Summary of stakeholder engagement – Vancouver, British Columbia (March 13, 2018)

From: Transport Canada

Summary of Pilotage Act Review discussions – Vancouver, British Columbia

March 13, 2018

Participants:

  • Kevin Obermeyer, Pacific Pilotage Authority
  • Lorraine Cunningham, Pacific Pilotage Authority
  • Robin Stewart, British Columbia Coast Pilots
  • Roy Haakonson, British Columbia Coast Pilots
  • Mike Armstrong, Fraser River Pilots
  • Paul DeVries, British Columbia Coast Pilots
  • Simon Pelletier, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association
  • Tristan Laflamme, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association
  • Rob Turner, Chamber of Marine Commerce
  • Robert Lewis-Manning, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia
  • Bonnie Gee, Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia
  • Phillip Nelson, Council of Marine Carriers
  • Michael Broad, Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Bill McKinstry, Shipping Federation of Canada
  • John Mears, Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Greg Wirtz, Cruise Lines International Association
  • Donna Spalding, Cruise Lines International Association
  • Lana Hodgson, International Shipowners Alliance of Canada
  • Bruce Rothdram, Wheelhouse Shipping Agency
  • Stan Bowles, MOL Chemical Tankers America Ltd.
  • Chris Wellstood, Port of Vancouver
  • Zoran Knezevic, Port Alberni 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 British Columbia Coast Pilots and Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association expressed concern that public safety and environmental responsibility weren’t included as part of the recommendation to add a purpose section in the Pilotage Act.
    • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association suggested including the environment in the preamble to the Pilotage Act, instead of its section on objectives. This would avoid putting the environment in the Act’s regulatory scope.
    • The British Columbia Coast Pilots and Fraser River Pilots both raised issues about what has greater priority: the safety of vessels, or the safety of the environment and the public.
    • The British Columbia Coast Pilots noted that third parties and the public are raising questions about shipping and environment. The legislation should address these issues.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada, the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, the Council of Marine Carriers and the Chamber of Marine Commerce noted that the concept of environmental responsibility is already covered in Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada felt that industry members trust pilots to make the best decisions, and these concepts don’t need to be put in legislation.
  • The Cruise Lines International Association questioned who is served by the Pilotage Act’s new language. They expressed concern that changes to the legislation could be taken out of context by third parties.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada was also concerned that adding to the Act’s purpose and principles makes it more open to interpretation.

Governance

  • Participants did not express widespread support for the Nav Canada model.
  • The Cruise Lines International Association was still interested in the Nav Canada model. They think possible cost is deterring industry support.
    • The airline industry is very satisfied with their switch to Nav Canada. This could be a reason to support the model.
  • The Chamber of Marine Commerce supported having one national pilotage organization.
    • A change in the governance model could help the pilotage organization react to changing industry needs.
    • A big change like amalgamation could address concerns raised during the last reviews.
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots did not support amalgamation, and did not feel that it would improve service delivery.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada acknowledged that pilot support is needed for any significant governance changes.
  • The Pacific Pilotage Authority wasn’t certain about having a neutral Board of Directors.
    • Concerns were raised about political appointees and candidates with limited or no maritime experience. However, the new appointment process:
      • Limits political appointees.
      • Allows existing Board members to develop profiles for vacant positions.
  • The Port Alberni Port Authority raised the idea of merging the port authorities and Pilotage Authorities. However, this is not within the scope of the Pilotage Act Review.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association wondered how disciplinary measures in the Pilotage Act would change if the Chair’s role in day-to-day operations was removed.
  • The Chamber of Marine Commerce and the Cruise Lines International Association both stated that the National Advisory Council is a good idea, especially if amalgamation doesn’t happen.
  • The question of how many times per year the National Advisory Council would meet was raised.
    • The National Advisory Council would meet enough for it to be useful (whether 3-4 times per year, monthly, etc.).
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots expressed concern about uniformity being the National Advisory Council’s primary goal. A national forum on pilotage will, in part, address differences across pilotage regions in Canada.
  • The Chamber of Marine Commerce would have liked to see a committee nomination process for the Board of Directors.

Labour

  • The Shipping Federation of Canada, the Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association and the British Columbia Coast Pilots expressed concern with how the final offer selection recommendation is structured. They felt the arbitrator will only consider the Pilotage Authority’s finances.
    • The Shipping Federation of Canada thinks the arbitrator should have to look at a number of other things, including:
      • Government direction.
      • Canadian Transportation Agency decisions.
      • Industry considerations.
    • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association would rather not specify what the arbitrator should deliver, aside from “all relevant information.”
    • It was also noted that the arbitrator should consider both parties’ finances.
    • The Pacific Pilotage Authority supported either:
      • Making changes so final offer selection is fully inclusive in its considerations, or
      • Not making any changes at all.
  • The Chamber of Marine Commerce suggested that final offer selection should reflect the Pilotage Act’s objectives.
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots stressed that final offer selection is spelled out in their service contract with the Pacific Pilotage Authority. A hearing explains the rationale behind offers before the arbitrator considers them.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association suggested that Quebec corporations also sit down with the arbitrator before offers are considered.
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots expressed concern that the Pilotage Authorities may purposely drive down their budgets to have more leverage in final offer selection.
  • Although there wasn’t much support for changes to the final offer selection process, the Cruise Lines International Association was opposed to not changing final offer selection from its current structure in the Act.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association supported transparency and accountability requirements, though they wanted to learn more about what is expected of pilot corporations.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association asked if there is a limit to how many employees a Pilotage Authority can hire if they also use contract pilots.
  • The Fraser River Pilots felt the Pilotage Authorities do not have more levers over employee pilots. They don’t see a management or oversight difference between employee and contract pilots.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association expressed concern that converting all pilots into employees supports the idea that bosses can force employees to do what they’re told. They were also concerned that the Pilotage Authorities might use one group of pilots against the other.
  • The Fraser River Pilots expressed concern about what happens if one group of pilots says it’s unsafe to pilot a vessel under certain conditions, and another says it is safe.
    • How would different criteria between the two groups be resolved?
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association felt that using employee and contract pilots introduces competition. They suggested that pilot corporations will be unable to operate if the dual pilot labour model goes through.
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots suggested that the Pilotage Authority management issues may be due to a lack of marine expertise, or leadership weaknesses (not because of pilot corporations).
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots raised issues with how new pilots would be trained in a dual pilot labour model.
    • If new pilots are trained by pilot corporations but then become employees, this could undercut the pilot corporation.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association also felt the dual pilot model could impact trust between employees and contract pilots.
    • The Chairperson suggested that:
      • A mechanism would be set up to resolve these issues, and
      • The Pilotage Authorities would address operational issues.

Safety

  • The Pacific Pilotage Authority emphasized that Ottawa has no capacity to take over the regulations from Pilotage Authorities. It already takes a number of years to get new regulations approved.
    • They suggested replacing the current regulatory structure with the port model of practices and procedures.
  • In regards to Administrative Monetary Penalties, the International Shipowners Alliance of Canada wanted criteria for regulatory and enforcement inspectors.
  • The Chamber of Marine Commerce noted a conflict of interest in having the Pilotage Authorities perform the risk analysis.
    • The Chairperson suggested a two-tiered navigation risk assessment:
      • The Pilotage Authorities would do their own risk assessment.
      • Transport Canada would do a more detailed risk assessment, if warranted.
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots noted that risk assessments can be problematic if not enough information is available.
  • MOL Chemical Tankers America Ltd., emphasized that risk analyses in oil and gas are well-defined and companies know the regulations. The Review should examine this model.
  • The Council of Marine Carriers was opposed to removing waivers on west coast.
    • They don’t feel it is practical to have certificates replace waivers.
    • They noted that the Canadian Coast Guard has more incidents than tugs.
  • The Council of Marine Carriers wondered if certificate holders would have the same limitation of liability as pilots.
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots were concerned about giving certificates to International mariners or ships. There were also concerns about:
    • Making certificates applicable to any tonnage
    • Having an open-ended certification process
  • The Chamber of Marine Commerce asked if there will be more criteria in the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority for certificates.
    • The Chairperson suggested that more could be done to make that certification process consistent, such as required testing.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association noted that if certificates were used to travel a whole route, multiple certificate holders would be needed to meet maximum hours of service. Also, different certificates would be needed for different parts of the route.
  • The British Columbia Coast Pilots wondered how other countries with Arctic regions approach pilotage. They also wondered if ice navigators in the Arctic would be licensed.
  • The Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia noted that any mention of joint management in the Arctic could create conflict. There is a need to be sensitive about language.
  • The Cruise Lines International Association wanted to learn more about the Review’s recommendations on technology. They encouraged the use of new technology.

Tariffs

  • The Shipping Federation of Canada would like the entire tariff process to be changed because the way it’s structured takes too long.
  • The Chamber of Marine Commerce does not think that tariff appeals should be limited to pilotage users. There are other marine stakeholders that may have an interest too such as ports and ship associations.
  • There is a need to limit the appeals process to people with a direct interest.
    • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association acknowledged this would have benefits. But they also highlighted that the public ultimately pays, so it may be difficult to restrict public participation.

Other comments

  • Some industry stakeholders suggested that the Pilotage Act should be reviewed every five years as opposed to every 10 years.
    • The International Shipowners Alliance of Canada was interested in having the Pilotage Act reviewed every 7.5 years, as a compromise.
    • The Pacific Pilotage Authority noted that frequent reviews can be a drain on the Pilotage Authority. It takes time and resources to support a review.

Report a problem with this page

Date modified: