Summary of stakeholder engagement – Vancouver, British Columbia

Pilotage Act Review Roundtable – Vancouver, British Columbia

November 23, 2017 – 9:00 am – 4:15 pm

• Summary of Discussion
• Governance
• Safety
• Labour
• Tariffs and Economic Concerns
• Enforcement

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:

Governance

Participants discussed:

• The purpose of the Pilotage Act. They believed its text should better define pilotage services to balance public interest, environmental concerns, and the needs of the shipping industry.
• The concept of amalgamation of all Pilotage Authorities, and raised the following points:
  • The pilotage system needs regional operational responses and flexibility towards local concerns.
  • What benefits may be lost by consolidating the Pilotage Authorities?
  • Amalgamation could improve efficiency, but communication and decision-making may suffer.
  • Centralization can lead to national standardization and support industry innovation.
  • Broad and strong support for regional operational capacity regardless of governance model.
  • Some participants feel the current system works well.
  • Some participants urged consideration of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association’s (BCMEA) more industry-driven board model; while others criticized this model for having its own internal weaknesses.
• Participants also discussed the composition of the Board of Directors:
  • Some support the current model that includes pilots, industry, and public representatives.
  • Some feel the Board needs subject matter experts, and all members should have maritime experience.
  • Others advanced the view that all Board members should be industry representatives.
  • The Pacific Pilotage Authority avoids potential conflicts of interest through recusals. Active pilots or shipping representatives do not participate in negotiations.
• Stakeholders agreed the system should be more transparent; but did not reach a consensus on what being transparent means:
  • Some felt that active engagement, disclosure of non-financial information, and providing further information on request was enough.
  • Others wanted pilot corporations to disclose financial information and the results of regular audits.
• Some stakeholders expressed the need for greater accountability of those involved in administering and providing pilotage services.
• Many participants spoke of the good working relationship that exists between stakeholders, which they must preserve. One caution was advanced: positive working relationships and support for Pilotage Authorities could be too dependent on specific personalities.
• Participants agreed the Act should be reviewed more frequently, possibly every 10 years.
• There was interest in building a framework to adopt technology and encourage innovation, with potential to reflect this in the legislation.
• There was a suggestion to change the term “pilotage certificate” to “pilotage exemption certificate” in the Act to more appropriately reflect its function.
• There was debate over what constitutes efficiency, along with how to improve and measure it.
  • Some stakeholders suggested the use of Key Performance Indicators.

Safety

• Pilotage services have an impressive safety record, with widespread agreement that it is essential to maintain this high level of safety.
• Participants discussed the need to assess and update the Pilotage Risk Management Methodology (PRMM) to make it stronger. It must:
  • Become more reactive to change and less of an isolated process.
  • Be able to properly conduct the risk assessment process.
• Other discussion points included:
  • Concern that Transport Canada lacks capacity to assume responsibility for the PRMM process.
  • If or how the Act should refer to risk-based decision making and analysis.
  • Interest in expanding the PRMM into a broader Navigation Risk Assessment.
• Participants suggested that the Review examine international risk assessment models, such as the United States’ Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA).
• Participants agreed that the system should continuously consider the use and adoption of new technologies. While some believe that Portable Pilot Units (PPU) should be fully integrated into bridge management, others note that PPUs are not a one-size-fits-all tool.
• Some stakeholders expressed frustration with growing tug requirements, while others noted that increasing tug support is a response to increasing vessel size.
• On the west coast, there is a strong need to:
  • Build public support for and confidence in the shipping industry; and
  • Conduct more public education and outreach on shipping and safety.
• There was some debate on certificate and waiver systems. Discussion centred on the following points:
  • Is there a safety risk posed by certificate holders regarding their level of independence as compared to a pilot?
  • Should the west coast issue certificates since this region has never used the certificate program?
  • Should certificates be expanded to cover multiple ships in the same fleet?
  • Should the certificate program be extended to foreign vessels?
  • Should the waiver system continue?
• Some stakeholders viewed private pilotage, or corporate pilots, as harmful to the overall pilotage system.
• Some stakeholders explained why pilots have higher salaries. Pilots are different from certificate holders because they are highly specialized and require years of training before they are eligible for an unrestricted pilot license.

Labour

• Some stakeholders believed that the Final Offer Selection process has worked well since its introduction.

Tariffs and Economic Concerns

• Some participants expressed concerns about the rising pilotage costs and effects on industry competitiveness. Discussion focused on the following points:
  • Desire for a more cost effective system with greater flexibility.
  • Concern that companies may move to alternative forms of transportation if marine shipping costs remain high and/or continue to increase.
• Canadian pilotage costs compare favourably on an international scale, including with the United States, Canada’s primary competitor.
• Some participants feel there are challenges with the transparency of how pilotage costs are calculated (the breakdown of the costs). In the past, the Pacific Pilotage Authority organized education sessions with industry so they can better understand costs; and could do this again.
• Industry is interested in adopting more advanced technology as a way to reduce costs, limit the use of pilots, and maintain or improve safety.
• Participants agreed that the tariff process takes too long and needs to change. There was strong support to make this process more efficient through the port model for tariffs, for example, using the current recourse mechanism through the Canadian Transportation Agency.
• Participants discussed the following questions:
  • Why do tariffs go up when vessel size increase?
    • Larger vessels involve higher risk, requiring more skill.
• Do Pilotage Authorities rely too much on tariff income?
  • Participants discussed allowing Pilotage Authorities to generate revenue outside of tariffs, such as through administration of certificates or consulting services.

Enforcement

• Participants discussed the need for modernized enforcement mechanisms including:
  • Clear accountability between contracted pilots and the Minister of Transport.
  • Interest in increasing the fines of non-compliant vessels; concerns that Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMP) may not make sense since contraventions are infrequent.