
Bras d'Or Lakes
Stephenville
Strait of Canso
Boundary of
Charlottetown Halifax Labrador
Pugwash
P.E.I.
Bridge # Scotia Nova
Miramichi
Confederation
Atlantic Pilotage Authority Atlantic (APA) Pilotage Saint John
Restigouche
Cap d'Espoir New
Brunswick
USA Region
Quebec Atlantic Pilotage
6 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º Newfoundland
40º LPA waters LPA 50º
Compulsory Areas 60º District of Montréal 1.1 Port District 2 St. Lawrence River Lawrence District 2 St. from Québec to Les Escoumins, including part of River the Saguenay District 1 St. Lawrence River River Lawrence District 1 St. from Montréal to Québec
Boundary of Labrador 70º
P.E.I. 80º
#
90º Nova Scotia Nova
100º New Cap d'Espoir
Brunswick 110º
120º
130º
Les Escoumins
Québec 140º Laurentian Pilotage Authority Laurentian (LPA) Pilotage
District 2 150º
Montréal St-Lambert Lock 160º
Quebec
District 1 USA
170º Region
District 1.1 180º Laurentian Pilotage
190º
Ontario 200º
210º
7 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT Cornwall District International District 1 Quebec
St-Régis
St-Lambert Lock
Kingston
Lake Ontario International District 2 and the connecting channels between Lake Erie and Huron Lake and the connecting channels between and Lake Superior and Lake St-Régis, Quebec St-Régis,
Welland Welland Canal Compulsory Areas Port of Churchill Port International District 2 Erie of the western Canal, Canadian waters end of Lake Welland International District 1 from St-Régis to Kingston Lawrence of St. Canadian waters International District 3 Huron Mary's connecting Lake River of St. Canadian waters Georgian Bay Cornwall District of St-Lambert west to Lawrence Lock of St. Canadian waters
Lake Huron
Lake Erie Lake
Region Ontario
St. Mary's River St.
USA Great Lakes Pilotage International District 2 Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Great (GLPA) Lakes Pilotage
Lake Superior
Quebec Lake Michigan Lake International District 3
Ontario
Churchill
Manitoba International Boundary & Limits of compulsory waters Saskatchewan
8 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Pacific Pilotage Authority (PPA) 20º
¥ Compulsory Areas 30º Pacific Pilotage Area 1 All the waters of the Fraser River and tributaries Area 2 Canadian waters of the Juan de Fuca Strait Region east of Victoria, all the waters of the Strait of 40º Georgia including Vancouver Harbour, all the waters of Queen Charlotte Strait to the north end of Vancouver Island 50º Area 3 Canadian waters of the Juan de Fuca Strait west of Victoria and the western coastal waters of Vancouver Island Area 4 The coastal waters of the British Columbia 60º mainland from the northern end of Vancouver Island to the boundary with Alaska ALASKA Area 5 All the coastal waters of the Queen Charlotte 70º Islands
80º
Alaska / British Columbia boundary 90º ¥ British Columbia ¥¥ ¥¥¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ Alberta 100º ¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ Area 4 ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ 110º ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ Area 5 ¥¥ 120º ¥¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 130º ¥¥¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ Queen Charlotte Islands ¥¥ ¥ 140º ¥¥ Queen Charlotte Strait ¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ 150º ¥ ¥¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥¥ Area 2 ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ Vancouver ¥¥ Strait of Georgia 160º ¥¥ Island ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ Area 1 ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ 170º ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ Fraser River Area 3 ¥¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ 180º ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥¥ Victoria ¥¥¥¥ Juan de Fuca Strait USA 190º
200º
210º
9 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
• PPA: all the coastal waters of British disadvantage of the national econ- Columbia, including the coastal areas of omy; or Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte b) safe, speedy transits and movements which must be effected in the Islands, and the Fraser River. national interest can not be During the initial consultations on compul- achieved unless vessels are navi- gated by mariners with adequate sory designation, the Panel became aware of a local knowledge and skill. number of topics related to compulsory designa- tion that required review. Based on the written Bernier went on to say the following: submissions and the comments from parties, the Since compulsory pilotage interferes Panel identified the following topics for review with basic freedoms, it should not be imposed indiscriminately but only in this chapter: when necessary and to the extent • the criteria used to designate compulsory warranted as the result of positive, deliberate judgement. pilotage areas; • the determination of sizes and types of Under the Pilotage Act, each pilotage Canadian vessels subject to compulsory authority has designated specific areas of the pilotage; waters under its jurisdiction as compulsory • the granting of waivers; pilotage areas.With the exception of the APA, • the basis for the compulsory use of two pilots all designations made when the Pilotage Act came (LPA region only); into force in 1972 have remained unchanged. In • the basis for the compulsory use of docking the intervening period, however, some authori- pilots (LPA District 2 only); and ties have reviewed their designations and some • two-pilot assignments (PPA region only). have proposed changes to their designated areas. A review of the original designations and sub- Criteria Used sequent developments follows. to Designate ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY Compulsory Areas The APA is the only region where the designa- Background tion of compulsory areas has changed since the Pilotage Act came into force.A number The imposition of compulsory pilotage was of areas that were initially compulsory were one of many topics discussed in the report of changed to non-compulsory. In recent years, the Bernier Royal Commission on Pilotage. the Confederation Bridge which links Bernier gave two primary reasons for imposing New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island, compulsory pilotage: was added as a compulsory area, while a) a maritime casualty would seriously Clarenville in Newfoundland was changed disrupt navigation to the marked
10 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
from compulsory to non-compulsory. The APA and Les Escoumins. This proposal was followed 20º proposed to make Belledune, New Brunswick a by a number of other examinations of pilotage compulsory area but, following an examination on the St. Lawrence River, including the 30º by an investigator appointed by the Minister of Brander-Smith examination of oil tanker Transport, Belledune remains a non-compulsory safety and reports by the House of Commons 40º port.While the APA does not have published Standing Committee on Transport.While the 50º criteria for compulsory designation, the inves- LPA region was subjected to a series of assess- tigations of the proposed designations of ments, the regulations regarding designated 60º Belledune and the Confederation Bridge compulsory areas remained unchanged. incorporated the general guidelines the APA 70º GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE AUTHORITY has developed. During the consultations, the The designated compulsory areas of the GLPA APA indicated its intention to use the Q850 80º have not changed since the Pilotage Act came Risk Management analysis6 for future compul- into force. Since much of the Seaway and the sory designations. 90º Great Lakes are under shared jurisdiction with AURENTIAN ILOTAGE UTHORITY the United States, vessels that travel through the L P A 100º The designated compulsory areas in the LPA region cross the international boundary several region have not changed since the Pilotage Act times.As such, the GLPA cannot act unilaterally 110º came into force, but the designation of parts of to designate compulsory areas in shared waters. the region has been examined. Should the GLPA propose changes in des- 120º In September 1985, the Blouin Committee,7 ignation, these would have to be negotiated which the LPA established, was asked to exam- between Canada and the United States. 130º ine compulsory pilotage zones. In its final PACIFIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY 140º report of May 1987, the Committee recom- The designation of the entire coast of British mended that the LPA compulsory zones remain Columbia and the Fraser River as compulsory 150º unchanged. pilotage areas has not changed since the Pilotage In January 1989, the LPA proposed regula- Act came into force. 160º tory amendments to remove the area between In response to a ministerial directive of Cap aux Oies and l’Île Blanche from compul- 170º June 1995 to examine the validity of compul- sory designation in District 2. This is a 38-mile sory pilotage areas, the PPA established the stretch of river about halfway between Québec 180º
6 Q850 Risk Management is a model developed by the Canadian Standards Association in 1996. It is based on a 190º six-step approach to assessing risk to ensure that affected parties are involved and that their concerns are taken into
consideration. 200º 7 The Committee comprised Pierre Blouin, legal counsel and a member of the LPA Board of Directors, assisted by pilot advisors. 210º
11 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Compulsory Areas Working Group with repre- Confederation Bridge as a case where compul- sentatives of the PPA, both pilot groups and sory pilotage appears unjustified, noting that the shipping companies. The PPA reported to the investigator recommended exempting Canadian Minister in December 1995 that all participants vessels from compulsory pilotage at the in the Compulsory Areas Working Group Confederation Bridge. believed that the compulsory pilotage areas Canadian shipowners also question whether remained valid and should be maintained. compulsory designation improves the safety This working group reviewed all of the profile of a port or area. Their fundamental compulsory areas, taking into consideration position is that Canadian vessels should be rec- safety, environmental protection, modern navi- ognized as distinct from foreign flag vessels gation practices, monitoring and communica- with respect to compulsory pilotage designa- tions systems, ship standards and traffic patterns. tion. Nonetheless, Canadian shipowners support the development of criteria for, and the use Issues of, a risk-based assessment for compulsory The four pilotage authorities note that there is designation. no record of the original factors or criteria used Pilots note that, while there may have been to designate compulsory pilotage areas. The no documented criteria or rationale for the ini- authorities believe that prior designations were tial compulsory designation when the Pilotage merely continued when the Pilotage Act came Act came into force, the designations were into force. Some parties are concerned about nonetheless based on “common sense” factors. this absence of analysis or rationale to support Pilots believe that in-depth analyses would the designated compulsory areas. probably show that these factors were indeed Canadian shipowners operating in the APA, sound judgements that continue to be valid LPA and GLPA regions find it difficult to accept today; they support, however, the development some of the compulsory designations in the of a risk-based assessment and methodology for absence of clear justification. They believe that, designation. when designating compulsory pilotage areas, Foreign shipowners in the APA, LPA and authorities should consider the fact that the GLPA regions support the development of spe- shipowners are leaders in using modern vessel cific criteria for compulsory designation, as well technology and in training their masters and as the application of a risk-based methodology officers. Canadian shipowners question why a for designations. In the PPA region, shipping master who has been navigating a ship into and interests agree with the current designations out of a port or area can suddenly be consid- but believe that the conditions for designation ered incompetent to do so as a result of a desig- should be periodically assessed, using a risk-based nation. They point to the designation of the methodology.
12 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Several parties commented on the need for environment, if authorities expect users to 20º a regular review of compulsory areas to ensure accept a designation, they must exercise such that the designation continued to be valid in judgement after making a proper risk-based 30º light of changing technologies and ship design, assessment. The Q850 Risk Management as well as new bridge and safety management analysis and the International Maritime Organ- 40º practices. Some parties observed that past reviews ization Formal Safety Assessment analysis were 50º of compulsory areas had been conducted only suggested as possible methodologies to apply to as a result of a ministerial directive or a request compulsory designation. The Panel does not 60º from the Auditor General’s office. The consen- believe it should stipulate a specific methodol- sus was that a periodic review every five years ogy.A review of such methodologies has how- 70º was appropriate. ever convinced the Panel that a methodology
must have certain basic elements to ensure 80º Analysis the validity and acceptance of its results. In the
In discussing the manner in which authorities Panel’s opinion, a risk-based methodology must 90º designate or review compulsory pilotage areas, require authorities to: the Panel found that they usually considered a 100º • identify the problem and associated risk fac- series of factors, including the following: tors, and develop an information base related 110º • degree of difficulty and hazard in the to the risk factors; approaches and within the port itself; • form a risk management team to carry out 120º • incidence of weather, such as fog, ice, strong the risk assessment;
winds, tides and currents; • identify and consult with all interested parties 130º • available depth of water; and determine their risk concerns; • amount of traffic; • analyse risk scenarios and their frequency, 140º • size and manoeuvrability of vessels; consequences and cost implications, as well as • design of wharves and adjacent equipment, interested parties’ acceptance of risk; 150º such as cranes; and • identify risk control options and their effec- 160º • nature of the cargo carried on board, such as tiveness and cost implications; oil, gas or explosives. • assess interested parties’ acceptance of 170º There was, however, no indication that the proposed actions and residual risks; and authorities had used a risk-based process when • establish a process to monitor the chosen 180º reviewing designations. action.
As Bernier discussed, compulsory pilotage At the June 1999 national meeting, it was 190º cannot be imposed indiscriminately. Rather, suggested that the Joint Operations Committee 200º it must be the result of positive and deliberate of the four pilotage authorities discuss the judgement. The Panel believes that, in today’s 210º
13 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
selection of a risk-based methodology and the a detailed re-examination of the designa- development of appropriate criteria related to tion, and to develop a plan and a time frame for doing so. compulsory designation. The Panel recommends that each author- During the discussion of the need to apply ity be required to report on this plan and a risk-based methodology, the Panel heard time frame to the Minister in its next differing viewpoints. Some parties advocated annual report. re-examining currently designated areas, while The Panel recommends that each author- ity be required to publish a regulation others argued that only new areas being consid- stipulating that reviews of the factors and ered for designation should be subject to a risk- circumstances related to compulsory desig- based assessment. nations will take place every five years. The Panel considers that all new areas The Panel recommends that each author- being considered for designation should auto- ity be required to conduct a risk-based assessment of proposed new compulsory matically be subjected to a risk-based assess- areas and of those areas where changed ment. For currently designated areas, the Panel factors and circumstances justify a considers that the factors and circumstances detailed re-examination of the designation. related to compulsory designation should be The Panel recommends that before con- reviewed periodically to see whether any ducting such a risk-based assessment, changes have occurred that would warrant a the authority be required to adopt a risk-based assessment of the designation. Such risk-based methodology that requires the authority to, among others a review would be directed by an authority • identify the problem and associated risk and would involve consultations with interested factors, and develop an information parties. base related to the risk factors; The Panel believes that such a periodic • form a risk management team to carry review is needed to show users that changes out the risk assessment; • identify and consult with all interested in management practices and in the nature of parties and determine their risk shipping are receiving ongoing consideration. concerns; The requirement for periodic review should • analyze risk scenarios and their fre- quency, consequences and cost implica- be included in regulations to ensure that the tions, as well as interested parties’ reviews take place. acceptance of risk; • identify risk control options and their Panel Recommendation No. 1 effectiveness and cost implications; • assess interested parties’ acceptance of The Panel recommends that each author- proposed actions and residual risks; ity be required to identify, in consultation and with interested parties, any compulsory • establish a process to monitor the areas where a change in factors and cir- chosen action. cumstances related to designation justifies
14 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Determination of Sizes Ships owned by the Canadian government, 20º and Types of Canadian including military vessels, as well as passenger Vessels Subject to ferries (whether provincially or federally owned) 30º and Canadian fishing vessels, are exempt from Compulsory Pilotage 40º compulsory pilotage in all pilotage regions. Background Vessel size limits related to compulsory 50º Each pilotage authority has established regula- pilotage were not an issue in either the GLPA tions prescribing the sizes and types of vessels or PPA regions, so the following discussion 60º subject to compulsory pilotage within compul- relates to the APA and LPA regions. sory pilotage areas. These sizes vary substantially 70º among regions and, in some instances, among Issues As was the case for the designation of compul- districts. 80º In the PPA region, all ships of more than sory areas, the authorities have no record of the criteria or rationale used to establish the size 350 GRT are subject to compulsory pilotage, 90º except Canadian ships under 10,000 GRT. limits for vessels subject to compulsory pilotage In addition, US ships under the command when the Pilotage Act came into force. 100º of US masters or officers who have made a Canadian shipowners believe that the com- 110º specified number of trips in the compulsory petency of the master and officers on board a areas are not required to take pilots. vessel, rather than the vessel’s size, should be the 120º In the GLPA region, all ships of more than principal factor determining the need for a pilot 300 GRT are subject to compulsory pilotage, on a ship. They argue that, when applying com- 130º except ships under the command of Canadian pulsory pilotage, authorities do not recognize shipowners’ investments in modernizing their masters or officers who have specific experience 140º in the compulsory areas. fleets and training their crews. Some shipowners suggest that revenue considerations, rather than In districts 1.1 and 1 of the LPA region, 150º Canadian ships over 225 feet in length and over safety concerns, drive the selection of the sizes 1,500 NRT are subject to compulsory pilotage. and types of ships. 160º In District 2, Canadian ships over 260 feet in Foreign shipowners believe that uniform 170º length and over 2,000 NRT are subject to criteria for the size of vessels subject to com- compulsory pilotage.All foreign ships over pulsory pilotage are not appropriate and that 180º 100 feet in length are subject to compulsory regional characteristics that affect pilotage must pilotage. be taken into account. Pilots take a similar view 190º In the APA region, Canadian ships over and contend that local conditions of navigation justify the variations in vessel size in the 1,500 GRT are subject to compulsory pilotage, 200º as are foreign ships over 200 GRT. four pilotage regions.
210º
15 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
The authorities do not believe that apply- the end of 2001; be required to report ing uniform size limits in all regions would be the results of the risk-based assessment to the Minister; and be required to change reasonable, although there may be potential for regulations when the results of the risk- changes in the vessel size limits in certain com- based assessment differ from the current pulsory areas. In this regard, the APA is chang- regulations. ing its regulations to allow highly manoeuvrable supply vessels up to 5,000 GRT to move within Granting ofWaivers St. John’s harbour without pilots. Background Analysis Under the Pilotage Act, each authority can make The situation with respect to vessel size limits is regulations regarding the granting of waivers to similar to the one for compulsory designation: compulsory pilotage.Accordingly, each author- there is no indication that any data, analyses or ity has established specific circumstances under analytical frameworks support the existing size which it may grant a ship a waiver. limits for vessels subject to compulsory pilotage. Generally, the authorities grant waivers As stated before, to encourage users to accept under the following circumstances: the validity of existing vessel size limits in some • a ship is engaged in rescue operations; regions, authorities should be able to provide a • a ship enters a compulsory area for refuge; sound rationale for such limits. In the Panel’s • a pilot is unable to board the ship because view, they can do so only by doing a risk-based of weather conditions; and assessment of current size limits. • a pilot is not available and the vessel would The Panel is not suggesting that this assess- be subject to an undue delay. ment should result in uniform vessel size limits As well, when requests are made for in each pilotage region. Local conditions should waivers, the authorities generally require the dictate size limits. Sound justification for the following information: size limits established in each region is, however, necessary. • the size and type of ship; • the destination of the ship; Panel Recommendation No. 2 • the type of cargo carried; The Panel recommends that the Atlantic • the master’s degree of familiarity with the area Pilotage Authority and the Laurentian and with marine traffic regulations; and Pilotage Authority be required to carry • whether the vessel owners or underwriters out, in consultation with interested par- ties, a risk-based assessment of vessel are prepared to have the vessel proceed size limits and types of vessels subject without a pilot. to compulsory pilotage; be required to complete the risk-based assessment by
16 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
The above list is not exhaustive but it into and out of a port should be eligible for a 20º describes the type of information that an waiver. These shipowners contend that the fact authority reviews when considering granting that the master and vessel are not Canadian 30º a waiver. should not exclude them from eligibility for In the discussion of waivers during the waivers. 40º consultations, the Panel was made aware that During the consultations in the PPA 50º the APA grants waivers after a case-by-case region, the PPA told the Panel that it had assessment of the circumstances. The APA reviewed waivers and the conditions under 60º is very reluctant to grant waivers but has which they could be granted. Consultations occasionally done so. Neither the LPA nor with parties have been proceeding and the PPA 70º the GLPA grants waivers. The GLPA requires indicated that the results of the waiver review the agreement of the US to grant a waiver, due should be available by the end of September 80º to shared jurisdiction, and has not granted any 1999. waivers since the US passed the Oil Pollution Act Based on the consultations in each pilotage 90º in 1990. The PPA grants waivers only under region, the authorities support the present exceptional circumstances. waiver system, which allows a case-by-case 100º review of waiver applications. Pilots think that 110º Issues waivers should be granted only under excep- Canadian shipowners are concerned about the tional circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. lack of well-defined criteria for granting waivers 120º and the lack of an explanation when an author- Analysis 130º ity denies a request for a waiver. Regarding the The Panel sees the waiver provision in the LPA region, Canadian shipowners noted that Pilotage Act as intended only to give authorities 140º at times — during the winter, when double some degree of flexibility in exceptional cir- pilotage applies — they had requested waivers cumstances. The Panel believes waivers were 150º when a second pilot was not available. The not intended to be used regularly or as a way to shipowners said the LPA generally denied such circumvent compulsory pilotage. Consequently, 160º requests without explanation but occasionally authorities should grant waivers on a case-by- told shipowners the vessel could proceed if the case basis only. 170º shipowners paid charges for two pilots, even The whole purpose of compulsory pilotage though only one pilot was on board.8 is to ensure safety of navigation. To argue that 180º Some foreign shipowners on the West waivers should be available regularly or when 190º Coast believe that a vessel that trades regularly desired to vessels that are regular callers to
200º
8 The use of two pilots during the winter is discussed in a later section in this chapter. 210º
17 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
reduce pilotage costs negates the fundamental once he or she has reached the maximum duty principle of compulsory pilotage. Therefore, a time. waiver can be justified only under exceptional Under the Pilotage Act, an authority can circumstances outside the norm of navigation make regulations regarding the circumstances in compulsory areas. under which a vessel must take on more than The Panel is convinced that the authorities one pilot. There are provisions in the service are taking an appropriately prudent approach contracts between the pilot corporations and to granting waivers that accords with their the authorities relating to the circumstances mandate to ensure safety of navigation. In the where double pilotage is required. interest of openness and transparency, the Panel however believes the authority should give rea- Background sons when it denies a request for a waiver. Under the LPA’s regulations, all ships subject to compulsory pilotage must take on two pilots Panel Recommendation No. 3 during the winter. In addition, large vessels of more than 63,999 DWT in District 1 and of The Panel recommends that each pilotage authority maintain the current practice of more than 74,999 DWT in District 2 must assessing requests for waivers to compul- have two pilots on board year-round. Similarly, sory pilotage on a case-by-case basis, in passenger vessels of more than 100 metres in the interest of safety of navigation. length and tankers of more than 40,000 DWT The Panel recommends that, in the inter- est of greater transparency of the waiver must have two pilots on board year-round. process, each authority provide reasons The requirement for double pilotage when denying a request for a waiver. during the winter has been in place since 1960. The requirements for double pilotage for large Double Pilotage ships in districts 1 and 2 were established in This discussion of double pilotage refers to 1977 and 1978, while the same requirement those circumstances in the LPA region when for passenger ships and tankers was added in vessels are required to have two pilots on board August 1993.9 to perform pilotage duties. It does not include In December 1991, the LPA published its those situations where the length of the voyage proposal to impose double pilotage on pas- exceeds the duty time of a pilot and a second senger ships and tankers over 40,000 DWT. pilot must be on board to relieve the first pilot Objections to the proposal by Canadian
9 The Blouin Committee examined winter double pilotage in the LPA region, among other pilotage topics. In the final report of May 1987, Blouin commented that the difficult conditions of winter navigation, together with the lack of navigational aids in the river, made two pilots a necessity. Blouin recommended that winter double pilotage be continued. Blouin also recommended that the vessel size limit for District 1 be increased to the size limit for District 2.
18 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º shipowners led to the September 1992 memo- Issues 20º randum of understanding between the LPA and Canadian shipowners, including both the CSA the Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA). and the St. Lawrence Shipoperators Association 30º One of the elements of the memorandum of (SLSA), question the need for two pilots during 40º understanding was an agreement for an exami- the winter. They argue that they have not nation of compulsory double pilotage. In heard any justification for double pilotage and 50º November 1992, the Minister of Transport claim that the role of the second pilot on the appointed Guy P.Dancosse, QC to examine ship is not defined. CSA members say that 60º the question of double pilotage. instances where a second pilot was not available
In his examination, Dancosse looked at the and the vessel was allowed to proceed after 70º mix of foreign and Canadian traffic in the LPA paying charges for two pilots show that double region and noted that the double pilotage regu- pilotage is really a revenue-generating require- 80º lations affected mainly foreign vessels outside ment. The SLSA is of the opinion that the the winter period. Dancosse felt that Canadian requirement for double pilotage during the 90º shipowners were only marginally affected by winter does not take into account the evolution double pilotage requirements in the winter of information available to shipping lines, 100º because Canadian ships make few trips during such as data provided by the Ice Office of 110º that period. the Canadian Coast Guard. Dancosse recommended that double Canadian shipowners are convinced that, 120º pilotage be continued during the winter and with modern navigational aids and advances in that the requirement for double pilotage for vessel design, two pilots are no longer required 130º tankers over 40,000 DWT and passenger ships during the winter. They believe that including over 100 metres in length be adopted. Dancosse provisions relating to double pilotage in the ser- 140º recommended that the definition of the winter vice contracts with the pilot corporations limits season be revised to make it more flexible. the LPA’s discretion and is an inappropriate 150º Previously, the definition was based on calendar exercise of the LPA’s mandate. dates. Foreign shipowners question the need 160º The LPA adopted a new method for deter- for two pilots on cruise ships when the 170º mining the start and end of the winter season, practice elsewhere in the world is to have a based on water temperature. This method, single pilot. These shipowners argue that there 180º developed by the Ice Office of the Canadian is a need to determine what extra safety factor Coast Guard, establishes that ice will form a second pilot adds to a trip and to reassess the 190º within 48 hours when the water temperature need for double pilotage. drops to 2.5 degrees Celsius. 200º
210º
19 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
The LPA indicated that since it was negoti- one, this is not an adequate demonstration of ating with District 1 pilots and that there were the need for double pilotage. two outstanding arbitration cases related to Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the double pilotage, it could not comment. requirement for double pilotage during the The pilots contend that the conclusions of winter, and on tankers over 40,000 DWT and the Dancosse report are still valid and that the passenger vessels over 100 metres in length, advances in technology since 1993 do not jus- must be re-examined using such a risk-based tify a reduction in safety measures. They say methodology as described previously. that modern electronic navigational aids have Regarding provisions in a service contract not been proven reliable, so such aids cannot with a pilot corporation, the Panel believes that be used as a substitute for an experienced pilot. no provision in a service contract should restrict Finally, the pilots argue that the conditions in any way the manner in which an authority regarding the need for two pilots on ships are exercises its mandate and discretion. part of their contractual agreements with the LPA. Panel Recommendation No. 4 The Panel recommends that the Analysis Laurentian Pilotage Authority be required The Panel notes that while both Blouin and to carry out a risk-based assessment by mid-year 2001 to determine whether and Dancosse considered a series of factors when when requirements for double pilotage are they examined double pilotage, there is no indi- valid, including the current requirement cation that they performed a risk-based analysis for double pilotage on all vessels during to substantiate their conclusions. the winter, the requirement for double pilotage on tankers over 40,000 tonnes As stated earlier, the Panel agrees with and the requirement for double pilotage Bernier’s statement that compulsory pilotage on passenger vessels over 100 metres interferes with basic freedoms and should only in length. be imposed when necessary and to the extent The Panel recommends that the warranted. This applies equally to double Laurentian Pilotage Authority be required to report the results of the pilotage. It must be shown that two pilots are risk-based assessment to the Minister warranted. If the LPA expects users to accept of Transport and be required to imple- the costs of double pilotage, it must be able to ment the results of the assessment by amending its regulations where necessary. point to an appropriate analysis of the risks and to the adequacy of the means proposed to address those risks.While, intuitively, one would believe that two pairs of eyes are better than
20 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Docking Pilots at Port-Alfred) and Grande-Anse. For these four 20º Québec and Secondary ports, no extra docking pilot boards the ship; Ports in District 2 the pilot on board is declared a docking pilot 30º and the docking charge is then imposed. For Background ships coming from or through District 1 and 40º Under the LPA tariff regulation, a vessel master, destined for Québec, the District 1 pilot per- 50º owner or agent may request the services of a forms the berthing in Québec. Similarly, for pilot with specialized skills (known as a docking those ships leaving Québec to travel into or 60º pilot) to perform docking or undocking through District 1, the District 1 pilot performs manoeuvres. The tariff specifies a separate the unberthing of the ship, even though pilots 70º charge for this service. This charge is in addi- in District l are not designated as docking tion to the regular charge for a trip, which pilots. 80º includes the berthing and unberthing of the At the port of Québec, six pilots are desig- ship.According to the tariff, this provision is nated as docking pilots. These pilots are on a 90º voluntary.As a matter of practice, however, the rotational duty schedule, with two of them on services of docking pilots have been imposed duty for two weeks in the port while the other 100º for a number of years at Québec and, more four perform regular assignments in District 2. 110º recently, at other ports in District 2. During the two-week duty time in the port, The use of docking pilots began in the the two pilots perform docking and undocking 120º early 1970s when Ultramar began to use large exclusively.For the other four ports in District 2, tankers to bring oil products to its Québec ter- there are 20 pilots designated as docking pilots. 130º minal. The company asked for pilots with par- In 1974 and again in 1976, the Canadian ticular skills in docking large ships as manoeu- Transport Commission (CTC) examined dock- 140º vring the large tankers was difficult in the ing pilotage at Québec as part of tariff investiga- confines of the harbour. tions. In 1974, the CTC rejected a proposed 150º For ships travelling from Les Escoumins docking/undocking charge on all oil tankers to Québec, a docking pilot boards the vessel over 5,000 tons on the basis that the charge 160º to perform the berthing.When ships leave would be discriminatory. In 1976, the CTC Québec and are destined for points beyond approved a docking charge on the basis that 170º Les Escoumins, a docking pilot performs the the charge was voluntary and would only 180º unberthing and a regular pilot navigates the apply when the owner, master or agent of a ship as far as Les Escoumins. Docking charges ship requested a docking pilot. The tariff 190º in District 2 are also levied on ships calling at provision has been in effect since 1976, with Cacouna, Pointe-au-Pic, La-Baie (formerly periodic changes to the amount of the charge. 200º
210º
21 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Issues The principle that berthing and unberthing a vessel is part of a pilotage The CSA and the SLSA believe that there is trip should not be departed from except no justification for docking charges at Québec as a matter of safety, or to improve the or other ports. They further believe docking pilots’ working conditions, provided charges are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily. neither shipping nor the public is unduly inconvenienced thereby. Insistence on Foreign shipowners think such services should the employment of a berthing pilot be available as an option for a vessel master but requires basic organizational modifica- should not be imposed. tions which entail serious disadvan- tages. These are acceptable only if they The pilots argue that docking pilots are jus- are offset by substantial advantages tified from a safety point of view and that their which, under the present circumstances, skills ensure that docking manoeuvres are car- do not exist in the harbour of Québec. ried out with precision. The pilots note that, The Panel believes that the issue of docking since there are about 100 pilots in District 2, pilots in District 2 is essentially a question of the duty roster does not allow each pilot to stay the currency of the pilots in the district. The current enough in all ports to carry out dock- pilots say that docking pilots are necessary ings everywhere with a high degree of safety. because not all pilots have the same degree The pilots contend that the use of docking of familiarity or experience in all ports in the pilots ensures that vessels are handled in the district. The Panel considers that, if this is the most efficient manner possible, without any case, the LPA is responsible for finding a means delays. Pilots note that the use of docking to keep pilots current. pilots often makes it unnecessary to use tugs in In his analysis of the question of docking berthing, which saves the shipowner money. As pilots, Bernier commented that an authority is well, pilots point out that larger vessels can now responsible for ensuring that pilots were fully serve those ports where docking pilots provide qualified to perform their duties, which included services. Pilots contend that docking pilots are docking and undocking. Bernier stated that if a necessary and such services must continue. pilot did not want to dock and undock ships, They propose a risk-based assessment of the this raised the question of the pilot’s compe- requirement for docking pilots. tency and skill. The Panel has been advised by the LPA Analysis that all District 2 pilots are trained in docking The Panel believes that docking and undocking and undocking procedures during their appren- are part of a ship’s voyage and, as such, form tice program and that pilot licensing exams part of the regular duties of a pilot. Bernier include questions on these procedures, as well as considered this matter specifically. on knowledge of ports. In the LPA’s view, all District 2 pilots are capable of docking and
22 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º undocking ships as part of their regular pilotage Two-Pilot Assignments 20º duties, as is the case with all District 1 pilots. in the Pacific Pilotage Since the June 1999 national meeting, the Authority Region 30º Panel has received a number of written submis- sions supporting docking pilotage at Québec. Background 40º These submissions argue that docking pilotage The PPA’s regulations stipulate that two pilots 50º ensures safety of navigation in the port and that are required on vessels under the following discontinuing docking pilotage should not be circumstances: 60º contemplated until the matter has been exam- • for any trip during which the ship would ined thoroughly. require the services of a pilot on bridge watch 70º The Panel is aware that there may be a for a period exceeding eight consecutive need to provide optional docking pilotage for hours; and 80º users who value it. The Panel would like to • for any trip during which the ship would make it clear that it is not advocating the dis- require the services of a pilot on bridge 90º continuance of docking pilotage; rather, it advo- watch for a distance exceeding 105 consecu- 100º cates discontinuing the practice of imposing tive nautical miles. docking pilotage when neither the shipowner, The eight-hour, 105-mile rule was estab- 110º the agent nor the master has requested this lished when the average speed of ships was service. For this reason, there is no need to 12 to 14 knots and a 105-mile distance gener- 120º perform a risk-based assessment of docking ally represented a regular eight-hour duty time. and undocking pilotage in District 2 as 130º suggested by the pilots. Issues 140º Panel Recommendation No. 5 In recent years, shipowners have questioned the eight-hour, 105-mile rule, since modern vessels 150º The Panel recommends that the are able to travel more than 105 miles in an Laurentian Pilotage Authority be required eight-hour period but still require a second to immediately cease the practice of 160º mandatory use of docking pilot services, pilot on board due to the regulation. The be required to immediately cease imposing shipping industry argues that the current rule docking/undocking charges on vessels 170º does not give them operational flexibility and that have not requested the services of a docking pilot, and be directed to apply imposes unnecessary costs. 180º the tariff provision for docking pilotage. During the consultations with parties in
the PPA region, the Panel was advised that the 190º PPA, pilots and shipowners were examining 200º
210º
23 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
the eight-hour, 105-mile rule with a view to making changes that will satisfy the concerns changing it. The pilots indicate that many such of the shipping industry as well as pilots. trips take place at night and they are concerned The Panel believes that this constructive about the effects of fatigue. Pilots note that the cooperation between parties will result in a part of the trip that requires the most concen- solution acceptable to everyone. tration occurs with the docking of the vessel, at the end of the pilot’s eight-hour duty time. Panel Recommendation No. 6 Pilots want to see night duty time reduced to The Panel recommends that the Pacific seven hours for safety reasons and are willing Pilotage Authority be required to report on the agreed-upon changes to the eight- to expand the day duty time to nine hours. hour, 105-mile regulation in its next The Panel recognizes that parties in annual report to the Minister. the PPA region are actively examining the eight-hour, 105-mile rule with a view to
24 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Section 2 40º
Training and Licensing 50º 60º
Requirements 70º
for Pilots 80º 90º Introduction • the lack of national standards for training and 100º During the initial round of consultations, par- licensing pilots; ticipants identified a number of issues concern- • the adequacy of the pool of pilot candidates; 110º ing the training and licensing of pilots. Some • the establishment of a pilot quality assurance program; and of these issues related to specific pilotage 120º regions, while others applied more generally, • the continued adequacy of coast-wide licens- ing and dispatching in the Pacific Pilotage although they varied in nature and importance 130º with each pilotage region under consideration. Region. As the consultations progressed, issues such 140º as Bridge Resource Management (BRM) and National Standards 150º pilots’ knowledge of new vessels and equipment Background were resolved or were not pursued by the par- The Pilotage Act sets out the Canadian citizen- 160º ties. Consequently, they were not included in ship requirements for pilots and gives pilotage the discussion paper for the second national authorities the authority to regulate the pilot 170º meeting. licensing process through such means as For the purpose of this report, and using prescribing classes of licences and setting 180º the information gathered during the con- requirements for local knowledge, skill, expe- sultations, the Panel identified four issues that 190º rience and language proficiency. Further, the remain concerns of certain parties in various pilotage authorities are empowered to regulate pilotage regions. These are as follows: 200º the examination process for pilot licensing and further training for licensed pilots. 210º
25 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
The General Pilotage Regulations, which requirements — such as entry-level condi- apply to all pilotage regions, set out entry-level tions, duration of apprenticeship and licensing qualification requirements for pilots with regard process — for each pilotage region. to age and health; navigational qualifications as a On the issue of training, the programs for mariner (certificate of competency); and expe- pilot candidates and active pilots in the four rience at sea (minimum 12 months as master or pilotage authorities have several similarities. 24 months as deck watch officer). These regu- Pilot training in each region includes instruc- lations are amended from time to time to reflect tion related to BRM, electronic navigation developments in pilotage services across the systems, effects of sleep deprivation and other country. For example,Transport Canada is cur- safety-related subjects, and training on manned rently preparing a proposed amendment to the models and computer ship-handling simulators regulations that will introduce BRM as a new at marine centres in Canada, England, France, national requirement for pilot training. This the Netherlands and the United States. regulatory action follows the 1995 safety ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY study by the Transportation Safety Board of The APA recruits pilot candidates mainly from Canada (TSB) on the Operational Relationship the Canadian shipping industry, the Canadian between Shipmasters,Watch Keeping Officers Coast Guard and deep-seagoing vessels. Most and Marine Pilots. In that study, the TSB pilots are employees of the APA, while entre- recommended that all pilots be required to preneur pilots provide services in some compul- demonstrate their skills in BRM when obtain- sory areas. Entry-level candidates must satisfy ing or renewing a licence. the requirements stipulated in the General The Atlantic Pilotage Regulations, the Pilotage Regulations and the Atlantic Pilotage Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations, the Laurentian Regulations, which include a minimum Pilotage Regulations and the Pacific Pilotage of 100 trips as a master or deck watch officer. Regulations set their own region-specific A successful applicant receives an apprentice requirements. These stipulate, in greater detail permit, which enables him or her to undertake than the Pilotage Act and the General Pilotage pilotage training in a specific compulsory area Regulations, and in accordance with the under the supervision of a licensed pilot. regional structure of pilotage services, require- The APA’s licensing process comprises ments concerning applicants’ entry-level qual- three types of pilot licences — A, B and C — ifications, apprenticeship and training; the which dictate the different sizes of vessel a licensing examination process; and continuing licensed pilot is qualified to handle.After training for pilots. completing his or her apprenticeship, a new For purposes of comparison, the subsec- pilot needs approximately two years to progress tions below summarize some of the specific
26 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
from a class C licence to a class A licence. successfully completed formal training in 20º Although each pilot is trained and licensed to marine navigational sciences at a marine insti- perform duties in a specific compulsory port, tute. They acquire local knowledge during their 30º the APA recently introduced a cross-licensing apprenticeship.A candidate receives a class D system whereby pilots may be licensed for more apprenticeship licence and must perform more 40º than one compulsory area or district. This sys- than 100 trips during a two-year period under 50º tem, which currently applies to compulsory the supervision of a senior licensed pilot. areas within Newfoundland, and between the The LPA issues class A, B and C pilot 60º Cape Breton District and Halifax, allows more licences, according to district and ship dimen- flexibility to deal with peak periods in specific sion. New pilots need approximately six years 70º areas without having to increase pilot strength. of practice and training to progress to a class A
For the purpose of ongoing training, the APA licence, which enables them to pilot all ships in 80º and its pilots have developed a computer pro- a specific compulsory district. Under the LPA’s gram that simulates ship handling in various regulations, pilots are required to stay current by 90º compulsory ports. performing at least 10 one-way trips per year after receiving their licence, and to take contin- 100º LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY uing training to maintain their qualifications The LPA recruits pilot candidates mainly 110º and update their skills with respect to new from the Canadian shipping industry and technology and equipment. the Canadian Coast Guard. It contracts with 120º two pilot corporations for pilotage services in GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE AUTHORITY compulsory District 1 (St-Lambert-Québec) Pilot candidates are recruited mainly from the 130º and District 2 (Québec-Les Escoumins), Canadian shipping industry and the Canadian 140º while pilotage services in District 1.1 (Port Coast Guard.All GLPA pilots are employees of of Montréal) are provided by employee pilots. the GLPA. In addition to the basic requirements 150º District 3 (east of Les Escoumins) is a non- set out in the General Pilotage Regulations, compulsory area and is not subject to the pilot candidates must meet the requirements 160º licensing process. of the Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations, which
In addition to the requirements stipulated include a minimum of 15 trips as a mariner in 170º in the General Pilotage Regulations, the the three years preceding the application. Pilot
Laurentian Pilotage Regulations set out, for candidates in the Cornwall District must have a 180º each district, several criteria for entry-level working knowledge of both official languages, candidates relating to navigational qualifications while only English is required in the other 190º and experience at sea. Applicants must be able districts. Qualified candidates receive on-ship 200º to communicate in both French and English training while performing at least 50 trips when performing their duties and must have under the supervision of a senior licensed pilot 210º
27 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
in the district for which the pilot candidate River and 80 assignments over a period applied. of six months in coastal areas. A GLPA pilot licence is valid for all vessels After apprenticeship, a pilot receives a in the district for which the licence is issued. Class II licence for one year. If the new pilot’s As part of a memorandum of understanding performance and skills are satisfactory, he or between Canada and the United States, both she receives a Class I licence the second year. countries reciprocally recognize pilot licences A licensed pilot needs approximately five years for pilotage in contiguous compulsory waters. to perform duties on all sizes and types of ships Under the GLPA’s regulations, a licensed pilot trading in the PPA compulsory waters. must satisfy various currency requirements, which include completing at least five one-way Issues trips per year. The Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) is concerned about the lack of national standards. PACIFIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY In addition to the requirements currently Pilot candidates are recruited mainly from imposed by the General Pilotage Regulations, the BC coast tug and barge industry and the it says additional national standards should be Canadian Coast Guard. The PPA contracts considered in areas such as specific entry-level pilotage services in coastal areas from the BC requirements, apprenticeship, licensing and con- Coast Pilot Corporation, while employee pilots tinuing training. The CSA points out the lack provide services in the Fraser River. Qualifying of uniformity among regions regarding the exams establish an eligibility list of potential minimum number of trips that pilot candidates pilot candidates, which the PPA uses for recruit- are required to make at the entry level and ment. The PPA also offers a familiarization pro- during apprenticeship, as well as the differences gram that allows potential applicants to acquire among regions with respect to the length of the a better knowledge of the pilotage areas and apprenticeship and initial training periods. It pilot duties before commencing the entry-level believes that such elements of the training and examination process. Following the examination licensing process should be standardized at the process, which varies between the coastal regions national level by means of regulatory changes. and the Fraser River, candidates who meet the requirements of the General Pilotage Regulations Analysis and the Pacific Pilotage Regulations are placed The Panel notes that the Pilotage Act and the on an eligibility list until a position becomes General Pilotage Regulations already contain available.A new pilot undergoes an appren- national standards in that they set out entry- ticeship program under the supervision of a level requirements related to the competency, licensed pilot, which consists of 50 assignments age, medical fitness, citizenship, navigational over a period of three months in the Fraser qualifications and experience at sea of pilot
28 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
candidates, as well as requirements for the knowledge of both French and English. The 20º licensing process. They do not, however, take Panel believes that these working language into account the conditions of local navigation requirements are consistent with the needs 30º particular to each pilotage region, such as navi- of each region. gational requirements, the nature of waterways Similarly, the nature of the compulsory 40º and ports, geography, the types and sizes of ships waters in each region — that is, ports, water- 50º trading in various areas, and other local factors. ways or coastal waters — dictates the approach Under the current legislation, each author- each pilotage authority takes with regard to the 60º ity is responsible for the safety and efficiency licensing process and the continuing training of pilotage services in its pilotage region. required for pilots.With some exceptions, pilots 70º While the Pilotage Act and the General Pilotage in the four regions undergo similar training on
Regulations set out general requirements, the ship handling, BRM, simulators, and other sub- 80º pilotage authorities’ regulations contain specific jects related to navigation and marine safety. criteria that reflect local conditions and empha- The Panel is satisfied that, where requirements 90º size the importance of local knowledge at all for initial or continuing training are identified, stages of the selection, apprenticeship, training there are means to ensure that pilots remain 100º and licensing process. current with the changing environment. 110º While it creates differences, this regional With respect to national training, the Panel approach is consistent with the report of the notes that Transport Canada has taken regula- 120º Bernier Royal Commission on Pilotage, which tory action to make BRM training for all pilots recommended that the specific requirements mandatory. Further, the Panel understands that 130º relating to the training and licensing of pilots the International Maritime Organization is be left to each pilotage authority. currently reviewing the modernization of 140º With respect to the entry-level process, the standards for pilot training and that Transport
Panel noted that, while local knowledge is a Canada is participating in this process. 150º prerequisite in certain pilotage regions, in The Panel believes that the different other jurisdictions, pilot candidates acquire approaches adopted by the pilotage authorities 160º local knowledge during their apprenticeship. under their respective pilotage regulations It appears logical that the length of the appren- reflect local realities while meeting the require- 170º ticeship period in each region reflects this ments of the Pilotage Act and the General 180º regional approach. The entry-level criteria for Pilotage Regulations. The Panel further working language requirements also vary in believes that the goal of these approaches — 190º each pilotage region.While in certain regions, the undisputed competence of pilots — is para- only English is mandatory, other pilotage mount, and that the pilot training programs 200º authorities require applicants to have working achieve this goal. The current system is an
210º
29 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
effective blend of national and regional regula- potential candidates and the compulsory ports tions tailored to the needs of each pilotage are scattered throughout the four Atlantic region. provinces. This situation limits the number of potential candidates with adequate local Panel Recommendation No. 7 knowledge and practical experience in com- The Panel recommends that the current pulsory areas. The APA pilots are also con- regional system for training and licensing cerned about the level of qualifications pilots be maintained as a responsibility of demonstrated by new pilot trainees. each pilotage authority. The APA is reviewing its apprenticeship program for pilot candidates to determine Pool of Pilot Candidates whether a revised and expanded program Background would enable the APA to amend entry-level In some regions, there are concerns about the requirements by accepting candidates with the long-term decline of the pool of qualified pilot requisite mariner qualifications but less local candidates. Changes in trading patterns, the practical experience. The APA is however restructuring of the shipping industry, salary concerned that expanding apprenticeship and competitiveness and a decline in entry-level related training would impose a financial bur- qualifications are factors contributing to this den on the APA that it would ultimately have decline. to pass on to the industry through tariff action Canadian shipowners report that the avail- and increased costs of pilotage services. ability of qualified mariners is a world-wide LAURENTIAN PILOTAGE AUTHORITY problem and that Canada is not immune to the No concerns were raised in the LPA region shortages. They share the concern raised by with regard to present and future pools of pilot certain pilotage authorities, since many pilot candidates. candidates are drawn from the ranks of their masters and officers. GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE AUTHORITY The GLPA pilots are concerned that changes in Issues the structure of the Canadian shipping industry ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY in the Great Lakes region are resulting in a The APA is concerned about its ability to shortage of mariners who have the qualifica- attract qualified candidates due to the structure tions and practical experience to apply as pilot of pilotage in its jurisdiction and the competing candidates. They observed that mariners who salary pressures from the marine industry. It says do apply are less experienced and qualified than there is no homogenous pool of candidates in their predecessors and believe that the GLPA the Atlantic region because the sources of apprenticeship and training program should be
30 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
reviewed to address the lack of entry-level PACIFIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY 20º experience and skills. The pilots point out The CSBC is concerned about the shrinking that the Gauthier report recognized the ever- pool of qualified pilot candidates and about the 30º diminishing pool of experienced ship officers impact the situation may ultimately have on the in the Great Lakes. The report noted that, as a safety of pilotage services in the PPA region. It 40º result of the shrinking pool, pilots will have to says that, due to the restructuring of the ship- 50º be recruited among mariners who do not ping industry on the West Coast, pilot trainees have significant experience in the Great Lakes are less experienced and do not have the quali- 60º region. fications and skills required under the current
The CSA does not agree with the pilots recruiting and licensing system. Fewer candi- 70º and says that most pilot candidates are masters dates have the necessary coast-wide knowledge; or officers of its members’ fleets who, for the due to the changing nature of coastal shipping 80º most part, have been trained as mariners at patterns, candidates’ knowledge is increasingly
Canadian marine training centres and have localized. The CSBC believes, however, that 90º subsequently acquired extensive practical options exist to resolve the problem, such as the experience.While the CSA does not perceive review of the recruitment and apprenticeship 100º a shortage of eligible pilot candidates in the process. 110º GLPA region, Canadian shipowners are Based on their knowledge of the west coast concerned about losing their trained and marine community, the coastal pilots are confi- 120º experienced masters and officers to the pilot dent that there is a sufficient number of quali- groups because of better salaries and working fied and experienced mariners to ensure an 130º conditions. adequate pool of pilots in the foreseeable future.
Although the GLPA recognizes the poten- They are participating, however, with the PPA 140º tial long-term shortage of eligible candidates, and the CSBC in the review of the matter. it believes that the current pool is adequate to Through a special committee comprising 150º meet the short-term demand.While it is moni- pilots and CSBC representatives, the PPA is toring the situation, the GLPA is concerned assessing long-term needs and the availability 160º that expanding the apprenticeship program to of qualified pilot candidates. The PPA says the 170º increase the pool of pilot candidates would results of the study, which includes a survey impose a logistic and financial burden on the of Canadian masters and officers on the West 180º GLPA. The GLPA points out that a recent Coast, will be available soon.With respect to review by the Auditor General did not reveal apprenticeship, the PPA says that a familiariza- 190º any shortcomings in its recruiting and training tion period and a longer apprenticeship pro- process. gram customized to the needs of candidates 200º
210º
31 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT will allow for a larger pool. Further, if required, Pilot Quality Assurance the PPA will adapt the entry-level examination process to allow pilot candidates with less coast- Background wide experience to apply. The PPA also says Under the Canada Shipping Act, ship masters and that, while the study addresses long-term needs, officers are subjected to a mariner competency short-term requirements can be met from the certification process administered by Transport eligibility list. Canada, designed to assess their competency every five years.While pilotage authorities have Analysis various means to monitor the overall perform- Pilotage being a compulsory requirement, ship- ance of pilots, such as incidents statistics, there owners must be assured that pilotage services is currently no formal process for regularly will not be disrupted as a result of a shortage assessing pilot competence. Further, the pilotage of pilot candidates. Since pilotage authorities authorities do not have a system that allows are responsible for ensuring the safety and effi- them to assess the quality of the pilotage ser- ciency of pilotage services in their compulsory vices that pilots provide to users. waters, and since they are the only providers of pilotage services, they should be required Issues to give users this assurance by monitoring Certain shipowners are concerned about the the short- and long-term pools of qualified lack of structured and regular assessment of candidates. licensed pilots’ skills and currency.While they The Panel notes that the pilotage author- recognize the competence of pilots, they ities are conscious of the situation in their believe that such a periodic assessment should regions and that some are undertaking special be mandatory as an essential element of safe measures to address the pool of qualified pilotage services. They believe that pilots, like candidates. their masters and officers, should undergo regu- lar competency assessments to maintain the Panel Recommendation No. 8 validity of their licence. In addition to Transport Canada’s five-year competency certification The Panel recommends that the pilotage authorities be required to report on the process, some CSA members regularly assess pool of qualified pilot candidates in their the competence of their masters and officers. annual reports. In doing so, each pilotage The annual assessment of masters is an on-shore authority should outline any problems it has identified in its region, the results of process performed by the shipowner’s manage- any review or study, and the corrective ment, while the seasonal assessment of deck measures taken or contemplated. officers is conducted by ship masters. The CSA says that pilots should be assessed every
32 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
two or three years, and that shipowners should year competency certification process, and 20º help develop any formal competence and qual- that those holding a pilotage certificate should ity assurance assessment process. undergo a separate pilotage skills assessment by 30º The CSA says a formal assessment process the pilotage authorities. for pilots should be implemented through legis- The pilotage authorities all agree that a 40º lation or national regulations. It is concerned structured process for regularly assessing pilots’ 50º that a voluntary approach by the pilotage author- competence and quality of services will help ities might result in inconsistency between enhance the safety and efficiency of pilotage 60º regions and a discretionary application of the services.While it is discussing the issue with the process. The CSBC believes the pilotage other pilotage authorities, the PPA is currently 70º authorities should develop a mandatory assess- addressing the matter of pilots’ periodic assess- ment process, in conjunction with existing pilot ment in the context of its ongoing review of 80º skills upgrading programs and in accordance coast-wide pilot currency. The PPA, the CSBC with international standards. It was pointed out and the pilots are discussing an approach to 90º that licensed pilots are not presently subject to ensuring pilots’ documented currency. They the IMO International Safety Management’s are also developing the Pacific Pilot Validation 100º requirement that all masters and officers regu- Endorsement Program, which would periodi- 110º larly demonstrate and document that they have cally assess pilot competence and quality assur- appropriate qualifications and updated skills. ance. In the Atlantic pilotage region, the APA is 120º The pilots endorse the concept of assess- reviewing the assessment of pilots and examin- ment on a regional basis and are prepared to ing an annual system used in Australia for 130º help develop fair and reasonable methods. They port pilots. It expects to implement a similar also support the IMO’s modernization of its system by the end of 2000. The LPA has 140º guidelines for the regular assessment of pilots’ recommended that Transport Canada publish skills. The pilots recognize that a structured and general pilotage regulations that would impose 150º regular assessment of pilots’ competence and an assessment program for licensed pilots com- quality of service, in combination with ongoing parable to the current requirement for masters 160º training, will enhance the safety and efficiency and officers. The GLPA agrees there is a need of pilotage services. If such an assessment how- for a regular pilot assessment process. 170º ever takes place, they believe that the pilotage 180º skills of masters and officers who hold a Analysis pilotage certificate should also be assessed. Since pilotage authorities and pilots provide 190º The pilots submit that the competence of a service to users, pilotage should be subjected to the elements traditionally attached to a ser- masters and mariners as pilotage certificate 200º holders is not part of Transport Canada’s five- vice industry, such as quality assurance.While
210º
33 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT competency must be continuously assessed and Panel Recommendation No. 9 enhanced in the interest of safety, the Panel The Panel recommends that the pilotage believes that quality assurance is also important, authorities be required to develop and particularly in a regulated monopoly, and should implement a fair and reasonable system be regularly assessed. for assessing pilots’ competence and qual- ity of service, after consultation with The Panel notes that pilotage authorities interested parties.This assessment process and pilots agree on the importance of a fair and should take place regularly and not less reasonable competence and quality assurance than every five years. process that will benefit all parties. Further, the Panel notes that the report of the Bernier Pacific Pilotage Commission contemplated a form of pilot Authority Coast-wide assessment. More recently, the IMO has taken Licensing and action to modernize Resolution 485(XII), Dispatching which will provide guidelines for regularly There are two areas of concern in the PPA evaluating pilots’ competence and performance. region with respect to this matter: the overall On the issue of frequency of pilot assess- coast-wide licensing and dispatching of pilots, ment, the Panel believes this matter should be and the establishment of a separate northern left to the pilotage authorities. The Panel, how- pilotage area at Prince Rupert. ever, believes that assessments should be done regularly and not less than every five years. Background The Panel also believes that authorities should Earlier in the review, the shipping industry establish such a quality assurance system after raised concerns that the size and complexity consulting with interested parties. of the coastal compulsory pilotage area and the With respect to the pilots’ submission that changing shipping patterns on the West Coast masters and officers holding a pilotage certifi- may affect pilots’ currency under the current cate should be assessed, the Panel notes that the licensing and dispatching system, and that this situations are not identical; quality assurance for may, in turn, affect the safety of pilotage masters and officers is not required because they services. do not provide pilotage services to third parties. The examination of coast-wide licensing Pilotage authorities may consider introducing conducted by the 1995 Pacific Pilotage Task such a system for masters and officers holding a Force (1995 Task Force) concluded that the pilotage certificate, where deemed appropriate PPA system was the most efficient and cost- or necessary, once a system to assess quality effective means of providing pilotage services assurance for pilots is in place. in the coastal region.
34 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
The Auditor General’s recent overall exami- • exploring area-specific licensing and partial 20º nation of the PPA’s pilotage services found the dismantling of the coast-wide dispatching current coast-wide licensing system to be safe system. 30º and cost efficient. Although it initially favoured a full exami- More recently, following consultations, the 40º nation of a regional licensing and dispatching PPA, the pilots and the CSBC agreed that the system, the industry is now working with the 50º current coast-wide licensing system will be PPA and the coastal pilots to develop a coast- maintained, subject to the establishment of a wide assessment system to ensure pilots’ 60º structured pilots’ currency evaluation system. currency in all coastal pilotage areas. This approach is consistent with the first option 70º Issues proposed by the industry. While the shipping industry does not question The coastal pilots are convinced that the 80º the professionalism of the pilots, it believes there current coast-wide licensing system is safe and is a need to examine the manner in which the efficient. They say the current dispatch system 90º service is provided. It says the status quo should ensures that pilots are assigned to all areas on not be the preferred option. It is concerned 100º a rotational basis and, with the exception of about the ability of pilots to maintain coast- four low-traffic ports on the west coast of wide experience with fewer trips to smaller 110º Vancouver Island, pilots visit all ports with outports and believes that this situation com- adequate frequency. Further, the pilots monitor promises the safety of pilotage services in these 120º their own coast-wide exposure and request less-frequented areas. dispatching to less-frequented areas, if they 130º Following a series of marine incidents that have doubts about their local knowledge. The occurred in coastal waters between 1996 and pilots submit that all past studies of pilotage on 140º 1998, the CSBC submitted its concerns to the the West Coast, including those in which the PPA, stating it doubts that pilots could maintain industry participated, have demonstrated that 150º coast-wide experience with fewer trips to the coast-wide licensing and dispatching system smaller outports and that the coast-wide licens- 160º is the most efficient means of delivering the ing and dispatching system practised by the BC service. Coast Pilots could continue to deliver safe 170º With regard to the concerns raised by the pilotage. The industry requested that the PPA shipping industry following marine incidents in consider two options to address its concerns: 180º coastal areas, the pilots say there was no discern- • expanding training for new and licensed pilots able pattern to these incidents and that it was 190º through extended apprenticeship, simulation clearly established that pilot currency was not a and familiarization periods, to help pilots factor in three of four instances. Nevertheless, 200º achieve and maintain currency; and pilots support constructive changes to the 210º
35 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
current structure and will contribute to any become and stay current, with the understand- undertaking designed to ensure the safety of ing that a sufficient number of qualified pilots pilotage services in all coastal areas. They have will be available at all times to meet the dispatch- proposed the Pilot Currency Examination ing demand at coastal outports. They have not Board, consisting of PPA, pilot and industry determined the expected increase in training representatives, which would regularly assess the costs and the source of funding. The PPA, the currency of coastal pilots in coastal compulsory pilots and the industry joint committee are cur- waters, including low-traffic ports.Appropriate rently reviewing apprenticeship training, sourc- training and assignment measures would be ing of pilots, fatigue and quality assurance, taken to address currency deficiencies. among other related issues. The PPA believes that, to serve its cus- tomers efficiently, it needs a sufficient number Analysis of pilots with experience in the less-frequented In considering the matter, the Panel noted ports primarily on the west coast of Vancouver the conclusion of the 1995 Task Force that Island. The PPA submits that changes in trading the current coast-wide system is cost efficient patterns, particularly in the forestry industry, and provides the most effective licensing and have resulted in fewer vessels calling at outports dispatching system. Based on its review of the along the coast, and that this trend is likely to information submitted during the consultations, continue. In view of this situation and in response the Panel believes this conclusion remains valid to the shipping industry’s concerns about pilots’ today. coast-wide currency, the PPA has proposed the With respect to the issue of pilots’ currency, Pacific Pilot Validation Endorsement process to the Panel notes that, through training, familiar- assess pilots’ currency. The PPA’s Pilot Training ization and rotational dispatch, pilots can main- and Examination Committee would administer tain local experience in all compulsory waters, this process, and pilots would be required to including in less-frequented ports.While it participate in it to maintain their licences. The agrees that these measures help improve pilots’ validation endorsement process would classify currency, the Panel believes there is a need for less-frequented ports and establish criteria for a pilots’ currency assessment system to comple- pilots’ currency at these ports, based on the ment rotational dispatch. The Panel believes frequency of pilot assignments. such a system would enhance users’ confidence The PPA, the pilots and the industry are in the safety and efficiency of pilotage services currently discussing the proposal. The parties and would show that their concerns are being have agreed to maintain the existing coast-wide addressed. licensing and dispatching system, and agree that On this matter, the Panel observes that the ongoing pilot training is needed to help pilots PPA, the pilots and the industry agree that the
36 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
present coast-wide licensing and dispatching the two Prince Rupert pilots may be supple- 20º system should be maintained. They also agree mented by pilots dispatched from other com- that a structured process should be established pulsory areas. 30º to ensure the currency of pilots in all compul- The Prince Rupert Port Authority has his- sory waters in coastal areas. In this regard, the torically advocated the permanent assignment 40º Panel notes that the PPA has proposed the of pilots at that port. It maintains that the level 50º PPVE process, under which a committee on of traffic in this compulsory area justifies such pilot training and examination would regularly a departure from the current rotational assign- 60º assess pilots’ currency. These discussions show ment system and that permanent assignment the parties are committed to ensuring the safety would allow pilots to improve local knowl- 70º and efficiency of pilotage services in the region edge and would reduce pilotage costs, thereby and to resolving the issue of pilots’ currency enhancing safety and efficiency. 80º in low-traffic compulsory areas. The Panel The 1995 Task Force concluded that the believes, however, that, in addition to those current pilot assignment system at Prince 90º participating in the current discussion on the Rupert provides for safe and efficient pilotage matter, other interested parties, such as port services, and that a system based on a perma- 100º authorities, should be kept informed during nent pilot base would not be beneficial under 110º the development of the proposed system. the current PPA licensing and dispatching regime. Panel Recommendation No. 10 120º Issues The Panel recommends that the PPA 130º coast-wide system for pilot licensing and The Prince Rupert Port Authority submits dispatching be maintained. that, although the Panel may recommend that 140º the current system is the best approach, the
Pilotage Services at Authority’s position should be examined fur- 150º Prince Rupert ther. In asking for an impartial examination, it submits that the review of pilotage issues offers 160º Background an opportunity to explore options for a new Normally, the pilot rotation system at Prince licensing system on the West Coast and that 170º Rupert provides for two coastal pilots on duty the status quo is not the only option.The Port at all times. One of these pilots is entirely dedi- Authority is of the opinion the PPA and the 180º cated to Prince Rupert and cannot be asked to pilots are unwilling to discuss the issue, and that perform duties in other compulsory areas while 190º the 1995 Task Force did not consider Prince on assignment at Prince Rupert. The rotation Rupert’s interests.The Port Authority says that, enables all coastal pilots to serve this port regu- 200º based on its own examination of the pilotage larly and acquire local experience. On demand, 210º
37 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
assignment system, a pilot base at Prince Rupert to work with the Prince Rupert Port Authority would be cost effective and would enhance the and the PPA to enhance pilotage services at competitiveness of the northern transportation this port. system. The PPA believes the present system works Shippers offer mixed views on the issues. well and sees no reason to change it. Neverthe- Some say that both coast-wide and regional less, like the pilots, the PPA is willing to consult systems have merit but they are not convinced with the interested parties to identify any that a change from a coast-wide to a regional opportunities that would enhance safety and system would improve efficiency and reduce maximize efficiency. costs. Others promote the establishment of a northern pilotage area and say pilots should Analysis be permanently assigned to certain ports The Panel supports the conclusion of the 1995 to enhance dispatch efficiency and reduce Task Force that the current system is safe and operating costs. efficient.As the Task Force’s report stated, pilots The CSBC is of the opinion that the permanently based at Prince Rupert would be present pilotage system at Prince Rupert works subject to fluctuations in levels of traffic and and that there is no evidence that the perma- would be underutilized for periods of time, nent assignment of pilots would reduce costs resulting in high costs and overall inefficiencies. to users or improve safety. The industry partici- As well, these pilots would lose their coast-wide pated in the work of the 1995 Task Force and currency. agreed with its conclusions. The Panel also notes that the shipping The pilots say that the permanent assign- industry serving Prince Rupert supports the ment of pilots at Prince Rupert has been coast-wide system and believes that the current studied extensively and that there is general rotational assignment of pilots at this port is safe agreement that such a system would not and efficient. enhance safety and efficiency.With respect to Panel Recommendation No. 11 safety, the pilots are convinced that their exten- sive training and familiarization program, in The Panel recommends that the PPA, under its current coast-wide licensing and combination with the current rotational dispatching regime, continue to provide dispatch system, ensures their currency at pilotage services at Prince Rupert on a Prince Rupert. They are however prepared rotational pilot assignment basis.
38 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Section 3 40º
Pilot Certification Process 50º 60º
for Masters and Officers 70º
Introduction Direct exemptions can be granted to 80º vessels whose navigation is not consid- The pilot certification process allows Canadian ered to imply any safety risk in local 90º masters and officers who meet certain quali- circumstances, and indirect exemptions fications and who have successfully completed to a class of vessels by issuing pilotage certificates to those masters and mates 100º examinations to obtain a pilotage certificate. the Pilotage Authority is satisfied pos- This certificate allows them to navigate their sess the degree of local knowledge and 110º own ships in compulsory areas without a experience which has been established in the regulations as necessary for safe licensed pilot on board. This provision in the 120º navigation. Pilotage Act recognizes that qualified mariners, Because the basic aim of pilotage legis- as well as licensed pilots, are able to navigate 130º lation is to promote safety of naviga- ships safely in compulsory areas. tion, it should never be distorted by In 1968, the Bernier Royal Commission being used as a means of either justify- 140º ing an unnecessary number of pilots on Pilotage reported that none of the pilotage or exacting from shipping payment for 150º authorities had provisions for issuing pilotage services that are not required. certificates, even though the power to make The Act should stipulate that it is an 160º such regulations existed in the 1934 Canada absolute statutory right for any person who possesses the required competency Shipping Act. Bernier noted that the pilotage 170º and meets the prescribed conditions to authorities could use certification to exclude obtain a personal pilotage exemption ships or classes of ships from compulsory certificate. 180º pilotage. Bernier commented as follows:
190º
200º
210º
39 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Section 22 of the Pilotage Act continued the • have a working knowledge of the required provision in the 1934 Canada Shipping Act for official language(s); issuing pilotage certificates in addition to pilot • have logged a specific number of trips in the licences. This provision empowers an authority compulsory area; and to issue a certificate to applicants with the req- • be a regular member of the crew of the ship uisite skills and knowledge of the compulsory for which they will perform pilot duties. area equivalent to that of an applicant for a The approach to pilotage certification for licence. The Pilotage Act also stipulates that ship masters and officers is quite different in all licence and certificate holders must be each of the four authorities. In the PPA, Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. pilotage certification is unnecessary due to the The General Pilotage Regulations require tonnage limitation for Canadian vessels. In the licence or certificate holders to have specific GLPA, an exemption process for Canadian ships certificates of competency, navigational qualifi- has gradually evolved, so certification has not cations and experience at sea. been applied. In the APA, the certification Section 20 of the Pilotage Act also empowers process has been used since the Authority was each authority to make regulations prescribing: established. In the LPA, the certification process • the classes of licences or pilotage certificates; has only been used since 1987, and only in • the qualifications that a holder of a pilotage District 2. certificate must have in terms of local knowl- Because each pilotage authority treats edge, skill, experience and language profi- certification very differently, this report discusses ciency; and each authority separately. • the manner of determining whether a person Throughout the regional and national has the necessary qualifications. meetings, members of the CSA described prob- lems they had encountered with existing certifi- Each pilotage authority has established its cation processes over the years and proposed an own qualifications for certificate holders and altogether different approach designed to avoid has established an examination board to deter- certification and its attendant difficulties. These mine whether candidates have the required shipowners advocate a national exemption sys- qualifications. tem based on national standards that would per- In general, the following regulatory require- mit Canadian masters and officers to pilot ves- ments must be met by candidates seeking sels in compulsory pilotage areas in Canada. certificates: They base this proposal on their conviction that • be medically fit; Canadian masters and officers are highly trained • hold specific marine certificates; and also have continuous access to advanced • have taken specific marine courses; navigational technology. Such an exemption
40 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
system would expand the system of exemptions specify that the examination may include ques- 20º presently in effect in the GLPA, a system that tions related to local knowledge of the compul- the shipowners believe addresses their concerns sory area; radar interpretation; relevant harbour, 30º about economics, safety and the environment. marine and pilotage regulations; ship handling; The CSA’s proposed approach would be a and the use of modern navigational aids. 40º self-administered program for determining the The examination for certification has 50º competency of masters and officers to pilot two parts, each of which lasts approximately their own ships.This proposal is reviewed in two hours: a written exam followed by an 60º detail in the GLPA section of this discussion. oral exam. The written exam focuses on local
The CSA argues that the same standards knowledge, while the oral exam focuses on a 70º for pilotage must be applied across the country. series of specific scenarios where the candidate
They do not want to just “fine tune” the exist- is expected to explain the procedures for safe 80º ing certification process, which they say is unac- navigation and to exercise judgement. ceptable, especially in the LPA region. 90º The Panel does not believe that a national Issues exemption scheme, such as that proposed by In the APA region, two main topics related to 100º CSA, is appropriate for the pilotage system in certification were identified: 110º Canada. Each pilotage region is different and, • lack of a detailed syllabus for certification generally, one solution does not fit all. The candidates; and 120º Panel has therefore identified specific problems • certification of a mooring master at the in each region and has sought regional solutions Canaport monobuoy. 130º for each.
Analysis 140º Atlantic Pilotage SYLLABUS FOR CERTIFICATION Authority CANDIDATES 150º Canadian shipowners say their masters believe
Background that there is neither clear indication in the APA 160º As has been noted, the APA has used the certifi- regulations of the knowledge needed for certifi- cation process since 1972. Between 1972 and cation nor of the way a candidate is expected to 170º 1999, it granted 88 certificates.At present, conduct himself/herself in front of the exami- 19 certificates are in effect for 15 mariners. nation board. 180º The examination board for candidates seek- The APA, pilots and foreign shipowners 190º ing certificates consists of a representative of the think that the certification process works rea- APA, two licensed pilots who are knowledge- sonably well, as shown by the number of cer- 200º able about the pilotage areas and may include tificates issued since the Pilotage Act came into an industry observer. The APA’s regulations 210º
41 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
force. Foreign shipowners emphasize that they The Panel also notes that shipowners have have to be confident that qualified people are in never raised their concerns about the syllabus command of all ships in compulsory waters and directly with the APA. This is not meant to that certification is the only way to ensure this. diminish the validity of the concern but rather The Authority notes that the Atlantic to put it in perspective when looking at the Pilotage Regulations outline the subject matter overall APA certification process.As any process needed by candidates seeking certification. It is open for improvement, the Panel believes the also notes that all of the questions in any exam- APA should try to develop a more detailed out- ination are based on information readily avail- line of the material required for certification able to candidates from public sources. The and to describe the examination process. APA says that, during the oral exam, the exam- ination board questions candidates mainly on Panel Recommendation No. 12 local knowledge. There have been no com- The Panel recommends that the Atlantic plaints about the certification process. The Pilotage Authority, together with pilots and Canadian shipowners, be required to APA often sends applications for certification develop a more detailed outline of mater- to shipowners but gets no response. ial that is relevant for purposes of certifi- The APA is willing, however, to review its cation, as well as a description of what is material to see whether it could describe require- expected in the certification exams. ments in more detail, but it would like the CSA Certification of the Canaport to clarify its position in this regard. During the Mooring Master concluding round of regional consultations in As has been noted, a candidate must be a regu- the APA region, the Panel asked Canadian lar member of a ship’s crew to be eligible for shipowners to consult with the APA to discuss certification. Canaport Ltd. has asked to have the kind of expanded detail that masters and this regulation changed to allow the certi- officers want regarding certification.At the time fication of mooring masters responsible for of the last national meeting, the parties had not berthing and unberthing large tankers at the consulted with each other. Canaport monobuoy, which is offshore from The Panel notes that the certification Saint John and located within the Saint John process has been used extensively from the compulsory pilotage area. Canaport Ltd. notes beginning in this pilotage region. Based on that, in an era of ever-increasing government the number of applications and certificates charges, the company must look for ways to issued, the system appears to be working economize. Canaport Ltd. argues that the certi- well. Indeed, Canadian shipowners have not fication of mooring masters would enhance the identified major concerns with the APA in safety of operations at the monobuoy and the intervening period.
42 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
would allow the company to save money on outset of this review, the Panel indicated that 20º pilotage costs. commercialization or privatization of pilotage Canadian shipowners support the Canaport services was not under consideration, as this was 30º Ltd. proposal, but the APA, pilots and foreign not part of the Terms of Reference. The federal shipowners oppose it. The pilots are concerned government, in enacting the Canada Marine Act, 40º about the close proximity of the monobuoy to rejected the commercialization or privatization 50º the shoreline and cite an environmental study of pilotage services when it decided to retain that said a mishap with a large crude carrier the pilotage authorities established under the 60º would have a devastating ecological impact on Pilotage Act. the whole Bay of Fundy area. The pilots say Even if Canaport’s proposal were within 70º they are independent professionals whose pur- the Terms of Reference, the Panel is not con- pose is to ensure the safety of navigation. The vinced that it would enhance safety. Currently, 80º APA is of the opinion that certifying a mooring one pilot and one mooring master attend at the 10 master would result in parallel pilotage and mooring of the Canaport monobuoy. There 90º would also set a precedent that could prompt is no basis to conclude that safety would be other private companies to make similar requests. improved by removing a pilot and replacing 100º The APA says pilots make decisions on the basis him or her with a mooring master who reports 110º of safety and are not subject to commercial to Canaport. In addition, the Panel shares the pressures about the unloading of a product. pilots’ concern about possible mishaps involving 120º The Panel notes that certifying mooring large crude tankers and their ecological impact masters would be equivalent to permitting pri- on the Bay of Fundy area. 130º vate pilotage, as the mooring master would be Panel Recommendation No. 13 an employee of Canaport Ltd. and would be 140º piloting many different foreign-flagged ships at The Panel recommends that section 13 of the monobuoy, none of which are owned by the Atlantic Pilotage Regulations, which 150º stipulates that a certificate holder must be Canaport Ltd. a regular member of the complement of a Certifying mooring masters for the ship, not be modified to allow other indi- 160º Canaport monobuoy would, in the Panel’s viduals who are not regular members opinion, constitute the privatization of pilotage of the complement of a ship, such as a 170º Canaport mooring master, to be eligible services for one segment of the industry.At the for certification. 180º
190º 10 The term “parallel pilotage” refers to a situation where a person who has not been licensed as a pilot by an authority
carries out pilotage duties for all types of ships. Certified masters or officers are able to perform pilotage duties on 200º their own ships but cannot pilot any other ships. Therefore, certifying a person to pilot all types of ships would duplicate the role of a licensed pilot under the jurisdiction of an authority. 210º
43 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Laurentian Pilotage the LPA received no certification applications Authority for the first 15 years, and since then has issued only 11 certificates out of 30 applications. Background Canadian shipowners believe that the cur- The current LPA certification examination rent certification process is biased and lacks board consists of one representative from the transparency. They argue that the subject matter LPA, three licensed pilots who are knowledge- of the certification exams is not sufficiently able about the pilotage areas, and a Coast Guard defined in the syllabus. They also point to the examiner of masters and mates; the CSA is also fact that pilots stand to lose when certificates entitled to appoint an observer to attend oral are granted to masters, and yet they prepare the exams. The LPA’s regulations specify that the exam and control the examination board examination may include questions related to through their majority. local knowledge of the compulsory area; radar The CSA sees this is as a fundamental flaw interpretation; relevant harbour, marine and that affects the credibility of the process and pilotage regulations; ship handling; and other that is substantiated by the low number of subjects the examination board considers rele- successful applicants. vant to pilotage duties. No Canadian masters Over the years, the CSA has made a num- or officers applied for certificates between 1972 ber of proposals to correct this perceived bias. and 1987. Since that time, 30 candidates have Aside from its proposal to establish a national applied and 11 certificates have been granted. exemption program, the CSA has proposed a Nine certificates are in effect at present. more detailed syllabus that would allow certi- The LPA certification examinations consist fication applicants to better prepare for the of three written exams followed by an oral exam. It has also proposed using simulators in exam. The written exams focus on general the examination process and changing the knowledge, collision regulations and local composition of the examination board to bring knowledge, while the oral exam focuses on more objectivity to the examination process. local knowledge, ship handling and regulations. Pilots argue that the low number of appli- Two of the written exams are three hours long, cations for certificates by Canadian masters while the other is two hours long. The oral shows that few masters are interested in becom- exam has no specified time period. ing certified due to the difficulty of navigation in LPA compulsory areas, the need for language Issues proficiency, and their current workload and The certification process has been the source resulting fatigue. Pilots maintain that the certi- of much controversy among pilots, the LPA and fication process is fair and objective, and point Canadian shipowners, as shown by the fact that to the fact that only one candidate has ever
44 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
challenged the outcome of the exam.While the THE BLOUIN COMMITTEE 20º exams may be difficult, pilots argue that they The CSA raised the issue of pilotage certifi- reflect the difficulty of navigation in these com- cates in the context of an investigation by the 30º pulsory waters and the need to ensure naviga- Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) in tional and public safety and to protect the envi- 1985 into an LPA tariff proposal.At that time, 40º ronment. Pilots point to the numerous changes Canadian shipowners indicated that no masters 50º to the certification and examination process as had ever applied for certification, as they felt a demonstration of their good faith and their the process was so difficult that it was virtually 60º openness to changes that do not affect the safety impossible to succeed.As well, masters said it of navigation. was unfair to have to face an examination board 70º Foreign shipowners argue that any certifica- dominated by pilots. In addition, masters did tion process must maintain the industry’s confi- not want to subject themselves to exams on 80º dence in the ability of an officer in charge of a material they had already covered when domestic ship, so that a pilot on a foreign ship obtaining their certificates of competency 90º would not take evasive action, such as slowing from Transport Canada. or anchoring when meeting domestic vessels. In September 1985, during the course of 100º They stressed the need for continuous and the CTC investigation, the LPA established the 110º uninterrupted service that allows shipowners Blouin Committee to examine a number of to meet established schedules. issues, including the issuance of pilotage certifi- 120º The LPA is of the opinion that the current cates. In its final report of May 1987, the Blouin certification process is credible and objective, Committee concluded that the pilot corpora- 130º but needs to be modernized. tions felt that candidates for a pilotage certificate
must have exactly the same level of knowledge 140º Historical Background and skill as that of a pilot. The issues raised by the CSA during the con- The Blouin Committee concluded that 150º sultations with respect to the certification and pilots needed to realize that there is a consider- examination process are not recent concerns. able difference between a pilot and a certificate 160º The transparency of the process, the training of holder who navigates his own ship, and made 170º candidates, the composition of the examination the following recommendations regarding the board and the use of simulators have all been certification process in the LPA. the subjects of previous studies or reviews. Since 180º • The knowledge required to navigate the situation has evolved over the years, a brief safely must be well defined for candidates 190º overview of these studies and an analysis of and the material must be described for ease recent developments is necessary to better of understanding. 200º understand the current situation.
210º
45 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
• A training program for certification candidates • Some of the material candidates had already should be set up, under the responsibility of been tested on when obtaining their the LPA, with the involvement of the Québec Transport Canada certificate of competency Marine Institute at Rimouski, pilots and the to be removed from the exams. industry. • Candidates to be required to draw charts of • The LPA should establish examination selected parts of the compulsory area during procedures. the written exams. • The examination committee should have After signing the memorandum of under- five members and pilots should not comprise standing, Canadian shipowners transferred the majority. all monies in the trust fund to the LPA.
THE 1992 MEMORANDUM OF Subsequently, Canadian shipowners said the UNDERSTANDING LPA was not respecting the agreed changes, There is no indication that the LPA took any because much of the material covered by immediate action on the Blouin recommenda- Transport Canada requirements remained in tions. The situation remained unresolved and the syllabus and the accuracy requirements in March 1992, Canadian shipowners took the for chart drawings were too stringent. unprecedented step of refusing to pay pilotage THE GAUTHIER REPORT charges to the Authority; all charges were paid In January 1996, Johanne Gauthier11 reported into a trust fund. The objective of this endeav- to Transport Canada on an examination of the our was to get the federal government to act LPA certification process following consulta- on pilotage issues. tions with the LPA, pilots, and Canadian and In September 1992, the LPA and the foreign shipowners. The Minister appointed CSA signed a memorandum of understanding, Gauthier to discuss with the parties their con- which brought about the following changes to cerns about exemptions, waivers and pilotage the certification process. certificates in the LPA region. Gauthier noted • One of the LPA representatives on the exami- that Canadian shipowners initially advocated nation board to be replaced by a Coast Guard total exemption of their vessels from compul- Examiner of Masters and Mates. sory pilotage. They later proposed, however, • A CSA-nominated observer to be allowed to an alternative exemption scheme for mariners attend oral exams. who had made a specified number of trips in • The oral exams to be recorded. the compulsory area, who had taken simulator • Part of the oral exam to be converted into a training with BRM, and whose proficiency, written exam. local knowledge and language skills had been
11 Johanne Gauthier is a legal counsel with marine-related experience with the Montréal firm of Ogilvy Renault, Barristers and Solicitors.
46 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
validated by an LPA representative and a certi- KPMG recommended that the LPA create a 20º fied master. Gauthier reported that pilots were common body of knowledge setting out what reluctant to discuss the proposal because they candidates were expected to know; create a 30º felt it would result in parallel pilotage. The structured process for candidates to follow pilots believed that certification, rather than when preparing for examinations; change the 40º exemption, was the proper approach under the oral examination from one based on open- 50º Pilotage Act. ended questions to one based on standards and Gauthier examined the matter of a syllabus objectives; and use simulators when training 60º for certification candidates and noted that pilots and evaluating candidates. felt the syllabus as modified in 1992 was clear 70º and complete but shipowners believed it Analysis To function properly, the certification process needed further revision. Gauthier tried to get 80º the parties to agree to clarify the syllabus but must be accepted by those who are subject to did not succeed. She reported that the newly it. In turn, participants will accept the process 90º appointed chairman of the LPA intended to only if they perceive it to be fair, transparent discuss the syllabus with pilots and shipowners and impartial. From the review of the various 100º with a view to making further changes, such as studies and analyses performed over the years, 110º eliminating the requirement to draw charts, it is fair to say that Canadian shipowners who introduced in 1992, and reducing the extent are subject to the current process do not accept 120º of written exams. Gauthier concluded that the it. Unless this problem is resolved, one can consultation process was not complete and that expect further studies and periodic reviews. 130º consensus on an approach was not likely before Demonstrating fairness, transparency and impar- tiality is much more difficult when the certifica- the end of 1996. 140º tion candidates are convinced that the process is THE KPMG REPORT controlled by a group with a vested interest in 150º In early 1997,Transport Canada and the CSA granting as few certificates as possible. asked KPMG Consulting to examine the LPA The CSA’s preferred approach to addressing 160º certification process and to propose ways of using this matter was a national exemption program. new technologies and techniques to modernize While this approach was rejected, as described 170º the certification process. earlier in this chapter, the Panel believes that the In its report of January 1998, KPMG con- current certification process needs to be mod- 180º cluded that the LPA certification process should ernized to respond to the challenges it faces. 190º be modernized and that greater recognition Aside from its national exemption program, should be given to candidates’ work experience the CSA has also proposed adjustments to the 200º and to recent technological developments. current certification process to respond to
210º
47 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
perceived bias and lack of transparency. These representatives of the LPA, the CSA,Transport include Canada, the St. Lawrence Shipowners Association (SLSA) and the Québec Marine • a more detailed syllabus to help candidates Institute at Rimouski. The Steering Committee better prepare for the examination; decided to develop a competency-based pro- • the use of simulators in the examination gram for certification, and retained the Marine process to bring more objectivity to the Institute to develop a methodology for mod- examination process; and ernizing the certification process. The Institute • a change in the composition of the examina- proposed a six-stage process to achieve this tion board to remove any perception that the objective. board is controlled by a group with a vested interest in controlling entry to the profession. • Phase 1:Analyze the work situation; describe the profession and its tasks, and the required While these adjustments may be valid, the skills and behaviour; make suggestions for Panel believes they may address symptoms only, training. not the root causes of the problems the CSA • Phase 2: Design a training proposal. perceives in the existing system. The Panel is • Phase 3: Validate the training proposal. convinced that a more fundamental review • Phase 4: Draft the training program; is required.As an example, a more detailed determine what candidates must know, and syllabus alone falls short of the candidate train- the associated objectives and standards. ing program recommended by the Blouin • Phase 5: Draft a teaching guide for candidates Committee, a recommendation with which that describes the objectives and standards of the Panel agrees. Similarly, using simulators in the teaching program and the weight given the examination process does not address the to each competency element; develop learn- need for examination procedures and a proper ing approaches and strategies, and a descrip- evaluation guide. tive bibliography to be used as a reference. For these reasons, the Panel believes that • Phase 6: Recommend an evaluation guide the proper approach is the one which the LPA that describes evaluation items, the weight of has initiated with the interested parties at the each item and the recommended method of beginning of this review process. evaluation for each competency. The LPA set up a Certification Steering Committee in the fall of 1998 to modernize The first three phases of the process were the certification process,12 as recommended by completed in February and March 1999. In KPMG. The Steering Committee comprises May 1999, the draft training program (Phase 4)
12 At present, the examination of the certification process is focused on District 2, the only district where Canadian masters and officers have applied for and obtained pilotage certificates.
48 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
was completed and submitted to the Steering certification process. Pilots are committed to 20º Committee. The training program was devel- continuing to help develop a modernized certi- oped by a working subcommittee comprising fication process. 30º representatives of the LPA, pilots, certified mas- DETAILED SYLLABUS ters, Canadian masters and the Marine Institute, 40º With respect to the CSA’s request for a more and an adult education specialist. The draft detailed syllabus, the training program that the 50º training program was distributed to all parties parties are currently reviewing consists of a for comment. In June 1999, the Steering detailed description of what candidates need 60º Committee officially accepted the training to know to plan a trip through the district, to program and decided to proceed with the last navigate their ship in the confined waters 70º two phases of the process: developing the teach- of the district and to carry out emergency ing guide and the evaluation guide.At the last 80º manoeuvres. This detailed program totals national meeting, the Panel learned that the 270 hours of study and training to prepare can- input of various parties would be sought in 90º didates for the certification exams.Additional the development of both of these guides. The time would be required should a candidate documents are expected to be completed 100º wish to be certified for navigation in ice, for by the middle of November 1999.After the docking procedures at certain ports and for 110º Certification Steering Committee and the LPA bridge resource management — 30 hours for Board of Directors approve these guides, the each element.As previously discussed, all par- 120º modified certification process is expected to ticipants support this training program and be implemented in early 2000. the Certification Steering Committee has 130º While the most critical parts of this six-phase accepted it. approach are the two remaining phases, the 140º The teaching guide for the revised certi- Panel is encouraged by the consensus that has fication process will include a bibliography developed on the first four phases and the 150º related to each of the elements of required agreement of all parties to proceed with the knowledge in the training program. This last two phases. Consensus on the building 160º bibliography will enable candidates to locate blocks is essential to achieve a fair and trans- and obtain relevant material. parent certification process. 170º The Panel believes that the teaching guide While the CSA has reservations about a for certification candidates should address the 180º modified certification process being adopted CSA’s concerns about the syllabus and the and implemented, the SLSA fully supports the definition of source material. 190º six-phase program leading to a more structured
200º
210º
49 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
USE OF SIMULATORS IN THE As discussed earlier, the LPA Certification EXAMINATION PROCESS Steering Committee is completing the last The CSA believes that using simulators would two phases of its program, namely the teaching reduce reliance on oral exams to establish a guide for candidates and the candidate evalua- candidate’s competence and would make the tion guide. The latter guide will describe the evaluation process more objective. Following evaluation items, the weight of each item and the June 1999 national meeting, pilots said they recommended methods of evaluation.While had no objection to using simulators or onboard the Panel does not want to prejudge the work ship handling as part of the examination process, of the Committee, it agrees with the Québec as long as these were not considered substitutes Marine Institute that the method of evaluation for the examination board’s assessment of a can- must be consistent with the factor being evalu- didate’s local knowledge. The LPA notes that ated. The pilots’ position concerning the use of the oral exam tests candidates’ local knowledge simulators in the examination process is encour- rather than their ship handling skills, so a simu- aging and suggests that consensus on this matter lator could not be used as a substitute for the is possible. The Panel believes there is merit in oral exam. using simulators as part of the training and the With respect to the use of simulators, the evaluation of candidates seeking certification. Marine Institute of Memorial University says simulators are ideal for testing behavioural char- COMPOSITION OF THE EXAMINATION BOARD acteristics and skills. The Institute points out Canadian shipowners point to the number of that simulators can be used to examine candi- pilots and to their dominant role on the exami- dates in a variety of pilotage situations without nation board to support their perception of putting personnel, vessels or cargo at risk. inherent bias in the process, which decreases a In the discussions with the representative of candidate’s chance of success. During the con- the Québec Marine Institute at Rimouski, the sultations, participants suggested that a national Panel was informed that when competency is certification board be established to conduct being assessed, not only knowledge but ability, all certification examinations in all pilotage aptitude and perception must also be evaluated. regions, or that Transport Canada take over Knowledge may be evaluated by a written or responsibility for conducting such exams.Alter- oral exam, but to test a candidate’s skills, he/she natively, some participants said, one or more must demonstrate what they are capable of certified masters could replace one or more doing either on board a ship or on a simulator. certified pilots on the examination board, This method will allow the examination board and an independent observer could be present to assess the candidate’s behaviour, perceptions during all oral exams. as well as his interaction with the bridge crew, a requirement of BRM.
50 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Foreign shipping interests do not support Panel believes that a certificated master should 20º the idea of a national examination board. They replace one of the three pilots currently on the believe that pilotage is regional in nature and examination board. 30º therefore examinations should be conducted in The LPA must continue to administer and a regional context. They do not object, how- supervise the evaluation of candidates, since it 40º ever, to having a certified master on the exami- is responsible for safety of navigation. Under a 50º nation board to give a candidate an additional revised certification process, where candidates level of comfort. are assessed in accordance with an evaluation 60º Pilots object to any change in the make up guide, a representative of the LPA must continue of the examination board, stating that experts to chair the examination board. The Panel 70º have to assess the competence of candidates and believes the chairman of the examination board that pilots are the experts. must be responsible for ensuring that the evalu- 80º The Panel notes that anyone evaluating ation guide is properly followed and that the candidates must be seen to be impartial.As recommended methods of evaluation are imple- 90º already discussed, this presents a challenge when mented.As such, this individual will require a candidates believe that the person conducting clear understanding of the different forms of 100º the evaluation has an inherent interest in limit- evaluation and the purpose of each one. In 110º ing the number of successful applicants. The the Panel’s view, the chairman will need special- Certification Steering Committee is consider- ized training in the methods and purposes of 120º ing this issue as it develops the candidate evalu- evaluation. ation guide and the methods of evaluation. The 130º Panel is convinced that a well-structured exam Panel Recommendation No. 14 with specific objectives known to the candidate The Panel recommends that the 140º in advance will alleviate some of the concerns. Laurentian Pilotage Authority be required to implement a modernized certification In addition, if the Steering Committee 150º process for LPA District 2, based on a maintains the examination board, the Panel training and evaluation program adopted agrees with the Blouin Committee recom- by the LPA Certification Steering 160º mendation that pilots should not constitute the Committee. A modernized certification process will include the following majority on the Board. The Panel agrees with 170º elements: the pilots that they have in-depth knowledge of • a competency-based training program 180º the compulsory area and are best able to assess that includes details on the required candidates in this regard.A certificated master abilities, the context of their application 190º is also, however, a professional with local knowl- and the level of performance required to achieve certification; edge and the skills necessary to pilot his vessel • a teaching guide that includes, for each 200º in the pilotage area under consideration. The of the required abilities, teaching and
210º
51 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
learning methods and bibliographical cover Canadian masters and officers until they references to help candidates prepare could become certified to pilot their own ships. for certification examinations; Canadian masters did not apply, however, for • an evaluation guide to be used by the examination board, together with certificates and, after a time, the exemption for recommended methods of evaluation Canadian ships became an established practice for each part of the examination, and was embodied in the GLPA’s regulations. including, where appropriate, the use of simulators or onboard ship handling; In May 1988, the GLPA proposed regula- • an examination board made up of tory amendments to strengthen the require- one LPA representative as the presiding ments that Canadian masters and officers must member, two pilots, one certified master, meet if the vessels under their command are and one Transport Canada represen- tative; and to be exempted from compulsory pilotage in • the training of the chairman of the GLPA designated areas. The GLPA proposed to examination board in the methods and purposes of evaluation. • define “regular member of the complement The Panel recommends that the of a ship”; Laurentian Pilotage Authority be • require officers to have performed 15 one- required to extend to District 1 the way trips in the compulsory area in the past modernized certification process developed for District 2. three years, with five of these trips in the 12 months preceding the request for exemp- Great Lakes Pilotage tion; and • require a ship in a compulsory area to have Authority two qualified officers — that is, officers who Background have met the minimum trip requirements — While the GLPA’s regulations contain provi- one of whom is master on board. sions for granting certificates to Canadian mas- Various parties filed objections and the ters and officers, the regulations also exempt Minister appointed Johanne Gauthier to investi- from compulsory pilotage Canadian ships under gate the proposed amendments. In her report the command of Canadian officers who are of February 1990, Gauthier made a number regular members of the complement of the ship of recommendations that were more stringent and who have made a minimum of 10 trips in than those proposed by the GLPA. She recom- the compulsory area in the previous three years. mended that As a result, the GLPA does not use the certifica- • the qualified officer on board the vessel tion provisions. with the master in compulsory areas have The exemption for Canadian vessels, intro- a first mate rating; duced when the Pilotage Act came into force, was intended to be a temporary measure to
52 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
• the masters and qualified officers provide shipping lines call this self-certification. It con- 20º proof that they were on the bridge of the sists of time on the bridge with qualified ship for each of the qualifying 15 trips in masters, a specified number of trips in 30º compulsory areas; and each compulsory area, simulator training • ships that constitute a risk to safety of naviga- and bridge resource management training. 40º tion be subject to having pilots on board, and Canadian shipowners argue that they have 50º that vessels carrying dangerous or hazardous the most at stake with vessels, cargo and person- goods be ineligible for exemption. nel, so they are best able to manage essential 60º safety practices. The CSA companies also point Issues to the fact that they are world leaders in adopt- 70º Pilots submit that the current exemption scheme ing and implementing modern safety and man- is an aberration that should be eliminated. They agement practices to ensure that their vessels 80º advocate some form of certification system to operate safely at all times. Canadian shipowners ensure the safety of navigation in the GLPA do not support any type of certification process 90º region. In their view, completing 10 trips in the in the GLPA region. last two years should not automatically qualify Canadian shippers do not believe a certi- 100º someone to pilot a vessel in the compulsory fication process is necessary and support the 110º area. In support of their position, they point to views of Canadian shipowners in this matter. the fact that pilot candidates from the ranks of The Ontario government believes that 120º Canadian shipowners are less experienced than safety of a transportation system can and should they used to be, but that these same people are be measured so that the system is not burdened 130º now exempted from compulsory pilotage after with extra costs unless it is clear that the related 10 trips. Pilots recognize that some masters and changes will improve safety. 140º officers currently exempted under the regula- Foreign shipowners do not agree with an tions would be treated differently should a cer- exemption scheme and support a certification 150º tification process be introduced in the GLPA process to ensure safety of navigation in the region, but they argue that such special treat- GLPA region. 160º ment should not be extended to all currently The GLPA is of the opinion that the cur- exempted masters and officers. rent requirements for exemption for Canadian 170º The CSA considers the current exemption masters and officers are not stringent enough 180º process in the GLPA to be satisfactory and and would like to see them strengthened. It says points to its safety record as evidence. Member the exemption system does not ensure that 190º companies of the CSA have internal training Canadian masters and officers are qualified to processes for all masters and officers who navi- pilot their ships safely under all circumstances. 200º gate vessels in GLPA compulsory areas. The The GLPA is of the opinion that a certification
210º
53 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
process would ensure safe navigation in the long • have successfully completed a Transport term. Nevertheless, it supports strengthened Canada bridge resource management course; requirements for Canadian masters and officers • be trained in electronic chart display and digi- wishing to obtain an exemption. tal global positioning systems; and • be proficient in the required languages. Analysis The vessels would: The Panel notes the internal standards of CSA member companies with respect to the training • be certified by Transport Canada; and experience masters and officers get before • be equipped with “state of the art” navigation navigating their vessels in GLPA compulsory technology; areas. These requirements clearly go beyond the • have an official passage plan before commenc- regulatory requirement to complete 10 trips in ing each passage; and the particular area. The Panel also notes the • be certified to the International Safety statement made by CSA representatives during Management Code or an equivalent safety the consultations that they would not allow management standard. their masters and officers to navigate a vessel Canadian shipowners say this would be a in the GLPA compulsory areas if they only self-administered program for determining the met the 10-trip requirement. The Panel agrees competency of masters and officers to pilot with the prudent approach of the CSA mem- their own ships but that a third party could bers and does not consider the current exemp- audit it to ensure that shipowners, masters, tion process to be adequate. officers and vessels meet the requirements. As discussed in the introduction to this Canadian shipowners advocate amending the chapter, the CSA is proposing an exemption Pilotage Act to incorporate the proposed exemp- scheme that would be based on specific criteria tion scheme to permanently solve the issue for masters and officers, as well as specific of certification. CSA member companies cur- requirements for vessels, as follows: rently apply most of these requirements in the The master or deck officer would: GLPA region. • have completed the required number of While, as discussed earlier, the Panel does passages in the compulsory area; not agree that such a scheme should be extended • be a regular member of the complement of to all pilotage regions, it could certainly be a the ship; valid basis for improvement in the GLPA • be certified by Transport Canada; region. The Panel believes that a combination • have successfully completed acceptable formal of some elements of the CSA proposal and of pilotage training in an accredited marine the Gauthier recommendations discussed below training institution;
54 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
would significantly improve the situation in the to see amendments to the Pilotage Act to ensure 20º GLPA region. that anyone meeting the requirements is eligible With respect to the Gauthier recommenda- for an exemption. In this regard, the Panel notes 30º tions for increasing the number and currency of that the current exemption process has func- trips a master has taken in the compulsory area, tioned as a regulatory provision for many years 40º the Panel notes that CSA companies’ in-house and that there is no reason to believe a modified 50º training programs already require masters and regulatory provision would not function satis- officers to exceed the 10 trips specified in the factorily in the future. The Panel does not 60º GLPA’s regulations. believe that a legislative provision is necessary to
The Panel, however, cannot agree with the solve a regional issue. 70º Gauthier recommendation regarding vessels car- In summary, the Panel believes that the rying dangerous or hazardous goods. The Panel exemption requirements for Canadian vessels in 80º believes that the safety of a vessel is primarily a GLPA designated areas should be strengthened function of the competency of the master and to enhance safety of navigation by adding 90º officers who have command of the vessel. If additional requirements that would masters and officers have been certified or have 100º • ensure that there are two qualified officers been granted an exemption on the basis of on board the vessel in compulsory areas — 110º certain requirements, then they are considered the master and a second officer with a first competent to navigate in compulsory areas and mate qualification; 120º the type of ship they navigate is not material. • increase the minimum number of required The Panel agrees with Bernier’s statement that trips in the compulsory area to 15 over a 130º the ship must be under the conduct of a fully three-year period, with five of these in the qualified person but this person does not have 12 months before an exemption is requested; 140º to be a pilot simply because the vessel carries • ensure that the master and officer have been dangerous or hazardous goods. 150º on the bridge of the ships for each of the In the CSA’s proposal for a national 15 trips and can provide documented proof; exemption scheme, the Panel notes that one 160º and of the suggested requirements is the successful • ensure that the master and officer requesting completion of training at a marine institute. 170º exemptions have received appropriate training The Panel believes this is a positive step toward in a marine institute acceptable to the GLPA. 180º demonstrating the competency of ship offi- The Panel also believes that the GLPA cers that should also be incorporated in the should have the right to revoke an exemption 190º enhanced requirements for exemption. in any circumstances where it considers that The CSA supports the concept of 200º the conduct of a vessel constitutes a risk to the enhanced requirements for exemption. It wants
210º
55 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT safety of navigation. In such cases, the Authority Pacific Pilotage must provide the reasons for the revocation. Authority Panel Recommendation No. 15 The PPA’s regulations contain a provision for granting certificates to Canadian masters or The Panel recommends that the Great officers; however, since compulsory pilotage Lakes Pilotage Regulations be amended to enhance requirements for exempting applies only to vessels above 10,000 gross tons vessels from compulsory pilotage in the and since virtually all of the Canadian fleet falls Great Lakes pilotage region by: under this tonnage limit, there have never been • adding a requirement ensuring that any applications for certificates and none have there are two qualified officers on board ever been issued. Larger Canadian vessels, such the vessel in compulsory areas, one being the master and the second being as passenger ferries, are also exempt from com- a deck watch officer holding a first mate pulsory pilotage, so those masters do not need qualification; to be certified. • increasing the minimum number of trips required from both the master and the deck watch officer in the compul- Pilotage Act Provision sory area to 15 in a three-year period with five of the trips completed in the for Certification of 12-month period preceding the request Masters and Officers for exemption; • adding a requirement ensuring that Background both the master and deck watch officer As noted earlier, each authority may grant requesting the exemption have been on pilotage certificates to masters and officers the bridge of the ship for each of the required 15 trips and can provide who meet certain qualifications.According to documented proof at the request of section 22 of the Pilotage Act, such a certificate the Authority; and can be granted only if the master or officer has • a requirement ensuring that both the a degree of skill and local knowledge “equiva- master and the deck watch officer requesting the exemption have received lent” to that required of a pilot. The wording of marine training acceptable to the this provision and the use of the term “equiva- Authority. lent” have historically been controversial. The Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations be further amended to add a provision Issues that would enable the Authority to revoke an exemption from compulsory pilotage, Canadian shipowners contend that the term if the Authority determines that the “equivalent” has been interpreted to mean conduct or the navigation of the vessel identical and for this reason candidates have constitutes a risk to safety of navigation. been required to demonstrate knowledge This provision should require the Authority to provide reasons for the beyond what is necessary to navigate their revocation. own ships safely. They add that while the pilots’
56 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
position may have changed recently, nothing The Panel accepts the position of the 20º prevents them from reverting to their previous authorities and the pilots that the exams for literal interpretation if section 22 is not masters and officers differ from those for pilots 30º amended. and that such exams take into account the fact Authorities and pilots say the term “equiva- that a master or officer will be piloting only the 40º lent” does not imply identical when compar- vessel of which they are a regular crew mem- 50º isons are made to pilot knowledge and skill. ber. In addition, the authorities and pilots Authorities point to the fact that they have clearly and publicly confirmed during the con- 60º different exams for pilots and for candidates sultations and the national meetings that certi- seeking certification and do not require the fication candidates are not expected to have 70º same level of in-depth knowledge from a can- skills and knowledge identical to those of pilots. didate as is expected of a pilot. This shows While there is nothing preventing either the 80º they do not interpret the word “equivalent” authorities or the pilots from reverting to a pre- as meaning identical. Pilots state that applicants vious interpretation of the word “equivalent,” it 90º are tested only for the vessel of which they are would be difficult to do so with any credibility, a crew member and for the transits that the ves- given the public statements referred to above. 100º sel will make. The pilots suggest that one way Consequently, there is no apparent need to 110º to ensure a reasonable interpretation of section open the Pilotage Act solely to modify the term 22 of the Pilotage Act is to refer to the French “equivalent” in section 22. The Panel also notes 120º text, where the word “comparable” is used; they that the changes to the certification process in believe this is a more flexible word. the LPA region should alleviate concerns over 130º the application and interpretation of section 22. Analysis Nevertheless, if the Pilotage Act is amended 140º The definition of the word “equivalent” in sec- in the future for other reasons, the Panel sug- tion 22 of the Pilotage Act has certainly been an gests that consideration be given to amending 150º issue in the past, as the Blouin Committee dis- section 22 along the following lines: covered in 1987. The Committee found that 160º ... but no pilotage certificate shall be pilot corporations felt that candidates seeking issued to an applicant therefor unless a pilotage certificate should have exactly the the candidate has demonstrated, through 170º same level of knowledge and skill that a pilot the successful completion of prescribed examinations, the degree of skill and has. The situation has, however, changed since 180º local knowledge of the waters of the that time. compulsory pilotage area that is neces- 190º sary for safe navigation.
200º
210º
57 220º 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Section 4 40º
Financial Self-Sufficiency 50º 60º
and Cost Reduction 70º
Introduction Financial 80º Throughout the consultations, a number of Self-Sufficiency 90º issues were raised for discussion and review that and Cost Reduction did not relate specifically to any of the topics 100º referred to in the Terms of Reference. Since Background Since their creation in 1972, the pilotage author- financial self-sufficiency and cost reduction 110º ities have been eligible for appropriations from relate to the overall efficiency of pilotage the federal government to cover any year-end operations, the Panel chose to deal with 120º losses, even though the legislation requires the those topics in this section of the report. authorities to operate on a self-sustaining basis. As a result, the Panel identified the follow- 130º In 1995, the National Marine Policy was devel- ing key issues for review within this section of oped, which recommended that appropriations 140º the report: should no longer be available to the authorities. • financial self-sufficiency and cost reduction; The Canada Marine Act, promulgated in June 150º • the structure of the Board of Directors; 1998, amended the Pilotage Act to implement • improved communication and consultation the National Marine Policy and prohibit parlia- 160º on operational, financial and planning issues; mentary appropriations for pilotage authorities. and 170º The PPA, the GLPA and the APA were • improved accountability. self-sufficient when the Pilotage Act was 180º amended; the LPA achieved that objective
at the end of 1998. Since all four pilotage 190º authorities were self-sufficient by the time of
the review, the main focus of discussion was 200º
210º
59 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
not on self-sufficiency but rather on cost Shippers note that, with increasing pressures reduction. from competition and volatile international It is important to clarify at the outset that, markets, businesses must continually reduce in reviewing potential cost reduction measures, costs to remain viable. They contend that profit the Panel did not conduct in-depth reviews margins are so narrow that every cost element and micro-analyse the financial or operational is important and that, therefore, transportation aspects of each authority. This level of financial costs — specifically pilotage costs — deserve scrutiny is part of the Agency’s responsibility in attention. the context of an investigation of a tariff pro- Small cost increments are significant in a posal. Rather, the Panel considered cost savings competitive environment where sales are made in a broader context and reviewed proposals on the basis of pennies per ton. Reducing costs made by interested parties for further cost is imperative, as cost control keeps companies reduction.13 in business. Shippers believe that on the Seaway and in the Great Lakes, competition has caused Issues grain shipments to shift either to the West Coast As a means of exploring all possible avenues or to the United States via the subsidized for reducing costs, the Panel raised the possibil- Mississippi River. Furthermore, they point ity of merging the LPA and GLPA. None of out that Seaway/Great Lakes shippers are the parties supported this idea; parties argued facing increased marine system fees as well as that the two regions are very distinct with threats from other modes of transportation, different working rules and different language as competition from railway and trucking requirements, and that one works closely with companies intensifies. its US counterpart; merger or amalgamation Authorities, on the other hand, note that would create, in their opinion, numerous diffi- they will continue to identify areas where culties and only minor benefits. The Panel did they can reduce costs.With respect to general not pursue this issue. administrative costs, the authorities believe that Shippers and shipowners recognize the they have brought these under control in recent authorities’ past efforts to reduce costs; however, years and that further cost reduction in this area they are not convinced that the pilotage author- is not practical. ities have pursued all possible means of reducing Pilots support the efforts of each authority costs and would, therefore, like authorities to to achieve financial self-sufficiency and note explore all potential avenues. that they have always co-operated with them
13 The cost-saving measures reviewed in this section are in addition to those that would likely result from the implementation of many of the recommendations contained in other sections of this report.
60 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
to determine areas where costs may be reduced. per assignment from the industry; the LPA’s reg- 20º They believe that they have contributed consid- ular payment to the pilots’ corporation is $4,000; erably to controlling pilotage costs. They also the productivity payment is $2,000; thus the total 30º believe that pilotage costs represent only a small payment to the pilots’ corporation is $6,000. proportion of the total costs of marine trans- Some parties are convinced that productiv- 40º portation and that, therefore, the degree to ity payments are counterproductive, result in 50º which they can contribute to the overall finan- unreasonable pilotage payments to the corpora- cial efficiency of the marine transportation tion and do not help the LPA achieve financial 60º system is limited. Pilots contend that pilotage self-sufficiency. Pilots, however, believe that the costs are an essential expense to protect ships, payments are reasonable and comparable to 70º personnel and the environment. practices in other parts of the marine sector.
Industry members recognize the authori- For example, the Canadian shipping industry 80º ties’ efforts to reduce costs but identify several pays masters extra money for duty time that areas where they believe that the authorities exceeds 200 days per year. 90º could save more money. The shipping industry notes two other In the LPA region, the industry is con- areas of cost concern: the docking pilots in 100º cerned about the productivity payments the District 2 of the LPA, and double pilotage.16 110º LPA makes to District 1 pilots’ corporation.14 In respect of double pilotage for tugs and barges Under existing contract or collective agree- specifically, Canadian shipowners note the LPA 120º ment provisions, pilots in both districts 1 and 1.1 pays the pilot corporations for two pilots but receive extra payments for assignments they receives payment from users for only one pilot. 130º complete in excess of their normal workload. In the PPA region, the shipping industry is
The extra payments for these assignments are a concerned about the high cost of pilotage in 140º percentage of the regular payment. For pilots the Fraser River.While most parties recognize in District 1.1, the productivity clause results that the Fraser River requires specialized river 150º in payments to the pilots of 30 percent of the pilotage expertise, they have, for many years, regular payment made by the Authority to called for reductions in the high costs of 160º the pilots.The District 1 pilots’ corporation pilotage services. receives 50 percent of the regular payment.15 Several factors contribute to the additional 170º An example of such a productivity payment in costs of river pilotage. The largest cost relates to 180º District 1 is as follows: the LPA collects $5,000 the fact that two pilot groups provide services,
190º 14 Other authorities also have provisions for similar payments to pilots in contracts and collective agreements with pilots
but the issue was only raised in respect of the LPA District 1. 200º 15 These percentages are those that were in effect during the period of the Review. 16 These matters have already been addressed in Chapter 1, which deals with designation of compulsory pilotage areas. 210º
61 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
so two unit charges are applied to each vessel, • Option 2: Fraser River pilots would be one for each pilot group.Another significant responsible for the corridor. cost relates to the pilot boat, which is required • Option 3: Fraser River pilots and BC Coast to serve both pilot groups.A minor cost relates pilots would be on board all vessels moving to the additional charges for approximately to and from the Fraser River. three hours while the BC Coast pilot remains • Option 4:The BC Coast and Fraser River on board with the river pilot between pilot groups would merge. New Westminster and the coast. The PPA recently met with the Chamber From the PPA’s perspective, fluctuations of Shipping of BC and representatives of the in river traffic complicate the delivery of river BC Coast pilots and the Fraser River pilots to pilotage services.With the cost of the service discuss these options. These groups will have fixed, since the pilots are employees, the volume further discussions with their members before of business directly affects the PPA’s bottom responding. Since the parties are still in discus- line. In recent years, the volume of business has sion, an alternative option may emerge. fluctuated from less than break even, in 1995, to a dramatic increase in 1998–99. Analysis Fraser River pilotage has been the subject The Panel has not identified any general of several studies in the past, with a variety of administrative costs that authorities could solutions proposed.Agreement as to the best reduce further at this time. solution, however, has never been reached. With specific reference to productivity In 1999, a committee of the Audit payments in the LPA’s districts 1.1 and 1, it is Committee of the Board was struck to study important to note the difference between pay- the Fraser River options. This committee has ments for a call-back assignment and productiv- held numerous meetings, considered all the ity payments. Off-duty pilots perform call-back data available, completed a thorough study assignments, and payments for such call-backs and investigated the positions of all interested compensate pilots for working during an parties. In reviewing the various options, com- off-duty period. Such payments are generally mittee members agreed that a fundamental viewed as similar to overtime payments. In principle must be respected — that is, that any such circumstances, an authority must deter- changes must not adversely affect the current mine whether it is more efficient and produc- high standards of safe pilotage services in the tive to train new pilots or to continue paying Fraser River. The following four options have for call-backs. been discussed with interested parties. In the case of productivity payments, pilots
• Option 1: Status quo — toward increased receive these for assignments that fall within efficiency. their normal working schedule but exceed the
62 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º number of assignments that has been established Structure of the Board 20º as the norm for each pilot each year. Conse- of Directors quently, increases in traffic volumes directly 30º affect the payments the LPA makes to pilots in Background districts 1.1 and 1 and can have an impact on The Pilotage Act allows the Governor in Council 40º the LPA’s financial position. In such a situation, to appoint a chairman and allows the Minister 50º it is not obvious how these productivity pay- to appoint six other members of each author- ments benefit users of the service. The Panel ity’s Board of Directors.While the chairman 60º asserts that this is a matter for negotiations and is appointed at pleasure, the members are 17 appointed for a term not exceeding three years. must not be ignored. 70º With respect to the Fraser River cost issue, There are no other provisions, either in the legislation or in the regulations, concerning the Panel notes that all affected parties are 80º currently considering this matter. The Panel the composition of an authority’s Board of expects that the PPA will resolve the issue in Directors. 90º a timely manner, with the co-operation of the It has been common practice for the parties. Minister of Transport to ask shipping compa- 100º nies and pilots to propose candidates from their Panel Recommendation No. 16 ranks for appointment to a Board of Directors. 110º
The Panel recommends that the authori- The Minister traditionally appoints two mem- 120º ties, in partnership with pilots and all bers from pilot groups, two from shipping com- interested parties with a legitimate inter- panies and two representing the public interest. est in pilotage, regularly examine all 130º aspects of their operations and that the Issues authorities report to the Minister of 140º Transport, in their annual reports, specific The CSA and some shipper groups are con- steps they have taken to improve efficien- cerned about the structure of these boards of 150º cies and further reduce costs. directors. They believe that the current board The Panel recommends that the PPA be structure is ineffective and delays decision mak- required to report to the Minister on the 160º ing. They contend that some members may be outcome of its review of pilotage options for the Fraser River with a schedule for compelled to act as representatives of the inter- 170º implementing the selected option. ests from which they were chosen rather than
in the interests of the authority. The CSA rec- 180º ognizes that some boards are more effective 190º
200º 17 The Panel was advised that productivity payments are currently the subject of negotiations between the LPA and Districts 1 and 1.1 pilots. 210º
63 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
than others and points to the LPA as the most conflict of interest exists.At the same time, problematic authority. It is also concerned that however, the Panel recognizes that the current certain members of the LPA board may resist structure of authorities’ boards of directors any changes recommended by the Panel and functions effectively in most regions. In addi- adopted by the Minister.As a result, changes tion, the Panel notes that the authorities’ board may be delayed or, worse, may not materialize members are subject to the federal govern- at all under the current structure. ment’s conflict of interest guidelines. The CSA is calling for national standards The Panel notes that neither the Pilotage Act and suggests that authorities’ boards be modified nor the General Pilotage Regulations specify to reflect a structure similar to that of the boards the composition of boards of directors, so the of port authorities provided for in the Canada Minister has complete latitude to select candi- Marine Act. In the case of port authorities, spe- dates. This means that it is not necessary to cific interest groups appoint directors, but an have two members from pilot groups, two ship- individual may not be a director, officer or owners’ representatives and two public interest employee of that interest group.According to representatives if that make-up does not func- the CSA, this provides for more “arms length” tion well in a specific region. Consequently, and professional boards, resulting in more trans- the panel finds no reason to recommend an parent and objective decision making. The amendment to an Act that already permits Canadian Chamber of Maritime Commerce such flexibility in the appointment process. and the Fraser River Port Authority support the CSA recommendation. Panel Recommendation No. 17 Foreign shipowners, pilots and most author- The Panel recommends that no changes ities are convinced that the current structure be made to the Pilotage Act in respect of the composition of the boards of functions well and should not be modified. directors. These parties believe there is the need for “hands-on” boards that have members with direct pilotage and shipping expertise and Consultation members who represent the public interest. Issue They argue that such expertise is crucial to Throughout the review, participants observed the decision-making process. that pilotage authorities do not consult fre- quently enough and do not communicate the Analysis outcome of consultations consistently.Canadian The Panel recognizes that the current board and foreign shipowners say certain authorities structure may adversely affect the decision- seem to make an effort to create and maintain making process and that the potential for some level of discussion with users; however,
64 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
these discussions usually centre on tariff matters. approach to consultation is needed and that the 20º Users believe that consultation is necessary to authorities should be accountable for ensuring ensure that authorities fully understand users’ more regular dialogue. 30º positions on issues and their potential impact when making decisions. Panel Recommendation No. 18 40º Shipper groups regret that they are not The Panel recommends that pilotage 50º consulted and believe their views and concerns authorities be required to hold regular consultations with interested parties on should be considered since shippers ultimately financial, operational and planning issues 60º pay for services. that affect such parties. Authorities agree that communication The Panel recommends that pilotage 70º with users is important and are committed to authorities be required to report on their plans for consultations and the imple- broadening the scope of their consultations to 80º mentation of those plans in their annual include all users of their services. Most interested report to Parliament. parties acknowledge that consultation had 90º improved during the review process and are encouraged by this development. They raised Accountability 100º doubts, however, about the extent of future The Panel identified two separate matters as 110º consultations after the completion of the concerns under the general subject of account- review. ability. These were: 120º • the reporting of incidents with ships under Analysis the control of a pilot; and 130º Most authorities have recognized the value of • the lack of a structured approach for handling consultation in recent years and have improved complaints. 140º the process.Authorities usually consult exten- sively on tariff-related matters, since they want Reporting of Incidents 150º to gain acceptance of their proposed tariff to Issue avoid objections leading to an investigation 160º of the tariff proposal by the Agency. In the PPA region, some shipping companies are dissatisfied that the PPA and pilots do not The Panel considers consultation by 170º authorities an obligation that flows from the always respond to requests for information on fact that pilotage service is provided through minor incidents in a timely fashion. They argue 180º a regulated monopoly. Therefore, authorities that information on minor incidents would 190º should extend consultation to matters beyond help prevent other incidents. They note that tariff action, such as financial, operational and while the Transportation Safety Board investi- 200º planning matters that will affect interested par- gates major incidents and distributes the reports to the parties involved, minor incidents are ties. The Panel also believes a more systematic 210º
65 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
investigated internally and the PPA or the pilots of information. The Panel, however, believes hold the information. The shipping companies sharing information is necessary to reduce the claim that pilots are reluctant to provide their risk of recurrence of similar incidents. The information or to comment due to liability and IMO Code specifically recognizes the value of legal considerations. They are also concerned sharing information; it states that the objective about the extent of remedial action taken by of any marine casualty investigation is to pre- the PPA and believe that prescribed sanctions vent similar casualties in the future. It explains against pilots under the Pilotage Act are, at times, that by introducing a common approach to insufficient. marine casualty investigations and reporting, Pilots note that while the Transportation the international maritime community may Safety Board is investigating an incident, they become better informed about the factors are unable to respond to industry requests for that cause, or contribute to, marine casualties. information related to that incident for legal Participants discussed the issue at length during reasons.With respect to prescribed sanctions, the consultations and agreed that a more open pilots explain that, while the Pilotage Act limits exchange of information on incidents would their liability to $1,000, the Canada Shipping Act benefit everyone. permits penalties ranging from $50,000 to $200,000, depending on the offence, and certain Panel Recommendation No. 19 offences can result in five years’ imprisonment. The Panel recommends that authorities, Pilots favour an increased exchange of pilots and the shipping industry establish a system for the early release of practical information to enhance safety and reduce the information about minor incidents. possibility of similar incidents. B.C. Coast pilots have created an internal information bulletin Complaints on incidents that is currently distributed to all pilots. The bulletin is designed to keep pilots Issue The shipping industry in all regions is con- informed so that they can benefit from the cerned about the lack of a structured approach experience and take whatever action is required for handling complaints about pilotage services to avoid a similar incident. The pilots also that are not related to tariff increases or regula- expect to release this bulletin to the PPA tory changes, such as complaints about oper- and are considering wider dissemination. ational matters or pilot performance. The Analysis consensus is that the authorities do not always The Panel recognizes that liability issues arising provide information about the way they from accidents and incidents tend to constrain respond to a complaint. pilots and authorities from more open exchanges
66 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Canadian shipowners are calling for the with an authority would not be resolved.As a 20º formalization of the complaint process, includ- monopoly service provider, authorities have a ing the creation of national standards. responsibility to users to ensure that parties have 30º The authorities believe that, although they some degree of certainty that authorities will use an informal process, they generally handle examine an issue and make the outcome 40º complaints as quickly as possible and to the known. 50º satisfaction of most parties. Panel Recommendation No. 20 60º Analysis The Panel recommends that the pilotage It is unclear from the consultations whether this authorities establish a structured method- 70º problem is frequent or widespread; however, to ology for handling complaints that ensures that the complainant receives the extent that this problem is present, the Panel timely feedback about the outcome or 80º fails to understand why any complaint filed the action taken.
90º
100º
110º
120º
130º
140º
150º
160º
170º
180º
190º
200º
210º
67 220º 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Implementing 40º
the Recommendations 50º 60º
The Panel has included specific time frames for by the pilotage authorities pursuant to the 70º implementing those recommendations where recommendations. timing appeared critical. The absence of specific Consequently, the Panel believes that each 80º time frames for other recommendations should authority should, after consultation with the not be taken as an indication that the recom- interested parties, produce a plan that sets out 90º mendation is less important. Rather, this recog- its priorities and time frame for implementing nizes that, while parties should make every these recommendations. 100º effort to implement these recommendations quickly, the priorities may vary from authority Panel Recommendation No. 21 110º to authority. It also recognizes that the respon- The Panel recommends that each sibility for allocating resources rests with the authority be required to submit, within 120º six months of the tabling of the report, authorities and that they are in a better position and following consultations with the 130º to determine their priorities. interested parties, a plan to the Minister While recognizing the pilotage authorities’ of Transport setting out, in order of prior- 140º responsibility, the Panel is of the view that the ity, the proposed implementation and anticipated completion date of all the interested parties have a role to play in the recommendations contained in this report 150º implementation process, in that they will be that do not have a specific time frame. directly affected by the measures undertaken 160º
170º
180º
190º
200º
210º
69 220º 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
20º
30º
Postscript 40º
During recent decades, pilotage services in concerned about who would monitor the 50º Canada have been the subject of many exhaus- implementation process to ensure full compli- 60º tive reports and reviews.At the national meet- ance, and how. ing in June 1999, a consensus emerged that the The Panel leaves the matter of future mon- 70º time for change had arrived. Parties generally itoring unresolved, but it does wish to inform agreed that changes along the lines suggested by the Minister of the parties’ belief that some 80º the Panel seemed appropriate. However, parties means are needed to follow up on all recom- questioned how these recommendations would mendations that are formally adopted.At the 90º be implemented and monitored. moment, the parties exhibit an encouraging
Participants recognized that action on the spirit of cooperation and willingness to change, 100º Panel’s recommendations would come about as demanded by the current situation. The through ministerial directives or legislative and Panel believes that active monitoring could 110º regulatory change. However, they remained maintain this momentum. 120º
130º
140º
150º
160º
170º
180º
190º
200º
210º
71 220º 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Appendix I 20º
Ms. Marian L. Robson 30º Chairman Canadian Transportation Agency 40º Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N9 50º
Dear Ms. Robson, 60º
Now that the Canada Marine Act (CMA) has received Royal Assent, we have commenced the 70º challenging process of implementing the provisions of this law which we hope will ensure the continued competitiveness of Canada’s marine sector. 80º
One area which has received considerable attention is the pilotage sector. Canada’s pilotage regime 90º was widely debated in the various fora leading up to the introduction of the Act resulting in numer- 100º ous changes to the Pilotage Act being included in Part 7 of the legislation.While the changes to the law have introduced many progressive changes, the government acknowledged that there were still 110º some outstanding issues which merited further study. Consequently, Section 157 of the CMA contains a provision which amends the Pilotage Act as follows: 120º
53. (1) The Minister shall, in consultation with each Authority, its users and other persons 130º affected, at the latest one year after the coming into force of this section, review the pilot certification process for masters and officers, training and licensing requirements for pilots, 140º compulsory pilotage area designations, dispute resolution mechanisms and the measures taken
in respect of financial self-sufficiency and cost reduction, and prepare a report of the findings. 150º (2) The Minister shall have a copy of each report laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first thirty days on which that House is sitting after the Minister prepares it. 160º
I would like to request that the Agency undertake this Pilotage Review on my behalf in accordance 170º with the attached Terms of Reference. I feel that the Agency’s independence from the Department, the fact that you have an administration in place which is familiar with pilotage issues and your expe- 180º rience in conducting public hearings and consultations, make the Agency a logical choice to provide an impartial, unbiased assessment of the issues at hand. 190º
200º
210º
73 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
It is our intention to bring into force Part 7 and consequential amendments of the CMA on October 1, 1998. In order to allow enough time for me to prepare a report of your findings for Parliament, I would ask that the results of the Review be submitted to me no later than September 1, 1999.
While the Agency will be free to undertake the Review as it deems appropriate, I would appreciate if an administrative liaison could be established with my Department to provide ongoing updates with respect to the progress and conduct of the Review. Our Director of Certification and Pilotage, Mr. Gerard McDonald, will be the contact in this regard.
I thank you for taking on this challenge and look forward to hearing of your deliberations on these important issues.
Yours sincerely,
Hon. David M. Collenette, P.C., M.P.
Attachments
74 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Ministerial Review of Outstanding Pilotage Issues 20º
Terms of Reference 30º
• Improvements to the mechanism for setting 1. Background 40º Marine pilotage in Canada has been a matter of pilotage rates; and • The users’ requirement to reduce pilotage vigorous debate at various times over the past 50º eighty years. These debates have sparked many costs. inquiries, including six Royal Commissions, Four regional working groups and a 60º the most recent of which (the “Bernier” National Task Force on Marine Pilotage Policy 70º Commission) lasted nine years and led to the were put in place, representing a wide cross- adoption in 1972 of the present Pilotage Act. section of the shipping industry and shippers. 80º In May 1995, the House of Commons The Task Force endorsed the view that Standing Committee on Transport (SCOT) pilotage services should continue to be orga- 90º released a report on the marine sector, in nized as four regional Pilotage Authorities. which it expressed concern that organized The Task Force also proposed several changes 100º pilotage was taking too big a share of marine to the Pilotage Act which aimed to improve sector resources and proposed a new pilotage the efficiency and financial stability of the 110º regime. four Authorities. In addition, all Authorities The Standing Committee proposals were committed to follow up on outstanding issues 120º debated in a number of fora over the following such as: months. These discussions revealed that a 130º • further cost-reduction measures; majority in the marine community felt that • the examination of specific local issues in sufficient improvements could be achieved 140º such operations as those at the Port of Prince within the existing pilotage structure. Rupert and on the Fraser River; and 150º Taking these views into consideration, • the signing of agreements with their pilot four key issues still had to be addressed: groups on an appropriate dispute resolution 160º • The extent of waters now included as com- clause. pulsory pilotage areas, and the designation 170º In order to ensure that outstanding issues mechanism; were resolved, the government further proposed • The qualifications for a pilot licence or cer- 180º to reassess the pilotage regime by December 31, tificate, and the basis for granting exemptions 1998. 190º and waivers;
200º
210º
75 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
The Canada Marine Act (CMA) was origi- days on which that House is sitting nally tabled in the House of Commons on after the Minister prepares it. June 10, 1996 and was subsequently referred to SCOT for review. The Standing Committee, in 2. Review Objective its report to Parliament, felt there was a need to To conduct a forward-looking review of the address the pilotage issues in a more expeditious marine pilotage system and to develop recom- manner and suggested moving the Review for- mendations to ensure Canada has an efficient, ward by one year. Bill C-44 had not yet passed viable, and safe pilotage system to meet the in the Senate before Parliament was dissolved ongoing and long-term expectations and on April 27, 1997. demands of all users. The CMA was re-introduced as Bill C-9 The recommendations will reflect, as much on October 2, 1997. Because time had over- as possible, a high degree of consensus amongst taken the revised deadlines for the Review, system stakeholders. SCOT,in its re-examination of the Bill, suggested that the Review be completed 3. Scope The parameters set forth in the legislation within one year of the coming into force are fairly precise as to what issues are to be of the pilotage section (Part 7) of the Act. reviewed. Specifically, there are five distinct Consequently, Section 157 of the CMA subject areas which must be covered: contains a provision to amend the Pilotage Act by adding a requirement for the Minister to • pilot certification process for masters and further review the pilotage system which reads officers; as follows: • training and licensing requirements for pilots; • compulsory pilotage area designations; 53. (1) The Minister shall, in consulta- tion with each Authority, its users and • dispute resolution mechanisms; and other persons affected, at the latest one • measures taken in respect of financial self- year after the coming into force of this sufficiency and cost reduction. section, review the pilot certification process for masters and officers, training The Review itself will encompass three and licensing requirements for pilots, broad elements: research, consultation and for- compulsory pilotage area designations, dispute resolution mechanisms and the mulation of recommendations. In respect of measures taken in respect of financial item 4, the Review by the Agency would only self-sufficiency and cost reduction, and relate to mechanisms for resolving disputes prepare a report of the findings. about contracts for pilotage services. (2) The Minister shall have a copy of The research phase of the Review will be each report laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first thirty broken down into four component studies
76 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º which mirror the issues noted above (items 4. Recommendations and Timing 20º 1 and 2, because of their similar subject areas A final report will be prepared and submitted to will be dealt with as one comprehensive study). the Minister which will report in the following 30º These studies will describe the current situation, manner: identify deficiencies, as highlighted by appro- 40º i) recommendations on issues or subject matter priate stakeholders, and formulate possible solu- where there is a high degree of consensus 50º tions or recommendations for consideration by on solutions; both government and industry. ii) issues or subject matter where a high degree 60º Consultation will be done on an ongoing of consensus was not achieved; basis with appropriate stakeholders, however, iii) stakeholder recommendations on issues or 70º two national meetings of interested parties will subject matter in ii) above; be convened. The first will be held at the com- iv) author recommendations on issues or 80º mencement of the Review with the goal being subject matter in ii) above. to solicit stakeholder views on the conduct and 90º emphasis of the Review. The second national A final report will be submitted to the meeting will be held once the component stud- Minister of Transport within eleven months 100º ies have been completed to debate overall study of the coming into force of Part 7 of the 110º recommendations and conclusions. Canada Marine Act. In developing recommendations, a full 120º assessment of the impact of such recommenda- tions on all components of the pilotage system, 130º including system stakeholders, will be made.
140º
150º
160º
170º
180º
190º
200º
210º
77 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Appendix II Interested Parties
Individuals and organizations who demonstrated an interest in the Review.
Mr.André Roberge Mr. Rio St.Amand Agences Océaniques du Bas Saint-Laurent ltée Atlantic Towing Limited Mr. Brian Saunderson Captain D. Blanchor Agricore Cooperative Ltd. Avenor Maritime Inc. Ms. Rita Ellis Mr. Michel Broad Alberta Pool B & K Shipping Ltd. Mr. Gary Rosko Mr. Michel Guimond, M.P., Beauport– Alberta Transportation and Utilities Montmorency–Côte-de-Beaupré–Île d’Orléans Bloc Québécois Transport Critic Mr. Rod Thompson Alberta Transportation and Utilities Mr. Paul Devries British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Captain James Pound Algoma Central Corporation Captain Gerry Farley British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Captain Harry S.Waugh Algoma Tankers Ltd. Captain Finn Hoyrup British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Mr. Paul Nykanen Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Captain Jim McPherson Canada British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Ms.Anne Castonguay-Soucie Captain Bob Kitching Atlantic Pilotage Authority British Columbia Institute of Technology Captain Don MacAlpine Mr. R.V. Wilds Atlantic Pilotage Authority British Columbia Maritime Employers Association Mr. Peter MacArthur Atlantic Pilotage Authority Mr. Gary Farrell Canada Maritime Agencies Ltd. Captain R.Anthony McGuinness Atlantic Pilotage Authority Ms. Norma Rose Canada Maritime Agencies Ltd. Ms. Elizabeth Beale Atlantic Provinces Economic Council Mr. David Scratch Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board Ms. Mona Savoie Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission Captain Gordon (Kip) Hacquoil Canada Steamship Lines Mr. Peter Vuillemot Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission Mr. Raymond Johnston Canada Steamship Lines Mr. Ron Clark Atlantic Towing Limited
78 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Mr. Kirk Jones Mr. Guy Genois 20º Canada Steamship Lines Canadian Salt Limited
Mr.Wayne Morrison Captain Réjean Lanteigne 30º Canada Steamship Lines Canadian Shipowners Association
Captain John Pace Mr. Donald Morrison 40º Canada Steamship Lines Canadian Shipowners Association
Mr. Pierre Alvarez Mr. Blaine Higgs 50º Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Canaport Limited
Mr. David Goffin Mr. Brian Knight 60º Canadian Chemical Producers’Association Canfor Wood Products Marketing
Mr. Neil Stephens Mr. Rod MacDonald 70º Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Cape Breton Development Corporation
Mr. Roger Larson Captain Terry R. Pittman 80º Canadian Fertilizer Institute Cape Breton Pilot Group
Ms. Lisa MacGillivray Captain John Stewart 90º Canadian Industrial Transportation Association Cast North America Inc.
Mr. Richard Vézina Mr. Jim Campbell 100º Canadian Marine Officers’ Union Chamber of Maritime Commerce
Captain Serge Arcand Mr. Douglas Smith 110º Canadian Marine Pilots’Association Chamber of Maritime Commerce
Captain Gérard Belley Mr. Ron Cartwright 120º Canadian Marine Pilots’Association Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia
Captain Alex MacIntyre Mr. Brock Chrystal 130º Canadian Marine Pilots’Association Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia Captain Michel Pouliot M.Ton Plateel 140º Canadian Marine Pilots’Association Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia Captain Wayne Whyte Mr.Anthony G. Roper 150º Canadian Marine Pilots’Association Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia
Mr. Lawrence Dempsey Mr. J. Brian Zak 160º Canadian Merchant Service Guild Coast Forest & Lumber Association Captain Maury Sjoquist Mr. Guy Dufresne 170º Canadian Merchant Service Guild Compagnie Minière Québec Cartier Mr. Robert J. Broeska Captain David Carter 180º Canadian Oilseed Processors Association Company of Master Mariners of Canada (The) Mr. Pierre Caron Captain John Daniels 190º Canadian Pulp and Paper Association Company of Master Mariners of Canada (The) Mr. David Church Captain Alan Knight 200º Canadian Pulp and Paper Association Company of Master Mariners of Canada (The)
210º
79 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Captain Wilson Stuart Mr. Gord Tufts Company of Master Mariners of Canada (The) Department of Transportation and Public Works Mr. Don Fitzpatrick Prince Edward Island Comtug Limited Ms. Sherry Appleby Mr. David Thompson Department of Works, Services and Conservation Council of New Brunswick Transportation Mr. Jean Lapointe Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent Mr. Doug Shea Captain Guy Marmen Department of Works, Services and Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent Transportation Captain Louis Rhéaume Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent Mr. Ernest Beaupertuis Captain Gilles Harvey Enerchem Transport Inc. Corporation des pilotes du port de Montréal Mr. Eric Hodgson Captain Raymond Jourdain Esso Petroleum Canada (East) (Imperial Oil) Corporation des pilotes du port de Montréal Mr. Gordon Smith Captain Fidèle Tremblay F.K.Warren Limited Corporation des pilotes du port de Montréal Mr. Paul Gourdeau Captain Guy Daoust Fednav International Ltd. Corporation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central Mr. David Grieve Captain Jacquelin Hardy Fednav International Ltd. Corporation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central Mr. Peter Matthews Captain Pierre Boucher Fisheries Council of British Columbia Corporation of Professional Great Lakes Pilots Captain Ted King Captain Michael Pratt Fraser River Pilots’Association Corporation of Professional Great Lakes Pilots Captain Allen Domaas Captain Charles W. Tully Fraser River Port Authority Corporation of Professional Great Lakes Pilots Mr. Barry Heselgrave Mr. Ron MacDonald Fraser Surrey Docks Ltd. Council of Forest Industries Mr. Gregory Thompson Mr. Kim Graybiel Fundy North Fishermen’s Association Department of Highways and Transportation Ms. Nicole Boudrau Saskatchewan Fundy Shipping Inc. Ms. Nancy Belding Mr. Kim Laing Department of Transportation Furncan Marine Limited New Brunswick Captain Stephen Brown Gearbulk Shipping Canada Ltd.
80 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Captain Robert Leanord Goodfellow Mr. Robert B. Pelletier 20º Goodfellow Shipping Agency Limited Institut maritime du Québec
Mr. Dick Armstrong Mr. Robert Youden 30º Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd. Irving Transportation Services
Mr. Brian Ducharme Mr. Gerry N. Skura 40º Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd. James Richardson International
Mr. Robert Lemire Captain Richard Goddard 50º Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd. Kent Line Limited
Mr. Louis-Marie Beaulieu Captain Clément Deschênes 60º Groupe Desgagnés Inc. Laurentian Pilotage Authority
Captain Rosaire Desgagnés Mr. Guy Major 70º Groupe Desgagnés Inc. Laurentian Pilotage Authority
Mr. Jacques Tanguay Mr.Yvon Martel 80º Le Groupe Océan Inc. Laurentian Pilotage Authority
Mr.Wade Elliott Mr. Jean-Claude Michaud 90º Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Laurentian Pilotage Authority Commission Mr. Denis Pouliot 100º Mr. Donald Jeans Laurentian Pilotage Authority Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Mr.A. Taschereau 110º Commission Laurentian Pilotage Authority Captain Allan Stockdale Mrs. Suzanne Paquin 120º Halifax Pilot Group Logistec Navigation Inc. Ms. Cheryl Bidgood Mr. Tom Stevens 130º Halifax Port Authority MacMillan Bloedel Limited Captain Randall Sherman Mr. Jim H. Peachey 140º Halifax Port Authority Marine Safety Agency Mr. Robert Hennessy Ms. Jane Madsen 150º Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Maritime Canada Shipping Services Ltd. Mr. Nath Cooper Mr. Garth McKeil 160º Harvey CSM Offshore Services Ltd. McKeil Marine Limited Mr. Len Cughlan Mr. John Connors 170º Hibernia Management & Development Co. Memorial University of Newfoundland Ltd. Fisheries and Marine Institute 180º Mr. Ross Matthews Dr. Jacek Pawlowski Imperial Oil Limited Memorial University of Newfoundland 190º Mr. Raymond Giguère Fisheries and Marine Institute Institut maritime du Québec Mr. Gilles Desgagnés 200º Ministère des Transports du Québec
210º
81 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Mr. Michel Dignard Mr. Daryl Black Ministère des Transports du Québec Miramichi Regional Development Corporation The Honourable Dave Keenan, MLA Captain Jean-Luc Bédard Ministry of Community and Transportation Montréal Port Authority Services Mr. Kirk Tyler Yu ko n Montship Inc. The Honourable Glen Findlay, MLA Mr. Robert J. Paterson Ministry of Highways and Transportation N.M. Paterson and Sons Ltd. Manitoba Mr. Bill Mills Mr. Doug Howard Nanaimo Port Authority Ministry of Transportation Northwest Territories Mr. Kevin Obermeyer Nanaimo Port Authority The Honourable Vince Steen, MLA Ministry of Transportation Mr. Toni Nardi Northwest Territories Neptune Bulk Terminals (Canada) Ltd. The Honourable Tony Clement, MPP Mr. John Wilcox Ministry of Transportation Neptune Bulk Terminals (Canada) Ltd. Ontario Mrs. Ruth Graham Mr. Peter Dudka Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association Ministry of Transportation Captain Sidney J. Hynes Ontario Newfoundland Transshipment Limited Mr. Rod Taylor Mr. Harvey J. Mott Ministry of Transportation Newfoundland Transshipment Limited Ontario Mr. Graham Allen The Honourable Harry S. Lali, MLA Noranda Inc. Ministry of Transportation and Highways British Columbia Mr. Jerry Stacey North Atlantic Refinery Limited Mr. Nicholas Vincent Ministry of Transportation and Highways Mr. George W.Colquhan British Columbia North Fraser Port Authority Mr. C.B. Huskilson Mr. John Cox Ministry of Transportation and Public Works North West CruiseShip Association Nova Scotia Mr. Cees Deelstra Mr. Charlie Mackenzie North West CruiseShip Association Ministry of Transportation and Public Works Mr. John Hansen Nova Scotia North West CruiseShip Association Mr. Don Stonehouse Mr. Lars Ljoen Ministry of Transportation and Public Works North West CruiseShip Association Nova Scotia Mr. Derrick Briggs Northern Transportation Company Ltd.
82 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Mr. C.W.Clement Mr. J. Pearson 20º Northern Transportation Company Ltd. Prairie Pools Inc.
Mr. Terry J.A. Park Mr. Ivan Noonan 30º Nova Chemicals Ltd. Prince Edward Island Potato Board
Mr. Erle G. Barrett Mr. Jeff Burghardt 40º Océanex (1997) Inc. Prince Rupert Grain Ltd.
Mr. Gilles Champagne Mr. Don Krusel 50º Océanex (1997) Inc. Prince Rupert Port Authority
Mr.Yvon Dufour Ms. Rhoda Witherly 60º Océanex (1997) Inc. Prince Rupert Port Authority
Captain Michel Duplin Mr. Dave Woodman 70º Océanex (1997) Inc. Prince Rupert Port Authority
Mr. Michel Parent Mr. George De Santi 80º Océanex (1997) Inc. QIT-Fer et Titane
Ms. Johanne Gauthier Mr.W.Stanley Webber 90º Ogilvy Renault Quay Cruise Agencies
Mr. Robert Bremner Mr.Alexis Ségal 100º OOCL Canada inc. Québec Port Authority
Mr. Bruce Chadwick Mr. Lee Morrison, M.P. 110º Pacific Pilotage Authority Cypress Hills–Grasslands Reform Party Transport Critic Mr. Maurice Fellis 120º Pacific Pilotage Authority Mr. Brian Ritchie Rigel Shipping Canada Inc. Captain Robin Heath 130º Pacific Pilotage Authority Captain Pierre LeClaire River and Seaway Pilots Corporation Mr. Dennis McLennan 140º Pacific Pilotage Authority Mr. Peter Fagan Riverside Forest Products Limited Captain Glenn Lawrence 150º Pilot’s Corporation Lake Ontario and Harbours Mr.Wayne Cammell Rivtow Marine Ltd. Captain Richard Winnel 160º Pilot’s Corporation Lake Ontario and Harbours Mr. Michael Milner Robert Reford Inc. Mr. David Hart 170º Point Tupper Marine Services Ltd. Mr. Steven Cutler Saga Forest Carriers International Ltd. Mr. Dennis White 180º Port Alberni Port Authority Mrs. G. Collard Saguenay Port Authority Mr. Guy Desgagnés 190º Port of Belledune Captain R.A. Pennington Saint John Pilot Group Captain Wynford Goodman 200º Port of Belledune
210º
83 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Captain Peter Turner Mr. Claude Mailloux Saint John Port Authority SODES Captain Nelson Pittman Mr. Peter Baumgartl St. John’s Pilot Group Stelco Inc. Captain Henry Flight Mr. Bill MacInnis St. John’s Port Authority Stora Port Hawkesbury Ms. Nicole Trépanier Mr. John Francis St. Lawrence Shipoperators Association Strait Crossing Bridge Ltd. Mr. Leroy Larsen Mr. Ross Gilmour Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Strait Crossing Bridge Ltd. Captain Torben Hestbaek Mr. John Myers Seabase Limited Sultran Ltd. Mr. Paul Locke Mr.Yorke Barrington Seabase Limited Sydney Steel Corporation Captain William F.Morgan Mr. M. Fournier Seabase Limited The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Mr. Roman Gralewicz Mr. Pierre Cécile Seafarers’ International Union of Canada The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation Mr. John Barker Seaspan International Limited Mr.André Landry The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Mr. Brian McAdam Corporation Seaway Bulk Carriers Captain Ivan Lantz Mr.Wayne A. Smith The Shipping Federation of Canada Seaway Self Unloaders Captain Frank Nicol Mr. Chris Hall The Shipping Federation of Canada Secunda Marine Services Limited Ms. Sonia Simard Captain John Hughes The Shipping Federation of Canada Secunda Marine Services Limited Ms. Rebecca Johnson Mr. Fred Smithers Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce Secunda Marine Services Limited Mr. Dennis E. Johnson Mr.Valmont Bourgeois Thunder Bay Port Authority Sept-Îles Port Authority Mr. Paul Kennedy Captain Maarten Buth Thunder Bay Port Authority Shell Canada Products Ltd. Mr. Michael Doran Mr.Al Hamilton Toronto Port Authority Sifto Salt Mr. Gerard McDonald Mr. Jim Powell Transport Canada Skeena Cellulose Inc.
84 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Captain Harvey Wade Consultants 20º Transport Canada Captain Claude L. Ball
Mr. Robert Masson Captain David Batchelor 30º Trois-Rivières Port Authority Mr. Pierre Blouin Captain Ross Armstrong 40º Mr. Pelino Colaiacovo ULS Corporation Mr. Jim Everson Captain Walter Davis 50º ULS Corporation Mr. Robert G. Friend
Mr. Louis Forget Mr. David K. Gardiner 60º Ultramar Mr. Philippe I. Georges Mr. John Radosevic 70º Mr. T. Norman Hall United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union Captain Guy LaHaye Mr. Trevor Heaver 80º University of British Columbia Captain A.D. Latter
Mr. Louis Drolet Mr.Yvon Matte 90º Upper Lakes Group Inc. Captain Angus McDonald Captain John Greenway Mr. Neil McNeil 100º Upper Lakes Group Inc. Mr. Dusty Miller Mr. Chris Badger 110º Vancouver Port Authority Captain Robert C. Milne
Mr. Michael Cormier Mr. Bruce Murdock 120º Vancouver Port Authority Mr. Jim Roche Captain Norman C. Stark Mr. Mario St-Pierre 130º Vancouver Port Authority Mr. Tom Sellers Mr. Tom E. Culham 140º Mr. Johnathan Seymour Weldwood of Canada Limited Mr. Louis A. Toupin Mr. Keith Manifold 150º West Fraser Timber Ltd. Mr. J.P. Turcotte
Mr. Dave Morris 160º Westward Shipping Ltd. Mr. K.H. Bjorndal 170º Weyerhaeuser Canada Ltd. Mr. David Cree 180º Windsor Port Authority
190º
200º
210º
85 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Appendix III Written Submissions
Agences Océaniques du Bas Saint-Laurent Canadian Shipowners Association, June 3,1999 ltée, June 23, 1999 Canadian Shipowners Association, Agricore National Affairs, January 27, 1999 June 4, 1999 Alberta Minister ofInfrastructure, Canadian Shipowners Association, August 5, 1999 June 30, 1999 Atlantic Pilotage Authority, May 17, 1999 Canaport Limited, September 29, 1998 Canaport Limited, May 19, 1999 Batchelor Marine Consulting Services Inc., Chamber of Maritime Commerce, September 30, 1998 December 22, 1998 Bloc Québécois, July 9, 1999 Chamber of Maritime Commerce, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd., January 4, 1999 October 28, 1998 Chamber of Maritime Commerce, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd., June 11, 1999 June 2, 1999 Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, British Columbia Maritime Employers July 9, 1998 Association, October 27, 1998 Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, February 15, 1999 Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, September 25, 1998 February 23, 1999 Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, February 12, 1999 May 13, 1999 Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, February 24, 1999 June 16, 1999 Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, May 3, 1999 June 30, 1999 Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, May 27, 1999 September 16, 1999 Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association, Company of Master Mariners of Canada June 30, 1999 (The), September 25, 1998 Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, Conservation Council of New Brunswick, June 8, 1999 April 15, 1999 Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent, September 23, 1998 March 12, 1999 Canadian Shipowners Association, September 28, 1998 Department ofWorks, Services and Canadian Shipowners Association, Transportation, Newfoundland and December 2, 1998 Labrador, February 1, 1999 Canadian Shipowners Association, April 12, 1999 Fednav International Ltd., July 7, 1999 Canadian Shipowners Association, May 7,1999 Fraser River Port Authority, January 7, 1999
86 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Fraser River Port Authority, April 28, 1999 Northwest Corridor Development 20º Fraser River Port Authority, June 18, 1999 Corporation, March 11, 1999 Fraser Surrey Docks Ltd., 30º November 19, 1998 Pacific Pilotage Authority, April 27, 1999 Fundy North Fishermens’ Association, Pacific Pilotage Authority, June 29, 1999 April 29, 1999 Pacific Pilotage Authority, July 21, 1999 40º Prairie Pools Inc., September 15, 1998
Gallant, C.G., April 20, 1999 Prince Rupert Grain Ltd., 50º Gearbulk Shipping Canada Ltd., February 16, 1999 June 30, 1999 Prince Rupert Port Authority, 60º Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd., January 15, 1999 June 16, 1999 Québec Port Authority, June 28, 1999 70º Halifax Pilot Group, May 14, 1999 Saint John Port Authority, May 12, 1999 80º Irving Oil Limited, May 19, 1999 St. Lawrence Shipoperators Association Inc., Irving Oil Limited, June 16, 1999 June 21, 1999 Sheehan, Clark J., May 21, 1999 90º Kent Line Limited, June 8, 1999 Strait Crossing Bridge Ltd., January 21, 1999 100º Laurentian Pilotage Authority, The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, October 5, 1998 September 23, 1998 110º Laurentian Pilotage Authority, The St. Lawrence Seaway Management November 2, 1998 Corporation, October 6, 1998 Laurentian Pilotage Authority, The St. Lawrence Seaway Management 120º January 18, 1999 Corporation, June 30, 1999
Laurentian Pilotage Authority, May 5, 1999 The Shipping Federation of Canada, 130º September 25, 1998 Matte,Yvon, September 25, 1998 The Shipping Federation of Canada, 140º McCartney, Bill, March 22, 1999 October 2, 1998 McIntosh, Andrew, April 15, 1999 The Shipping Federation of Canada, McKeil Marine Limited, September 9, 1998 December 23, 1998 150º McKeil Marine Limited, February 23, 1999 The Shipping Federation of Canada,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, February 23, 1999 160º Fisheries and Marine Institute, The Shipping Federation of Canada, September 25, 1998 June 21, 1999 Ministry ofTransportation and Highways, The Shipping Federation of Canada, 170º British Columbia, October 1, 1998 July 16, 1999 Ministry ofTransportation, Ontario, T. Norman Hall Group Inc., January 30, 1999 180º October 7, 1998
Ultramar, June 28, 1999 190º Neptune Bulk Terminals (Canada) Ltd., United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ November 17, 1998 Union, December 2, 1998 New Brunswick Museum, May 31, 1999 200º Newfoundland Transshipment Limited, Vancouver Port Authority, November 9, 1998 October 7, 1998 210º
87 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Appendix IV List of Meetings
REGIONAL MEETINGS Laurentian Region October 5, 1998 Individual meetings in Montréal, Québec with: • Laurentian Pilotage Authority • The Shipping Federation of Canada October 6, 1998 Public meeting in Montréal, Québec October 30, 1998 Individual meetings in Hull, Québec with: • Mr. Michel Guimond, MP,Beauport–Montmorency– Côte-de-Beaupré–Île d’Orléans and Bloc Québécois, Transport Critic • Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent, Corporation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central and LPA Employee Pilots of the Port of Montréal February 2, 1999 Individual meetings in Montréal, Québec with: • Canadian Pulp and Paper Association • Canadian Ships Masters and Officers • Canadian Shipowners Association • The Shipping Federation of Canada • Chamber of Maritime Commerce • Laurentian Pilotage Authority • Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent, Corporation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central and LPA Employee Pilots of the Port of Montréal February 3, 1999 Public meeting in Montréal, Québec May 3, 1999 Individual meetings in Montréal, Québec with: • Institut maritime du Québec • Laurentian Pilotage Authority • Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent, Corporation des pilotes du Saint-Laurent Central and LPA Employee Pilots of the Port of Montréal • Canadian Shipowners Association May 12, 1999 Individual meeting in Hull, Québec with: • Institut maritime du Québec May 21, 1999 Individual meeting in Montréal, Québec with: • St. Lawrence Shipoperators Association Inc.
88 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Great Lakes Region 20º October 7, 1998 Individual meetings in Hull, Québec with: • Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd. 30º • Government of Ontario
• Canadian Shipowners Association 40º October 8, 1998 Public meeting in Hull, Québec October 29, 1998 Individual meeting in Hull, Québec with: 50º • GLPA Employee Pilots 60º February 24, 1999 Individual meetings in Hull, Québec with: • Canadian Shipowners Association • GLPA Employee Pilots 70º • Chamber of Maritime Commerce
• The Shipping Federation of Canada 80º • Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd.
February 25, 1999 Public meeting in Hull, Québec 90º May 7, 1999 Individual meetings in Hull, Québec with: • Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd. 100º • GLPA Employee Pilots • Canadian Shipowners Association 110º • The Shipping Federation of Canada
Atlantic Region 120º October 20, 1998 Individual meetings in Halifax, Nova Scotia with: 130º • Atlantic Pilotage Authority • APA Employee Pilots • New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia 140º and Prince Edward Island provincial governments October 21, 1998 Public meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia 150º March 2, 1999 Individual meetings in Halifax, Nova Scotia with: 160º • Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission • APA Employee Pilots • Atlantic Pilotage Authority 170º • Canaport Ltd.
• Canadian Shipowners Association 180º • The Shipping Federation of Canada
March 3, 1999 Public meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia 190º May 6, 1999 Individual meetings in Halifax, Nova Scotia with: • Atlantic Pilotage Authority 200º • APA Employee Pilots • Canadian Shipowners Association 210º
89 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Pacific Region October 26, 1998 Individual meetings in Vancouver, British Columbia with: • Pacific Pilotage Authority • Fraser River Pilots’Association • Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia October 27, 1998 Individual meetings in Vancouver, British Columbia with: • Saskatchewan,Alberta and British Columbia provincial governments October 27, 1998 Public meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia October 28, 1998 Individual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia with: • British Columbia Coast Pilots Corporation Ltd. February 16, 1999 Individual meetings in Vancouver, British Columbia with: • Skeena Cellulose Inc. • Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia • British Columbia Coast Pilots Corporation Ltd. • Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. • Pacific Pilotage Authority • Prince Rupert Port Authority • Fraser River Pilots’Association • David Batchelor February 17, 1999 Public meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia April 28, 1999 Individual meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia with: • Pacific Pilotage Authority April 28, 1999 Public meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia
GENERAL MEETINGS October 21, 1998 Meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia with: • Memorial University of Newfoundland, Fisheries and Marine Institute January 18/19, 1999 First National Meeting in Ottawa, Ontario April 20, 1999 Meeting in St. John’s, Newfoundland • Memorial University of Newfoundland, Fisheries and Marine Institute June 9/10, 1999 Second National Meeting in Ottawa, Ontario
90 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Appendix V 20º
Participants at Meetings 30º
Individuals and organizations who attended the regional and national meetings of the Review. 40º Graham Allen, Noranda Inc. Pierre Caron, Canadian Pulp and Paper Sherry Appleby, Department of Works, Association 50º Services and Transportation, Frank Carosella, Fraser River Pilots’Association
Newfoundland and Labrador David R. Carter, Company of Master Mariners 60º Serge Arcand, Canadian Marine Pilots’ of Canada (The) Association Ron Cartwright, Chamber of Shipping of Dick Armstrong, Great Lakes Pilotage British Columbia 70º Authority Ltd. Anne Castonguay-Soucie, Atlantic Pilotage
Ross Armstrong, ULS Corporation Authority 80º Pierre Cécile,The St. Lawrence Seaway Chris Badger,Vancouver Port Authority Management Corporation 90º Serge Ball, Consultant Bruce Chadwick, Pacific Pilotage Authority Erle G. Barrett, Océanex (1997) Inc. Gilles Champagne, Océanex (1997) Inc. David Batchelor, Consultant Brock Chrystal, Chamber of Shipping of 100º Peter Baumgartl, Stelco British Columbia
Nancy Belding, Department of Transportation, David Church, Canadian Pulp and Paper 110º New Brunswick Association Erin Bell, Canadian Industrial Transportation Pelino Colaiacovo, Consultant 120º Association John Connors, Memorial University of Gérard Belley, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Newfoundland, Fisheries and Marine Institute Association Michael Cormier,Vancouver Port Authority 130º Rob Bergevin, Ministry of Transportation, John Cox, North West CruiseShip Association
Ontario Steven Cutler, Saga Forest Carriers 140º Cheryl Bidgood, Halifax Port Authority International Ltd. Tor Bordevik, Star Shipping Limited Pierre Boucher, Corporation of Professional John Daniels, Company of Master Mariners 150º Great Lakes Pilots of Canada (The) Valmont Bourgeois, Sept-Îles Port Authority Guy Daoust, Corporation des pilotes du 160º Robert Bremner, Montréal Port Authority Saint-Laurent Central Cees Deelstra, North West CruiseShip Michael Broad, B & K Shipping Ltd. 170º Stephen Brown, Chamber of Shipping of Association British Columbia George De Santi, QIT-Fer et Titane Jeff Burghardt, Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. Clément Deschênes, Laurentian Pilotage 180º Bill Burnett, Fraser River Pilots’Association Authoriy Grahame Burton, Chamber of Shipping of Jacques Desgagnés,Transport Desgagnés Inc. 190º British Columbia Rosaire Desgagnés, Groupe Desgagnés Inc. Paul Devries, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. 200º Jim Campbell, Chamber of Maritime Michel Dignard, Ministère des transports Commerce du Québec 210º
91 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Teny Dikranian,Transport Canada Gordon (Kip) Hacquoil,Canada Steamship Lines Allen Domaas, Fraser River Port Authority Chris Hall, Secunda Marine Services Limited Louis Drolet, Upper Lakes Group Inc. Norman Hall,T. Norman Hall Group Brian Ducharme, Great Lakes Pilotage Al Hamilton, Sifto Salt Authority Ltd. John Hansen, Chamber of Shipping of Peter Dudka, Ministry of Transportation, British Columbia Ontario Jacquelin Hardy, Corporation des pilotes du Guy Dufresne, Compagnie Minière Québec Saint-Laurent Central Cartier David Hart, Point Tupper Marine Services Ltd. Mike Duncan, Halifax Shipyard Limited Gilles Harvey, Corporation des pilotes du Michel Duplin, Océanex (1997) Inc. port de Montréal Richard G. Harvey, Océanex (1997) Inc. Wade Elliott, Halifax-Dartmouth Port Robin Heath, Pacific Pilotage Authority Development Commission Torben Hestbaek, Maersk Technical Organization Gerry Farley, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Blaine Higgs, Canaport Ltd. Gary Farrell, Canada Maritime Agencies Ltd. Eric Hodgson, Esso Petroleum Canada (East) Maurice Fellis, Pacific Pilotage Authority (Imperial Oil) Don Fitzpatrick, Comtug Limited Finn Hoyrup, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Henry Flight, St. John’s Port Authority John Hughes, Secunda Marine Services Limited Louis Forget, Ultramar Petroleum Gordon Huston,Vancouver Port Authority John Francis, Strait Crossing Bridge Ltd. Joseph-Marie Fraser,Algoma Central Marine David Jackson, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries Robert G. Friend, Consultant and Oceans Donald Jeans, Halifax-Dartmouth Port Patrick Gates, Kent Line Limited Development Commission Guy Genois, Canadian Salt Limited Raymond Johnston, Canada Steamship Lines Raymond Giguère, Institut maritime du Kirk Jones, Canada Steamship Lines Québec Raymond Jourdain, Corporation des pilotes du Ross Gilmour, Strait Crossing Bridge Ltd. port de Montréal Richard Goddard, Kent Line Limited David Goffin, Canadian Chemical Producers’ Paul Kennedy,Thunder Bay Port Authority Association Dennis Kooka, P & H Shipping Ray Goode, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Alan Knight, Company of Master Mariners Wynford Goodman, Port of Belledune of Canada (The) Paul Gourdeau, Fednav International Ltd. Don Krusel, Prince Rupert Port Authority Kim Graybiel, Department of Highways and Transportation, Saskatchewan Guy LaHaye, Consultant John Greenway, Upper Lakes Group Inc. André Landry,The St. Lawrence Seaway David Grieve, Fednav International Ltd. Management Corporation Michel Guimond, M.P., Beauport– Réjean Lanteigne, Canadian Shipowners Montmorency–Côte-de-Beaupré– Association Île d’Orléans and Bloc Québécois Transport Ivan Lantz,The Shipping Federation of Canada Critic Jean Lapointe, Corporation des pilotes du Bas Saint-Laurent
92 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Roger Larson, Canadian Fertilizer Institute Harvey Mott, Newfoundland Transshipment 20º A.D. Latter, Consultant Limited Glenn Lawrence, Corporation of Professional Bruce Murdock, Consultant 30º Great Lakes Pilots Peter Murray, Fraser River Pilots’Association Pierre LeClaire, Corporation of Professional John Myers, Sultran Ltd. Great Lakes Pilots 40º Robert Lemire, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Toni Nardi, Neptune Bulk Terminals (Canada) Ltd.
Ltd. Frank Nicol,The Shipping Federation of Canada 50º Lars Ljoen, North West CruiseShip Association Kevin Obermeyer, Nanaimo Port Authority 60º Don MacAlpine,Atlantic Pilotage Authority Christian Ouellet, Les Silos Port Cartier Peter MacArthur,Atlantic Pilotage Authority Leslie O’Reilly, Memorial University of Lisa MacGillivray, Canadian Industrial Newfoundland, Fisheries and Marine Institute 70º Transportation Association Bill MacInnis, Stora Port Hawkesbury John Pace, Canada Steamship Lines 80º Alex MacIntyre, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Michel Parent, Océanex (1997) Inc. Association Robert Paterson, N.M. Paterson and Sons Inc. Charlie MacKenzie, Ministry of Transportation Jacek Pawlowski, Memorial University of 90º and Public Works,Nova Scotia Newfoundland, Fisheries and Marine Institute Claude Mailloux, SODES Robert B. Pelletier, Institut maritime du Québec 100º Guy Major, Laurentian Pilotage Authority R.A. Pennington, St. John’s Pilot Group Keith Manifold,West Fraser Timber Ltd. George Philippe, Consultant 110º Guy Marmen, Corporation des pilotes du Nelson Pittman, St. John’s Pilot Group Bas Saint-Laurent Terry R. Pittman, Cape Breton Pilot Group Yvon Martel, Laurentian Pilotage Authority Michel Pouliot, Canadian Marine Pilots’ 120º William McClean, Corporation of Professional Association
Great Lakes Pilots James Pound,Algoma Central Corporation 130º Angus McDonald, Consultant Jim Powell, Skeena Cellulose Inc. Gerard McDonald,Transport Canada Michael Pratt, Corporation of Professional 140º R.Anthony McGuinness,Atlantic Pilotage Great Lakes Pilots Authority John McIntyre, Rigel Shipping Canada Inc. Louis Rhéaume, Corporation des pilotes du 150º Garth McKeil, McKeil Marine Limited Bas Saint-Laurent
Dennis McLennan, Pacific Pilotage Authority Brian Ritchie, Rigel Shipping Canada Inc. 160º Neil McNeil, Consultant Jim Roche, Consultant Jim McPherson, British Columbia Coast Anthony G. Roper, Chamber of Shipping of Pilots Ltd. British Columbia 170º Jean-Claude Michaud, Laurentian Pilotage Gary Rosko,Alberta Transportation and Authority Utilities 180º Michael Milner, Robert Reford Inc. Patrice Ryan, GPC Canada
William F.Morgan, Seabase Limited 190º Dave Morris,Westward Shipping Ltd. Rio St.Amand,Atlantic Towing Limited Donald Morrison, Canadian Shipowners Brian Saunderson,Agricore Cooperative Ltd. Association Mona Savoie,Atlantic Provinces Transportation 200º Wayne Morrison, Canada Steamship Lines Commission 210º
93 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Alexis Ségal, Québec Port Authority Ms. Nicole Trépanier, St. Lawrence Tom Sellers, Consultant Shipoperators Association Inc. Johnathan Seymour, Consultant Gord Tufts,Department of Transportation and Doug Shea, Department of Works,Services and Public Works,Prince Edward Island Transportation, Newfoundland and Labrador Charles W. Tully, Corporation of Professional Randall Sherman, Halifax Port Authority Great Lakes Pilots Sonia Simard,The Shipping Federation of Peter Turner, Saint John Port Authority Canada Maury Sjoquist, Canadian Merchant Service Philippe Vachon,McMaster Gervais Guild Mike van der Gracht, Fraser River Pilots’ Douglas Smith, Chamber of Maritime Association Commerce Richard Vézina,Canadian Marine Officers’ Gordon Smith, F.K.Warren Limited Union Wayne A. Smith, Seaway Self Unloaders Nicholas Vincent,Ministry of Transportation Jerry Stacey, North Atlantic Refinery Limited and Highways, British Columbia John Stewart, Cast North America Inc. Allan Stockdale, Halifax Pilot Group Harvey Wade,Transport Canada Jim Stoneham,ATSHIP Shipping Agency Harry S.Waugh,Algoma Tankers Ltd. Don Stonehouse, Ministry of Transportation Wayne Whyte, Canadian Marine Pilots’ and Public Works,Nova Scotia Association Wilson Stuart, Company of Master Mariners Jim Wilhelm,Algoma Central Corporation of Canada (The) Richard Winnel, Corporation of Professional Great Lakes Pilots Rod Taylor, Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Rhoda Witherly, Prince Rupert Port Authority Louis Toupin,Consultant Dave Woodman,Prince Rupert Port Authority Fred Towers, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd. Fidèle Tremblay, Corporation des pilotes du port de Montréal
94 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Appendix VI 20º
Recommendations and Potential Impact 30º
This Appendix includes: the Panel’s recommendations; alternative recommendations proposed by some 40º parties on those issues where they disagree with the Panel’s recommendations; and a discussion on the 50º potential impact of the Panel’s recommendations.
1. Compulsory Pilotage Area authority be required to adopt a risk-based 60º Designations methodology that requires the authority to, Risk-based Methodology among others 70º Panel Recommendation No. 1 • identify the problem and associated risk 80º The Panel recommends that each authority be factors, and develop an information base required to identify, in consultation with inter- related to the risk factors; 90º ested parties, any compulsory areas where a • form a risk management team to carry out change in factors and circumstances related to the risk assessment; 100º designation justifies a detailed re-examination • identify and consult with all interested parties of the designation, and to develop a plan and and determine their risk concerns; 110º a time frame for doing so. • analyze risk scenarios and their frequency, The Panel recommends that each authority consequences and cost implications, as well 120º be required to report on this plan and time as interested parties’ acceptance of risk; 130º frame to the Minister in its next annual report. • identify risk control options and their The Panel recommends that each authority effectiveness and cost implications; 140º be required to publish a regulation stipulating • assess interested parties’ acceptance of proposed actions and residual risks; and that reviews of the factors and circumstances 150º related to compulsory designations will take • establish a process to monitor the chosen place every five years. action. 160º The Panel recommends that each authority CSAs Recommendation be required to conduct a risk-based assessment 170º The CSA recommends that the Pilotage Act be of proposed new compulsory areas and of those amended to include guidelines for the develop- areas where changed factors and circumstances 180º ment of local criteria by the pilotage authorities. justify a detailed re-examination of the Legislation should ensure that review takes place 190º designation. before areas are designated. The Panel recommends that before 200º conducting such a risk-based assessment, the
210º
95 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and shipping community to be included to ensure Saskatchewan Recommendation a fair and objective process. The Governments of the Prairie Provinces recommend that a Review be conducted by Granting of Waivers an independent party. Transport Canada should Panel Recommendation No. 3 be responsible for cost and management for The Panel recommends that each pilotage developing a risk-based methodology. They authority maintain the current practice of further recommend a risk-based approach to assessing requests for waivers to compulsory making pilotage decisions, including a review pilotage on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of the cost and benefits of keeping the existing of safety of navigation. the current regime and structure. They also The Panel recommends that, in the interest recommend that the commercialization of of greater transparency of the waiver process, pilotage services be placed on the agenda of the each authority provide reasons when denying 2000 review of the Canada Transportation Act. a request for a waiver.
Size of Canadian Vessels subject to CSA Recommendation Compulsory Pilotage The CSA recommends that a standard be Panel Recommendation No. 2 developed and published by each pilotage The Panel recommends that the Atlantic authority with respect to the information Pilotage Authority and the Laurentian Pilotage that must be submitted by vessel Master, Authority be required to carry out, in consulta- shipowner of agent in support of a request tion with interested parties, a risk-based assess- for waiver, i.e., passage plan, experience of ment of vessel size limits and types of vessels bridge crew, status of bridge equipment and subject to compulsory pilotage; be required to engineering, and presence of specialized navi- complete the risk-based assessment by the end gational technologies. Further, an appeal of 2001; be required to report the results of the mechanism for waivers be developed by risk-based assessment to the Minister; and be each authority. required to change regulations when the results Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and of the risk-based assessment differ from the Saskatchewan Recommendation current regulations. The Governments of the Prairie Provinces
Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and recommend that a risk-based assessment be Saskatchewans Recommendation used for the granting of waivers, and that The Governments of the Prairie Provinces criteria be established to promote commercial recommend that independent parties from the flexibility and timeliness.
96 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Double Pilotage Two-pilot Assignments in the Pacific 20º Pilotage Authority Region Panel Recommendation No. 4 The Panel recommends that the Laurentian Panel Recommendation No. 6 30º Pilotage Authority be required to carry out a The Panel recommends that the Pacific Pilotage 40º risk-based assessment by mid-year 2001 to Authority be required to report on the agreed- determine whether and when requirements for upon changes to the eight-hour, 105-mile regu- 50º double pilotage are valid, including the current lation in its next annual report to the Minister. requirement for double pilotage on all vessels 2. Training and Licensing 60º during the winter, the requirement for double Requirements for Pilots pilotage on tankers over 40,000 tonnes and the 70º National Standards requirement for double pilotage on passenger vessels over 100 metres in length. Panel Recommendation No. 7 80º The Panel recommends that the Laurentian The Panel recommends that the current Pilotage Authority be required to report the regional system for training and licensing 90º results of the risk-based assessment to the pilots be maintained as a responsibility of 100º Minister of Transport and be required to each pilotage authority. implement the results of the assessment by CSA Recommendation 110º amending its regulations where necessary. The CSA recommends that discernible national Docking at District 2 Ports standards be developed for the hiring, training 120º and licensing of pilots rather than leaving Panel Recommendation No. 5 each pilotage authority with the jurisdiction 130º The Panel recommends that the Laurentian to establish its own criteria. Pilotage Authority be required to immediately 140º cease the practice of mandatory use of docking Pool of Pilot Candidates pilot services, be required to immediately cease Panel Recommendation No. 8 150º imposing docking/undocking charges on vessels The Panel recommends that the pilotage that have not requested the services of a dock- 160º authorities be required to report on the pool ing pilot, and be directed to apply the tariff of qualified pilot candidates in their annual provision for docking pilotage. 170º reports. In doing so, each pilotage authority should outline any problems it has identified Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association 180º Recommendation in its region, the results of any review or
The CMPA recommends that a risk-based study, and the corrective measures taken or 190º assessment be carried out for each port where contemplated. docking pilotage is currently required in order 200º to determine its validity.
210º
97 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Pilot Quality Assurance Prince Rupert be examined by an impartial Panel Recommendation No. 9 third party to determine whether the current The Panel recommends that the pilotage rotational system should be maintained or authorities be required to develop and imple- replaced by a permanent assignment system. ment a fair and reasonable system for assessing Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and pilots’ competence and quality of service, after Saskatchewan Recommendation consultation with interested parties. This assess- The Governments of the Prairie Provinces ment process should take place regularly and recommend that an independent cost benefit not less than every five years. assessment be undertaken.
Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and 3. Pilot Certification Process for Saskatchewan Recommendation Masters and Officers The Governments of the Prairie Provinces recommend that any additional costs associated Atlantic Pilotage Authority with the development of a pilot assessment sys- SYLLABUS FOR CERTIFICATION tem to be borne by the pilots.Assessment to CANDIDATES take place on an annual basis. Panel Recommendation No. 12 The Panel recommends that the Atlantic Pacific Pilotage Authority Coast-wide Pilotage Authority, together with pilots and Licensing and Dispatching Canadian shipowners, be required to develop Panel Recommendation No. 10 a more detailed outline of material that is rele- The Panel recommends that the PPA coast- vant for purposes of certification, as well as a wide system for pilot licensing and dispatching description of what is expected in the certifica- be maintained. tion exams. Pilotage Services at Prince Rupert, BC CERTIFICATION OF MOORING MASTER Panel Recommendation No. 11 AT CANAPORT MONOBUOY The Panel recommends that the PPA, under its Panel Recommendation No. 13 current coast-wide licensing and dispatching The Panel recommends that section 13 of the regime, continue to provide pilotage services at Atlantic Pilotage Regulations, which stipulates Prince Rupert on a rotational pilot assignment that a certificate holder must be a regular mem- basis. ber of the complement of a ship, not be modi- fied to allow other individuals who are not reg- Prince Rupert Port Authority Recommendation ular members of the complement of a ship, such The Prince Rupert Port Authority recom- as a Canaport mooring master, to be eligible for mends that the issue of pilot assignment at certification.
98 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
Canaport Ltd. Recommendation two pilots, one certified master, and one 20º Canaport recommends that Section 13 of the Transport Canada representative; and Atlantic Pilotage Regulations be amended to • the training of the chairman of the examina- 30º allow Canaport’s personnel to apply for certifi- tion board in the methods and purposes of cation in order to perform pilotage duties at evaluation. 40º Canaport’s Monobuoy. The Panel recommends that the Laurentian 50º LPA Certification Process Pilotage Authority be required to extend to District 1 the modernized certification process 60º Panel Recommendation No. 14 developed for District 2. The Panel recommends that the Laurentian 70º Pilotage Authority be required to implement CSA Recommendation a modernized certification process for LPA The CSA recommends that a National Pilotage 80º District 2, based on a training and evaluation Exemption Program for Canadian-flagged program adopted by the LPA Certification vessels, as developed by the CSA and based on 90º Steering Committee.A modernized certi- vessel equipment, training standards and Masters fication process will include the following and Officers experience and proficiency, be 100º elements: implemented as an alternative to the current 110º • a competency-based training program that compulsory pilotage certification process. includes details on the required abilities, the Further, the Pilotage Act be amended to 120º context of their application and the level of allow the implementation of the National Pilotage Exemption Program. performance required to achieve certification; 130º • a teaching guide that includes, for each of Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and the required abilities, teaching and learning Saskatchewan Recommendation 140º methods and bibliographical references to The Governments of the Prairie Provinces
help candidates prepare for certification recommend that an exemption program for 150º examinations; masters and officers be instituted to reduce costs • an evaluation guide to be used by the exami- for lake carriers transporting western grain. 160º nation board, together with recommended GLPA Exemption Process 170º methods of evaluation for each part of the examination, including, where appropriate, Panel Recommendation No. 15 180º the use of simulators or onboard ship The Panel recommends that the Great Lakes handling; Pilotage Regulations be amended to enhance 190º • an examination board made up of one requirements for exempting vessels from
LPA representative as the presiding member, 200º
210º
99 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
compulsory pilotage in the Great Lakes pilotage Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association region by: Recommendation The CMPA recommends that the GLPA be • adding a requirement ensuring that there are required to institute a certification process for two qualified officers on board the vessel in Canadian Masters and Officers, following an compulsory areas, one being the master and agreed transition period. the second being a deck watch officer holding a first mate qualification; Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan Recommendation • increasing the minimum number of trips The Governments of the Prairie Provinces required from both the master and the deck recommend that the GLPA be required to watch officer in the compulsory area to 15 in institute a certification process. a three-year period with five of the trips com- pleted in the 12-month period preceding the 4. Financial Self-Sufficiency request for exemption; and Cost Reduction • adding a requirement ensuring that both the Self-Sufficiency/Cost Reduction master and deck watch officer requesting the Panel Recommendation No. 16 exemption have been on the bridge of the The Panel recommends that the authorities, in ship for each of the required 15 trips and can partnership with pilots and all interested parties provide documented proof at the request of with a legitimate interest in pilotage, regularly the Authority; and examine all aspects of their operations and • a requirement ensuring that both the master that the authorities report to the Minister of and the deck watch officer requesting the Transport, in their annual reports, specific steps exemption have received marine training they have taken to improve efficiencies and acceptable to the Authority. further reduce costs. The Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations be The Panel recommends that the PPA be further amended to add a provision that would required to report to the Minister on the out- enable the Authority to revoke an exemption come of its review of pilotage options for the from compulsory pilotage, if the Authority Fraser River with a schedule for implementing determines that the conduct or the navigation the selected option. of the vessel constitutes a risk to safety of navigation. This provision should require the Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan Recommendation Authority to provide reasons for the revocation. The Governments of the Prairie Provinces recommend that specific measures be taken to promote competition within pilotage services. Pilotage authorities to commit themselves to
100 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
specific cost reduction performance. They fur- Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and 20º ther recommend that the commercialization of Saskatchewan Recommendation The Governments of the Prairie Provinces pilotage services be placed on the agenda of the 30º 2000 review of the Canada Transportation Act. recommend that the issue of consultation be linked to a broader review of an appropriate 40º Structure of Board of Directors corporate governance structure for a commer- Panel Recommendation No. 17 cialized pilotage service in the context of the 50º The Panel recommends that no changes be 2000 review of the Canada Transportation Act. made to the Pilotage Act in respect of the com- 60º Accountability position of the boards of directors. Reporting of Incidents 70º CSAs Recommendation Panel Recommendation No. 19 The CSA recommends that the legislation be 80º The Panel recommends that authorities, pilots amended to establish national standards with and the shipping industry establish a system for respect to the Authorities’ Boards of Directors. 90º the early release of practical information about
Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and minor incidents. 100º Saskatchewan Recommendation The Governments of the Prairie Provinces Governments of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan Recommendation 110º recommend that the corporate governance The Governments of the Prairie Provinces structure of commercialized pilotage include 120º recommend that the Authorities be required industry representatives from the Prairie to release information about incidents. Further, Provinces on the board of directors. 130º the Authorities be required to release financial
Consultation information and publish benchmarks and results 140º Panel Recommendation No. 18 of their performance.
150º The Panel recommends that pilotage authorities Complaints be required to hold regular consultations with Panel Recommendation No. 20 interested parties on financial, operational and 160º The Panel recommends that the pilotage planning issues that affect such parties. authorities establish a structured methodology 170º The Panel recommends that pilotage for handling complaints that ensures that the authorities be required to report on their plans complainant receives timely feedback about the 180º for consultations and the implementation of outcome or the action taken. those plans in their annual report to Parliament. 190º
200º
210º
101 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
Implementation of Recommendations and 20) and implementation of recommenda- Panel Recommendation No. 21 tions (No. 21), will also have minimal or no The Panel recommends that each authority be impact since they can be integrated into the required to submit, within six months of the authorities’ administrative procedures and can tabling of the report, and following consulta- likely be actioned without additional resources. tions with the interested parties, a plan to the Recommendations on issues affecting all Minister of Transport setting out, in order of pilotage areas priority, the proposed implementation and The Panel’s recommendation with regard to anticipated completion date of all the recom- the assessment of the pool of pilot candidates mendations contained in this report that do not (No. 8) may result in additional costs, especially have a specific time frame. if outside consulting is required by the authori- ties.The financial impact will increase in those Discussion on the Potential Impact of the Panel’s Recommendations regions where, due to the small pool of available pilot candidates, there is a need for an enhanced Although implementation of some of the apprenticeship program. Such costs, however, do recommendations is likely to result in initial not result from the recommendation itself but costs for the pilotage authorities and the indus- rather from the situation identified as a result of try, others will potentially generate savings. It is the recommendation. also believed that the additional costs incurred With respect to the recommendation on by the parties will be offset by long-term bene- pilot quality assurance (No. 9), it is expected fits and will result in the enhanced safety and that the authorities and the pilot groups will efficiency of pilotage services. incur some costs related to the development Recommendations with minimal or and the implementation of an assessment sys- no impact tem.While the authorities’ existing resources The Panel’s recommendations that suggest may be sufficient to administer this system, the the continuation of the current systems are potential impact appears to be mainly on the expected to have minimal or no impact on the pilots’ time that will be required for evaluation interested parties.These are the recommenda- and training. tions made with respect to the granting of The recommendation that potentially has waivers (No. 3) and national standards on train- the most impact on interested parties is the ing and licensing of pilots (No. 7).The recom- one made with respect to the development mendations addressing mainly administrative and application of risk-based assessment matters, such as self-sufficiency (No. 16), the process relating to the designation of compul- structure of the board of directors of the sory areas (No. 1).Where the review of factors authorities (No. 17), accountability (Nos. 19 and circumstances identify the need for a
102 0º
R EVIEW OF P ILOTAGE I SSUES 10º
detailed examination of the designation, there With respect to the LPA certification 20º will be additional costs for the pilotage author- process (No. 14), the Authority has already ities related to the development of a risk- undertaken measures to modernize the 30º based methodology and the conduct of the program.Therefore, it is not expected that assessment.Whether the assessment process there will be substantial costs resulting solely 40º reaffirms the validity of the current compulsory from the Panel’s recommendation. It is not 50º designation or reduces the number of compul- clear whether the new training program sory designations, the users will be assured that being developed by the Québec Marine 60º the resulting designation of compulsory areas Institute will increase the current training costs will be based on sound analysis. for the Canadian shipowners. In the long term, 70º The recommendation regarding consulta- the modernization of the LPA’s certification tions (No. 18) is expected to have an impact on process should allow Canadian shipowners to 80º the interested parties in that the process, includ- qualify more of their masters and officers and ing those consultations recommended by the thereby reduce their pilotage costs.While this 90º Panel in regard to the issues addressed in vari- may result in a loss of pilotage revenue for the ous sections of the report, will necessitate addi- Authority in District 2, it should be offset by 100º tional costs such as administrative, meeting and gradual reduction in pilot strength resulting 110º travelling expenses.The consultations will from lower workloads. however improve communications between The recommendations concerning the size 120º the parties and will potentially result in long of vessels subject to compulsory pilotage (No. 2) term savings by enhancing the efficiency of and double pilotage (No. 4) in the LPA will 130º pilotage services. result in additional costs for the authority in
the conduct of a risk-based assessment, and 140º Recommendations on issues affecting some pilotage areas only will likely need outside consultant assistance. The Panel’s recommendation concerning dock- Whether the current requirements are con- 150º ing pilotage at LPA’s District 2 ports (No. 5) firmed or reduced, the users will be assured will have financial impacts by reducing pilotage that the resulting requirements are based on 160º costs for shipowners and reducing the sound analysis. 170º Authority’s pilotage revenues.Any reduction in In the APA region, the Panel’s recom- the Authority’s pilotage revenue should be offset mendation on the syllabus for certification can- 180º by an equivalent reduction in payment to the didates (No. 12) will have little or no financial impact on the authority. In regard to the pilot corporation as a result of workload reduc- 190º tion.The Authority and the District 2 pilots recommendation concerning the size of may have to adjust docking pilot strength to vessels subject to compulsory pilotage (No. 2), 200º reflect new workloads. the APA, like the LPA, will likely require the 210º
103 220º R EPORT TO THE M INISTER OF T RANSPORT
assistance of an outside consultant to conduct With respect to the PPA region, the the risk-based assessment. recommendation concerning two-pilot assign- With respect to the certification of ments (No. 6) will likely not affect the Canaport’s mooring master (No. 13), the Panel’s Authority, but should reduce the costs to recommendation is not expected to result in an the industry. On the issue of coast-wide impact in that it recommends the continuation licensing and dispatching (No. 10), the recom- of the current pilotage system at the mendation to maintain the present system is not Monobuoy. Canaport Ltd. will not realize expected to result in additional costs, with the anticipated savings representing the difference exception of those related to the maintenance between the cost of pilot and the cost of a of pilot currency in less-frequented ports. It second mooring master. is however believed that these costs will be The recommendation regarding the minimal. It is noted that the PPA has already enhancement of the GLPA exemption process addressed the issue of pilot currency.The rec- (No. 15) will likely have no impact on the ommendation with respect to pilotage services Authority since there is already an exemption at Prince Rupert (No. 11) will have no impact system in place. Some Canadian shipowners in on the pilotage authority.The present system is the GLPA region may incur training costs to safe and efficient, and its continuity is not ensure that their masters and officers meet the expected to have an impact on the Port requirements of the recommended enhanced Authority. process.
104