Summary of stakeholder engagement – Montreal, Quebec (March 16, 2018)

From: Transport Canada

Summary of Pilotage Act Review discussions – Montreal, Quebec

March 16, 2018

Participants

  • David Toomey, Canadian Coast Guard
  • Tristan Laflamme, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association
  • Simon Pelletier, Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association
  • Jean D ’Aquila, Corporation des Pilotes du bas Saint-Laurent
  • Captain Carl Robitaille, Corporation des Pilotes du bas Saint-Laurent
  • Captain Alain Arsenault, Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central
  • Patrice Vaillancourt, Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central
  • Paul Gourdeau FedNav
  • Danièle Dion, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
  • Ricky Fontaine, Laurentian Pilotage Authority
  • Fulvio Fracassi, Laurentian Pilotage Authority
  • Jean-François Belzile, Port of Montréal
  • Rachid Raffa, Quebec Ministry of Transport
  • René Castonguay, Québec Port Authority
  • Michael Broad, Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Sonia Simard, Shipping Federation of Canada
  • Martin Fournier, St. Lawrence Shipoperators
  • Serge LeGuellec, Groupe Desgagnés
  • Marc Grégoire, Chairperson
  • Michel Leclerc, Transport Canada
  • Ghislain Cyubahiro Bera, Transport Canada

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

  • Concerns about the frequency of legislative reviews were raised, but generally participants were in favor of a 5 to 10-year period.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada proposed a two-tier approach to reviewing the Act, suggesting an initial 5-year period to review certain provisions and specific elements (to maintain momentum toward the goal of greater efficiency, cost-control, transparency and accountability) – with subsequent review every 10 years. Others noted that the government would be able to review any time without having to adhere to the 10 year frequency.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority commented that the Act should be reviewed every 10 years.
  • The Quebec Ministry of Transport added that there are other initiatives and alternatives to review the Act. They cited Parliamentary committee as an example.
  • The Quebec Port Authority commented that the environment is a priority for everyone. They agreed it should be added in the legislation.
  • FedNav was not sure if the environment should be added in the Act, because it appears in other regulations.
  • Groupe Desgagnés agreed that industry should be conscious of the environment. But they added that there are other factors to consider.
  • FedNav asked about performance measures.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada raised the importance of including “continuous improvement” in the objective of the Act as well as a reference to the concept of performance indicators as one of the main tools to measure improvement. The Federation also supported concerns expressed by others that the Pilotage Act was not the legislation that regulates the environmental footprint of vessels (which was regulated in Canada Shipping Act and associated regulations) and agreed that the a reference to environment would be better placed in the Preamble of the Act as an element of context (and not in the objectives) and The importance of a provision regarding transparency was also stressed. The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association suggested including environment in the preamble to the Act.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association stressed the importance of pilotage services remaining public (having a monopoly). They felt that:
    • the Pilotage Authorities should continue to have a monopoly.
    • this should be put in the Act, potentially in the preamble.
  • Groupe Desgagnés gave an example of future technologies (Uber-Pilot) and how this could impact pilotage as a monopoly.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central agreed and added that this needs to be clarified in the Act.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority also agreed. They felt this should be added to the Act’s preamble.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central added that they wouldn’t want to introduce pilotage to the free market.

Governance

  • The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority chair wondered:
    • how it was concluded that the recommendations would be cost effective.
    • if the savings are enough to proceed with amalgamation.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority voiced support for amalgamation. They felt it would make pilotage in the St. Lawrence more efficient.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association added that any recommendation should require a thorough analysis and evaluation of consequences and cost-effectiveness. But generally, they were neither for nor against the amalgamation.
  • The St. Lawrence Ship operators highlighted the importance of harmonizing practices.
  • Groupe Desgagnés believed amalgamation could:
    • result in financial gain.
    • simplify risk management.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central asked if there were really plans to merge the Laurentian Pilotage Authority and the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, or if this was a pilot project.
  • Fednav noted that:
    • The shipping season is different in the two regions.
    • Ships are always larger in the St. Lawrence.
    • There are relations with the U.S. to consider in the Great Lakes.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada
    • noted that there is a willingness to optimize the network and create a standard for pilotage services.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central commented that an amalgamation would mean more opportunities for pilots.
  • The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority supported the idea of a National Consulting Committee and a neutral Board of Directors.
    • They believed the government’s current approach to appointments is a step in the right direction.
    • They added that there is a need for marine experts on the committee, but active pilots shouldn’t provide this expertise.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du bas Saint-Laurent proposed a cool-off period of one or two years.
  • The St-Lawrence Shipoperators added that marine expertise is essential.
  • The idea of the Chairperson of the Board of Pilotage Authorities defining required competencies was raised.
  • The Quebec Ministry of Transport asked if the Ports model could be considered as an option for the governance component of the review.
  • Fednav specified it was not fond of enshrining marine experience as a required competency.
  • The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority added that the current selection processes fix most of the issues discussed. It would further complicate things to enshrine marine experience.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du bas Saint-Laurent proposed the idea of a Board skills matrix.
    • It was not in favor of marine experience being enshrined, but said it could be added to a skills matrix.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority agreed with the Board skills matrix idea. It would support the idea of a National Consulting Committee.
  • The St. Lawrence Shipoperators noted that two out of nine members could have marine knowledge. In case of amalgamation, this would be good for the industry, and the positions wouldn’t be hard to fill.
  • Groupe Desgagnés noted that members of the Board should set the needs and experience required by the same Board. They supported enshrining the tools to work with these responsibilities.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada highlighted the importance of merit in the selection processes.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority commented further on the National Consulting Committee, affirming it would:
    • ensure shared practices.
    • facilitate national standardization.
  • They felt it was logical that Transport Canada would chair the committee.
  • However, given that the Laurentian Pilotage Authority is accountable to Parliament, they would like to see a system of rotation or succession of chairs between Transport Canada and the Pilotage Authorities.

Labour

  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Corporation asked for specifics about the dual pilotage model.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central added that the dual model would create an imbalance of power. They believed it would jeopardize the corporation’s current business model.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central and Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association both declared that this labor model would mean the end of Pilot Corporations, due to attrition.
  • Industry added that it would not be opposed to the dual model if it means tariffs are reduced.
  • Groupe Desgagnés added that industry wouldn’t want the corporations replaced. The corporations’ expertise remains essential.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority believed their organization would benefit from impartial analysis in research, development and new technologies of employees of the Authority.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central suggested both choices (of pilots) should be identified in the Act.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilot’s Association commented that the underlying issue is a lack of confidence between pilots, Pilotage Authorities and users.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central noted that transparency being enshrined in the Act would help rebuild confidence and take care of the perception of conflicts of interest.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority stated they need their own experts whose primary purpose is to serve the Pilotage Authority, not the pilot corporation. They added that in almost every other similar organization, it was up to management to determine who would be hired.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central added that pilots are professionals and always provide transparent analysis.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du bas Saint-Laurent:
    • asked if the publication of service contracts would help with the perception of conflict of interest.
    • commented that nothing would prevent the corporations from hiring Pilotage Authority employees.
    • stated again that the dual model is a concern for their current business model.
  • Groupe Desgagnés supported the idea of dual model pilots and believed the current model of business lacks transparency.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association expressed safety concerns about the dual model.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority:
    • commented that the dual pilot model wouldn’t introduce competition.
    • talked about the idea of service monopoly versus an expertise monopoly.
    • added that they still believe the internal expertise of Pilotage Authority employees would help push for innovation.
    • also believed that a public authority, mandated by Parliament, would not do anything to jeopardize the security or safety of pilotage services: there would be concrete and proportional measures to collaborate with corporations and users.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central stated that:
    • Questioning the business model is justified by the number of corporation members (critical mass).
    • The same model doesn’t cost anything to taxpayers.
  • They believed that in some parts of the country the same model is not justifiable, as they do not have the number of members to form corporations.
  • Groupe Desgagnés affirmed that it is very difficult to have frank discussions if there is no transparency about the business model.
    • Pilots replied by asking if the publication of additional documentation would address transparency concerns.
  • The Port of Montreal commented that the amalgamation and dual pilot model would create a complex situation.

Safety

  • The Corporation des Pilotes du bas Saint-Laurent pointed out that the certification process should remain competency-based.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association asked about the transfer of regulatory authority to the Minister. Would it be a complete or partial transfer?
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central wondered if extending the certification program would impact safety.
  • The Pilotage Authority admitted it is adequate to transfer regulatory authority to Transport Canada. But they were convinced that the Pilotage Authorities would benefit from keeping some powers.
    • They urged the group to keep in mind what effects these changes would have.
    • They also agreed to the certification changes, while adding it is necessary to have national certification standards.
  • The Laurentian Pilotage Authority added that they would like to enforce the regulations.
  • The Shipping Federation of Canada would like to:
    • see section 20 enforced.
    • redefine limits of the Pilotage Authorities’ regulatory power.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central agreed with transferring regulatory authority to Transport Canada.
  • Groupe Desgagnés reiterated the need for transparency. They have no idea about the safety provisions that are included in service contracts.
  • The Corporation des Pilotes du Saint-Laurent central replied that some provisions do not concern users.
  • The Canadian Marine Pilots’ Association noted that if certificates are used to travel the whole route:
    • Multiple certificate holders will be needed to adhere to the maximum hours of service.
    • Different certificates would be needed for different parts of the route.
  • Safe performance indicators are only available for pilots and should be developed for certificate holders as well.
  • The same compliance rules should apply to pilots and certified ship personnel.

Tariffs

  • The Shipping Federation of Canada said the grounds for which entities can appeal to the Canadian Transportation Agency should stay intact.
    • This protects users.
    • They would rather see the criteria refined and broadened than narrowed.
  • They hope narrowing the objection process from 120 days will not affect the quality and timing of processes.
  • They suggested a reduction to 90 days instead of 60 days to harmonize with the new Service Fees Act.

Other comments

The Corporation des Pilotes du bas Saint-Laurent felt public interest should be added to the preamble of the Act.

Report a problem with this page

Date modified: