Summary of stakeholder engagement – Halifax, Nova Scotia (March 20, 2018)

From: Transport Canada

Pilotage Act Review Roundtable – Halifax, Nova Scotia

March 20, 2018

Participants:

  • Anne Galbraith, Atlantic Pilotage Authority
  • Sean Griffiths, Atlantic Pilotage Authority
  • Simon Pelletier, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association
  • Tristan Laflamme, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association
  • Cheryl Bidgood, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic
  • Ross Calder, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic
  • Don Duffy, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic
  • Tony Pierce, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic
  • Andrew Rae, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic
  • Brian Stanley, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic
  • Kevin Piper, Halifax Longshoremen’s Local 269
  • Patrick Murphy, International Longshoremen’s Association
  • Michael Broad, Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Chad Allen, Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Rick Weldon, Atlantic Container Line
  • Thomas Swift, Atlantic Towing Ltd.
  • Ghislain Pitre, Bear Head LNG
  • Kirk Jones, CSL Group
  • Colin Conrad, F. K. Warren Ltd.
  • Donovan Case, Irving Oil Refinery
  • Paul Durdle, Newfoundland Transshipment Ltd.
  • Melvin Pierce, Nustar
  • Paul Carrigan, Port of Sydney
  • Adam Parsons, Halifax Port Authority
  • Marc Grégoire, Chairperson
  • Angela Pati, Analyst

Summary of discussion:

The participants presented their concerns and views on the Pilotage Act and potential areas for reform. We have grouped the comments under the following themes:

Purpose and principles

  • The Shipping Federation of Canada was interested in how the environment is incorporated into pilotage regulations.
    • It was explained that the Pilotage Act will not be used to regulate the environment. There is other legislation that already does that.
    • It was noted that, by separating the preamble from the principles and objectives, the environment can be included in the preamble without the need to regulate on it.
  • Newfoundland Transshipment Ltd., would like the Act to show how key performance indicators are measured and published. They noted that if indicators get measured, they get managed.
    • The Shipping Federation of Canada supported this idea. They emphasized that the legislation should include efficiency measurements.
    • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic noted that the Pilotage Authorities publish their business plans and key performance indicators.
    • It was clarified that the General Regulations address safety regulations, so the Act would not be the right place to include key performance indicators.

Governance

  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic did not support having a National Advisory Council. The pilots’ association:
    • felt it would create two lines to the Minister of Transport: one through the Boards of Directors and one through the National Advisory Council.
    • were not clear on how the council would work, especially if it does not link back to the Pilotage Authorities.
    • expressed concern that whoever is chairing the council may drive the direction of the pilotage discussions too strongly, potentially jeopardizing the regional nature of the current pilotage system.
      • It was clarified that:
        • the Minister would have access to the council for consultations regarding issues that require their expertise on marine pilotage.
        • the council would report to the Minister and/or the Chairs of the Pilotage Authorities, depending on the issues under discussion.
        • the council’s role would be to discuss pilotage issues and provide advice and recommendations only; they would not be making decisions.
  • Bear Head LNG was concerned that the issues addressed by the council would be the same issues raised in the current Pilotage Act Review, and that these would be divided regionally like they are now.
    • It was clarified that the council would not focus on legislative amendments, but would look at best practices and general pilotage issues.
  • Irving Oil Refinery was interested in how the council would be financed. They:
    • asked if the council would follow the structure of the Marine Seacoast Advisory Board
    • expressed concern:
      • that this would introduce new costs for industry users.
      • that the council may take away another voice. The company does not want to see the loss of regional collaboration between the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, pilots, and industry. Also, it does not want regional issues to be represented at the council level.
  • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority assumed that the Pilotage Authorities would have to cover the costs associated with a National Advisory Council.
  • CSL Group supported the idea of a National Advisory Council. They noted a council could limit the number of issues that are raised between Pilotage Act reviews.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association asked how the members of the council would be determined.
    • It was noted that advice needs to come from the right people. The selection process for council members needs to be clear, and there must be a terms of reference.
    • It was clarified that this is still in the conceptual phase and requires further consultations with stakeholders; however, this would not be based in legislation.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic:
    • said it was not sure how the council would increase standardization. Currently, different Pilotage Authorities have different standards because of regional needs and the evolution of service.
    • expressed interest in how the council would develop key performance indicators.
      • It was clarified that the Board of Directors would develop these indicators and the council may provide advice on them.
  • Newfoundland Transshipment Ltd. was open to a council that addresses issues of consistency so long as it is balanced with its Eastern and Western representatives.
    • Industry successfully uses advisory committees that focus on best practices, consistency and standardization. They do not have the authority to make decisions but are useful for learning and cross-training.
  • F. K. Warren Ltd. was concerned that the National Advisory Council would result in extra costs to industry without any benefits.
    • If the industry committee’s comments were sent to the Minister, this may achieve the same result as the National Advisory Council.
      • It was clarified that the council is expected to have minimal costs, as it is not government practice to provide compensation for attendance.
      • The Shipping Federation of Canada noted that attendance for the Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) is unpaid but that travel expenses are covered for the Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
  • The Chair suggested that, in order to ensure there are no active ship owners or pilots on the Board of Directors of the Pilotage Authorities, a 1-to-2-year “cool down” period should be put in place once they have retired.
  • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority noted that they will miss the expertise and knowledge of having active pilots on the Board of Directors, but mentioned that, as of their first meeting, their new neutral Board seems to be working.

Labour

  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association strongly disagreed with the dual labour model for pilots. They raised a number of questions and concerns about the labour recommendations:
    • With allowing the Pilotage Authorities to decide the workforce configuration that best meets their needs, will it be such that where pilot corporations are currently used, can employees also be hired? And, where employees are currently hired, can pilot corporations also be used?
      • It was clarified that the Pilotage Authorities are not encouraged to create new pilot corporations or to do business with new pilot corporations, although there is nothing stopping the latter scenario from happening.
    • How will the pilots be structured if the dual model is used?
    • How will using a dual model improve safety?
      • The association expressed concern that this will reduce safety.
    • The pilots’ association expressed concern that employers will side with employee pilots when employee and contract pilots disagree.
      • It was noted that similar issues can currently arise between any two employee pilots or any two contract pilots. Disagreements are not unique to the dual labour model. A developed Code of Ethics will guide professional conduct. Disagreeing parties can discuss their differences. The Chief Executive Officer of the Pilotage Authority should have the final say on disagreements.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic felt the dual labour model is a bad idea. It may shift the cost structure of pilots since employee pilots are paid less than contract pilots.
    • The dual labour model was compared to inserting scab labour into a closed union shop.
    • There was concern that regional issues are being brushed with broad strokes nationally, possibly having an impact on regions that are operating without issue.
    • There was opposition to allowing Pilotage Authorities to mix the use of employee and entrepreneur pilots in the same districts, noting this would create an issue with the union if non-unionized pilots are hired in union areas.
    • Having employee and entrepreneurial pilots in the same district could reduce safety and harm the relationship between pilots.
      • It was suggested that the recommendation should state that either employees may be used or entrepreneurial pilots, not both.
    • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority agreed that it did not make sense to have employee and entrepreneurial pilots in the same district – should only be one or the other.
  • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority mentioned that permitting the Pilotage Authorities to hire both employee and contract pilots does not change the operations or expertise of the pilots used in that district.
  • CSL Group did not see the issue with having both employee and contract pilots because both are qualified to provide the service.
  • CSL Group raised concern over the attrition of the senior captain base to the Pilotage Authorities, especially in the Great Lakes and Laurentian regions. The company:
    • noted there was interest in a way to deter this, or for some form of compensation.
    • noted that when captains leave to become pilots, ship owners run into staffing issues. and can’t meet the demand for experienced mariners.
    • felt like the attrition of senior captains is subsidizing international shipping because Canadian captains are becoming pilots for service on mostly foreign vessels.
  • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority noted that this wrongly conveys that the Pilotage Authorities are poaching pilots.
    • It was noted that captains choose to move into pilotage because they desire a lifestyle change.

Safety

  • The Shipping Federation of Canada was concerned that Ottawa may not have the capacity to assume responsibility for the regulations. They asked what the Pilotage Authorities would be left with if the regulations are given to Transport Canada.
    • It was clarified that this would be a gradual takeover, over many years, as Transport Canada develops capacity. It is not certain whether Transport Canada would take back all regulations or just some.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic did not understand why the regulations would go back to Transport Canada, especially since the system is safe, cost-efficient and runs on time. The pilots’ association:
    • noted that the Eastern region wants to retain regional pilotage.
    • asked what a Board of Directors would do if the Pilotage Authorities only do dispatch.
    • was not encouraged by having Transport Canada take over pilotage regulations.
  • Atlantic Towing Ltd. wondered if having Transport Canada takeover the regulations was another way to combine all of the Pilotage Authorities. The company:
    • noted that this could diminish regionalism. Regional regulations exist because of regional needs and developments.
    • felt the Pilotage Authorities will become a dispatching agency.
    • felt it may not make sense to give Transport Canada the regulations.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association stressed that regional differences are a natural part of pilotage. Other countries like France provide only high-level regulations because different regional pilotage areas may need to be regulated differently.
    • It was noted that making dispatch requirements the same across the regions would not work.
  • Irving Oil Refinery noted that if they have difficulty working with the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, they can contact Transport Canada for support to resolve the issue. The company:
    • noted that the current system works. They are satisfied when dealing with the Pilotage Authority.
    • is unable to find value in a national approach.
    • noted that issues raised regionally should be addressed regionally.
  • Newfoundland Transshipment Ltd. noted that the offshore sector is familiar with the separation of service delivery and regulations.
  • F. K. Warren Ltd. asked when the administrative monetary penalty scheme would apply.
    • It was clarified that this would apply to any infraction to the regulations. Currently, the only option is to suspend a pilot. Fines for not taking a pilot are lower than the cost of pilotage fees. This would not change the pilots’ limited liability.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada wanted to know how simulation can be made part of risk assessments.
  • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority opposed a one-size-fits-all approach for certificates, given issues with certificates and waivers are largely on the West coast. The Pilotage Authority:
    • noted that many regular ships still take pilots because, despite frequent travel, the captains are not comfortable with the waterways.
    • noted that international seafarers will likely apply in the East, which creates a safety problem.
  • The Halifax Longshoremen Local 269 wondered if there is a way to deal with the West coast issue separately through regulations.
  • The Port of Sydney wondered about the motive behind the changes to certificate eligibility.
    • They asked if extending the certificate program to international seafarers would create an immigration issue because it would be a way for people who are not residents to work in Canada.
  • Irving Oil Refinery noted that expanding the eligibility for certificates will increase stress. There are many marine users and a high concern for safety. Also, pilots know the water best. The company:
    • felt that certificate training should be rigorous, include the use of simulators and ensure competency and service.
    • felt that the certificate recommendation is based on a local, West coast problem.
    • noted that Atlantic companies implemented changes to address risks, and the same should be done on the West coast.
  • Atlantic Towing Ltd. noted that pilotage is the most critical part of a risk mitigation strategy. They:
    • felt that the pilot, as a third party, is not bound to the commercial pressures of the ship.
    • felt that certificates should only be used when masters have been on the ship for a long time.
    • felt that significant oversight from Transport Canada is needed if this were to proceed
      • Concern is not around top-tier ships but for those below, where there is great pressure to perform because of differences in the bottom line.
    • noted that differences in language and dialect can create a safety issue.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic raised concerns over the recommended changes to the certificate program. They:
    • were opposed to opening the certificate program to international seafarers and worries about safety, and noted that:
      • Canadian pilots and crews have different standards placed on them, such as security clearances.
      • there is no reciprocity, in that Canada does not receive anything for giving international seafarers certificates.
    • stressed that it is much more complicated than following a chart. International seafarers may not have all the experience needed to acquire a certificate.
    • indicated concern that extending the certificate program to international seafarers would create a safety issue in the port of Saint John, New Brunswick.
    • expressed concern about bilateral jurisdiction with the United States on some waterways.
    • were opposed to having certificates that are not specific to a vessel or do not require the certificate holder to be part of the regular complement of the ship.
    • noted that there are big differences between certificate holders and pilots.
      • Pilots have peer review, extra training, and access to all resources and technology.
    • noted that it may take longer to train pilots if there are fewer pilotage opportunities.
    • noted that the fixed costs of the Pilotage Authorities will be extended over fewer ships.
    • expressed interest in who would pay for the certificate expansion.
    • felt that if ship owners and users pay for certificates, they will want to have more of a say in the overall process.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association emphasized that if there is no guarantee of safety being maintained with the expanded certificate program, then it should not proceed. The option to take a pilot is always available.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada noted there is not much uptake for certificates among their base. This is due to fatigue and the lower comfort level.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association noted that pressure would increase if the certificate holders’ only role is to get ships in and out. It will change the nature of their status on the ships because they won’t be part of the complement. The pilots’ association:
    • expressed concern that ships will push the boundary further with parallel pilotage
    • noted that other countries do not permit parallel pilotage
  • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority stressed that there are ship owners will try to use their certificates as a commodity. The Pilotage Authority:
    • felt that ship owners would exploit this system if certificates were not restricted to the complement.
    • felt this would put pressure on abiding ship owners because it would affect their bottom line.
    • noted that they currently round up the tonnage to the nearest ten, so that the certificate can’t be used unless the vessels are basically identical.
  • CSL Group felt the concerns raised did not reduce the overall safety of operations. They:
    • felt that safety can be diminished with pilots given the reduced relationship on the bridge.
    • said that they are proud of the safety and relationship with certificate holders.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic noted that medicals are different because Transport Canada put in place a 2-year requirement, whereas the East has maintained a 1-year requirement.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association – Atlantic wondered if pilotage in the Arctic would fall under the Pilotage Act.
    • It was clarified that mandatory pilotage in the Arctic is not under this Act but may be covered under future reviews.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada asked if the recommendation on ice navigation in the Arctic would apply to the ice advisor program in the Gulf.
    • It was clarified that this recommendation is only for the Arctic.

Tariffs

  • The Shipping Federation of Canada felt that the minimum of 90 days for appeal with the Canada Transportation Agency should be extended by 30 additional days in certain cases. The federation:
    • noted that the Canada Transportation Agency’s jurisprudence is important.
    • noted that is it unclear how often people unaffected by pilotage actually file appeals.
      • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority noted that this happened 2 years ago, slowing the tariff process by 80 days.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada wondered how costs would be charged for other services provided by the Pilotage Authorities.
    • The Atlantic Pilotage Authority noted that this would be paid by the proponent at a cost recovery rate for consultation, since pilots are pulled out of work to provide these services.
    • It was clarified that cost recovery for services should be transparent and standardized across the Pilotage Authorities.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada and the Atlantic Pilotage Authority agreed that the tariff-setting process is too long. No one should have to wait 8 months to get tariffs changed.

Other comments

  • CSL Group felt that 10 years between reviews was reasonable but wondered if the Minister could start a review sooner.
    • It was clarified that nothing prevents the Minister from launching a review prior to the 10-year mark.

Report a problem with this page

Date modified: