Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 8 - Evidence for March 19, 1997
HALIFAX, Wednesday, March 19, 1997
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 9:29 a.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. This is the resumption of hearings by the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications of the Senate of Canada. We are pleased to have with us this morning representatives of the Halifax Pilotage Marine Pilots Committee. We have Mr. Stockdale, who is the chairman, and Mr. Rae, who is a member of the committee.
Gentlemen, please proceed.
Mr. Alan Stockdale, Chairman, Halifax Marine Pilots Committee: Mr. Chairman, the Halifax Marine Pilots Committee deals with safety of pilotage operations in the Port of Halifax. In fact, we are pilots. The pilotage authority is a separate entity.
First, I should like to express my support of the position taken by the B.C. coast pilots. I could well have written the same thing. I agree with everything that is said in that paper, in particular the request that the Senate support Bill C-44, which we hope will be placed before you soon. We confirm that all pilotage groups in Canada -- most of our clients -- and the shipping companies support its passage.
Second, I would like to bring to your attention the safety issues in some parts of the shipping industry. We have been using the Port of Halifax shipping operations, which maintains the highest international standards. However, unless the operators who cut corners are weeded out, the better operators with higher costs will not survive. To this end, it is suggested that Canada continue to improve its port state inspection program. We think it is very effective. We see it in operation in all ports large or small. There is no escape from proper port state inspection, whether the ship is going into Sheet Harbour, Montreal or Halifax.
Canada should also continue its efforts at IMO to put pressure on dubious flags of convenience to increase their standards. What is required internationally is not necessarily more rules, but effective enforcement of existing ones. Pilots are first to see the inbound ship in operation with an expert eye. We must report that while the facade of safety progress has been introduced, beneath there is a gradual decline. You do not need to believe me, the statistics will prove it.
I also commend to your attention the BBC Panorama program entitled, Scandal at Sea. You may have seen it. If you have not, then I recommend that you do see it. I have a copy of the videotape with me today. It is about the state of world shipping. My 40 years of experience in the shipping business tells me that it is a true representation of the situation at the bottom of the industry.
In September of 1990, the David Brander Smith, QC, report, "Protecting Our Waters," recommended that electronic charting technology be expedited. I also have a copy of the report here today. The Canadian effort in this direction, that is, to produce electronic charts, has been prodigious and admirable. There has been produced a system which will, 95 per cent of the time, place electronically a vessel within 10 metres.
With regard to the Electronic Chart Display Information System, or ECDIS as it is called, I must say a word of caution. This technology must be used to enhance safety and not to encourage cost-cutting, which reduces safety. Although their enthusiasm is understandable, there are elements within the industry and the public service who would remove a greater part of the existing short-range aids to navigation; these are buoys and shore lights. It is our considered opinion that this is not the time to pass judgment on whether new electronic chart technology will replace buoys and lights. For the time being, both systems must be retained until we receive the proper evaluation. Until ECDIS is tested and used internationally, the buoys and lights must remain. The Halifax pilots regard this as a vital safety issue.
In January 1994, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation Safety Board Act Review Commission produced another excellent report to advance safety. The industry, and mariners in particular, considered it an excellent report which, if implemented, could remove many of the difficulties the Transportation Safety Board was experiencing in its start-up. Unfortunately, we see little effort from the board to undertake the changes recommended in the report. Consequently, we still have long delays in reports, tunnel vision and increasing dissatisfaction within the industry, which is turning into hostility with legal action and lawyers drawn upon both sides. We must improve this situation.
The Transportation Safety Board is a vital part of safety process. The report to which I have referred should be implemented. However, the CTAISB point-blank refuses to do so. We are therefore at an impasse.
Finally, the most important factor in safety is the quality of the mariners. A qualified mariner can only be produced through the recruitment of suitable candidates and proper training, especially in the beginning years. We are not recruiting or training. We have not been doing a good job for years. Hence, there is an aged workforce in Canada and worldwide. Demographics indicate that we will see the retirement of a large proportion of the top professional mariners in the next five years.
Our training effort over the last 10 years has been lamentable. For example, a major cause of accidents is poor bridge discipline and a lack of knowledge of safe navigation procedures. This, for the most part, is something which is learned thoroughly in the early stages of a mariner's career. There has been a fall-off in good practice, something which we are trying to repair through week-long bridge resource management courses. This is all very good provided it builds on existing knowledge and repairs eroded attitudes. However, if the proper background does not exist, the value of these week-long courses is questionable.
More and more, we are trying to take these training shortcuts which do not work in the long run. What is required is a national training policy from the earliest part of a mariner's career, with initial emphasis on learning the essentials.
Recruitment and training marine personnel is the subject of another report which I bring to your attention. It is entitled, "Human Resources Study of the Canadian Marine Transportation Industry." As you can see, we have all the reports and we have done all the work. We know all the problems, but we need to do something about them.
That concludes my introduction, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Andrew Rae, Member, Halifax Marine Pilots Committee: Mr. Chairman, I am here to answer any questions you might have with regard to electronic chart systems. We Halifax pilots were involved in a pilot project, which is sort of a conflict of words, in which we evaluated some of the electronic chart systems and observed some of the shortcomings therein.
We wish to emphasize that we applaud the concept of ECDIS, along with its continued development. However, we see it as supplementary to and not a replacement of any existing system, procedures or methods that we have in place at the moment. We are yet to get a fully approved system. To this point in time, IMO will not make the carriage of the equipment mandatory. However, should a shipowner decide to carry it, then he must comply with certain standards and specifications. At this point in time, there is not mandatory carriage. Our concern is that any decision with regard to removing or downgrading short-range aids because of ECDIS is premature.
The Chairman: Who makes these charts?
Mr. Rae: The electronic charts are prepared by different hydrographic offices throughout the world. The Canadian Hydrographic Service will prepare charts for our waters. The digital and vector-based data is then transferred to a third party commercial company which distributes them to the shipowner; however, they must comply with hydrographic office standards.
The Chairman: Will it eventually be a private operation?
Mr. Rae: That is correct. You will enter into a licensing agreement with a private supplier who will be the official supplier of hydrographic data. We have not too much concern about the actual data. In Canadian waters, we are very fortunate, we have quite a good hydrographic service. Most of our charting is up to date.
On a global scale, there are problems because, as you can imagine, some of the charts date back to the time of Captain Cook. To bring those charts into the electronic age, there will be significant errors. In order to do it, we will be looking at significant costs to go back and resurvey.
Before you can see total global acceptance of the system, there is an extreme amount of work to be done on the charting side. However, in the major waterways of Canada, most of these issues have been addressed. Our concern is not so much with the charting aspect of the technology, it is with the software aspect and the positioning service which comes from the global positioning system, which is an American system. It is subject to interference, both shipboard and terrestrial interference from radio signals. There is reflection of the signals.
The software component that gives us the most concerns are unexpected failures. In other words, you can lose your positioning but receive no warning that the positioning has been lost. The 20 or 30 seconds it takes to realize that the positioning is down could be quite significant in confined waters.
Senator Roberge: Over the course of the next couple of years, I have the notion that the software will improve. You say that we should ensure that we not do away with the buoy system, et cetera, that during the period of time, which is quite understandable. How long would it take, for example, for a proper evaluation process to be done to ensure that we have the safety components well taken care of?
Mr. Stockdale: The only example we have of a new, innovative piece of navigation equipment being introduced is radar. To get that properly introduced, it probably took 15 years. First, there had to be international standardization and international acceptance.
Senator Roberge: In today's world, technology and knowledge moves much faster.
Mr. Stockdale: Yes.
Senator Roberge: However, how will we know that?
Mr. Stockdale: That is the point. We are not stating the time for the simple reason that we do not know the time. We do not know to what extent the removals can take place right now.
What we are saying is that both systems must exist together to allow sufficient time for evaluation and the removal of existing aids. It must be a step-by-step process as we gain experience.
Senator Roberge: Of course, and all the ships must be on it also.
Mr. Stockdale: Yes. At this particular time, apart from about 50 Canadian vessels, there is no vessel with anything that could be called an electronic chart, and there are, I am told, 78,000 merchant vessels in the world. We have a long way to go.
I understand the enthusiasm of the proponents, and there will be a tendency to move too fast. If they move too fast, too soon, they will kill it.
Senator Roberge: On another note, you made reference to a lot of ships of those 78,000 as being unsafe and having problems. I do not need to tell you exactly what the problems are, you know them. However, what are the procedures that exist, for example, here in Canada, when an unsafe ship comes into one of our harbours or enters our waters? Are there inspection procedures with regard to detainment, turning them around or seizing them?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, there are procedures. However, I am not an expert on them. You will probably receive some representations from the inspection service at Transport Canada. The most effective procedure is the spot inspection by what they call the port state surveyor. This would be a Canadian surveyor who simply boards the ship and looks around.
From my point of view as a seaman, as a matter of moral duty, if I see something which I consider dangerous, I will advise them. Otherwise, it will get through. The only way we can stop this is to make it essential that when the port state surveyor goes aboard and finds something it is repaired. We must ensure that there are enough port state surveyors to make sure that we do cause them extreme difficulty if they bring those class of ships to this side of the Atlantic.
I can give you an example in this regard. We had a ship trading here for 38 years. It was well maintained. However, toward the end of its life it obviously would not pass inspections satisfactorily for operating in Canada. It was then moved to the Far East; and I understand it is still trading. We already maintain higher standards than the rest of the world. I would suggest we keep them up.
Senator Roberge: The pilots that we have in Canada, on the rivers or out here and everywhere else, do they go on those ships?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes.
Senator Roberge: You are people from the shipping business, and you have been in the business for 40 years or 30 years. Therefore, you know what the problems are. Is it not part of your duties, or is it not part of the procedures of the pilotage union, that you have to report these incidents?
Mr. Stockdale: I have not seen it written anywhere that it is part of our duties. If you think a ship is unsafe, it is part of your moral duty to tell the authorities. We have done that, and we will continue to do it. We are not inspectors and we cannot see hidden faults like a surveyor can. The surveyor spends his lifetime looking at ships.
For instance, the last time I did this the ship was so badly cracked that I could see the cracks on the main deck from the wheelhouse, which was 300 feet away.
Senator Roberge: You want to get out of there quick.
Mr. Stockdale: Yes. I picked up the telephone and called the port safety people who went aboard. They had it fixed. If it is obvious to us, then we will do something. The latent faults are not always obvious to us.
Senator Roberge: What specific recommendations of the review report done by the CTAISB would you want implemented?
Mr. Stockdale: The whole report is an excellent report and addresses all of our concerns.
Senator Roberge: Prioritize them.
Mr. Stockdale: I suggest the ones which deal with confidentiality and privilege of witnesses, which would be recommendations 55 through 60. The problem we have is that we have no protection. The Transportation Safety Board has the right to ask questions which we must answer. With regard to the evidence we give, we do not receive the normal protection every other citizen receives against self-incrimination or the right to reserve your defence. You must be completely open, and we want to be completely open with them. Yet, when we are completely open with them and give them everything they want and answer every question fully, we do not want that evidence passing on to third parties for criminal or civil procedures.
The Chairman: I do not think that is correct. I am shocked to hear you say that. The evidence given to the safety board, if I understand you correctly, is that it ought to be privileged.
Mr. Stockdale: If you read the terms of the privilege, you will find a lot of loopholes.
Senator Roberge: Do you have a legal opinion on that?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes.
The Chairman: You may be correct.
Mr. Stockdale: The report recognizes it and addresses it. Ms Gauthier, who is an expert in these areas, discovered it and addressed it in this report. I presume she saw the problem.
The Chairman: I do not know how any of you would ever jeopardize your professionalism by addressing problems in front of a board that did not respect in the strictest confidentiality your rights and privileges in regard to giving evidence. It amazes me to hear you say that.
Mr. Stockdale: I am not saying that I should be completely clear of criminal or civil prosecution.
The Chairman: That is not the avenue.
Mr. Stockdale: This is not the avenue. This is safety. Let them do the safety issues first; and, if a criminal prosecutor wants to come at me, he must start again.
The Chairman: In a proper venue with counsel at your side.
Mr. Stockdale: Yes.
Senator Bacon: What steps are taken to ensure that tanker traffic on the East Coast is safe?
Mr. Stockdale: I can only speak for Halifax. In Halifax, we have a tanker safety committee which consists of all interested parties, including the harbour master, Esso, our client, the Coast Guard, the Department of Transport and the pilots. We have devised passage plans and security measures. For instance, the ship is met three miles to seaward of the pilot station and she is not moved into the pilotage district until there is a preliminary inspection of the navigation equipment. This includes such things as testing the engines astern, seeing that the radars and gyro compasses are working fine, and whether we pilots have confidence in the officers and crew. If we do, then we will proceed. If we do not, then we will wait. Ships have been anchored and/or the approach has been aborted until we are satisfied.
Senator Bacon: Is there a pollution prevention or a response network in place?
Mr. Stockdale: I am not an expert in this area; but every ship must contribute to a pollution clean-up fund. There must be a responsible person plus a plan. This is a matter of law.
Senator Bacon: With your vast experience guiding ships in Canadian waters, have you observed any evidence of alcohol or drug use that could impair crews in the operation of their vessels in Canadian waters?
Mr. Stockdale: In the last 15 years, no. In my opinion, alcohol is a red herring. As an old colleague of mine who was in the shipping management business once said, "We cannot afford them any more." That was 15 years ago. They are gone.
Senator Bacon: Is there any prevention done?
Mr. Stockdale: The prevention is that if you arrive on the bridge of a ship with alcohol on your breath, you will be dismissed.
Senator Roberge: What do you mean "dismissed?"
Senator Bacon: Do you mean on the spot?
Senator Roberge: Are you fired?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, it happened to me with regard to a very good company about 10 years ago. I complained about the helmsman. I said, "I want a new helmsman, he is not satisfactory." Alcohol could be smelled on his breath. He was dismissed then and there.
Senator Bacon: This is zero tolerance, then?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes.
Senator Roberge: What about other drugs?
Mr. Stockdale: I could not tell you, I really do not know.
Senator Roberge: Nowadays people take cocaine or other things that do not smell. Do you believe in mandatory testing?
Mr. Stockdale: I do not particularly like it. I know that Irving Oil does it. I was speaking to the master of a Greek ship who apparently received a message from Athens to have the whole crew tested. Compulsory testing is fairly common. This is in response to Open 90, which are American requirements.
Senator Roberge: Or at least it concerns ships which transport dangerous goods, like oil?
Mr. Stockdale: Personally, I do not particularly like random testing. Yet, I must submit to testing by an RCMP officer who stops me on the road and asks me to give a breath sample. It is nothing new. The only point is it must be properly administered by people who are expert in the business, that is, peace officers. I do not particularly like the corporations and the companies doing it.
Senator Bacon: Do you think it is biased?
Mr. Stockdale: I think that is the business of the law; the business of peace officers, quite frankly.
Senator Adams: I want to come back to talk more about the new type of equipment, the electronic equipment. It will be a little different from radar, depth sounders and equipment like that. It will not be in place for a while yet. In about 10 or 15 years all ships will have all the electronic equipment. I was wondering how much will be different. Will a pilot still be needed or will the captain be able to do everything himself anywhere in the country if he has this equipment on his ship?
Mr. Rae: What you must realize about any display or information system is that it is just that; it is not intuitive software. You still need a professional there with local knowledge to make the proper judgments. When you are manoeuvring a vessel in confined waters, her manoeuvring characteristics are altered significantly from what you would find in open ocean. You would require someone who has done the task repetitively who has an understanding of the influences of the locality upon the ship. They are extremely significant, especially when you are manoeuvring larger vessels.
This equipment will enhance and supplement existing systems, but it is certainly not a replacement.
Senator Adams: Transport Canada started putting in the AWOS systems. Is this similar to that system? Pilots are opposed to the AWOS. I think the same thing will happen in the future with the pilots of ships. I do not think they will trust it or, perhaps, the equipment will malfunction at some point in time. Yesterday, the port manager said he had no problem with AWOS right now and that the system may be a little different for ships. With ships, they will just run aground. With planes, they can crash and kill people. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Rae: I will respond with a statement made by the shipping federation. They said, "We do not care if we have R2D2 on the ship, we still need a pilot to dock our ships and to get them in safely." That is how the industry, which represents 95 per cent of our clients, responded to that same question.
Senator Adams: How many ship pilots are there on the East Coast?
Mr. Rae: For Atlantic Canada, employee pilots for the Atlantic pilotage, there are 30.
Senator Adams: Do they work 12 months a year, or are they idle for a period of time?
Mr. Rae: We have 10 on duty for the Port of Halifax. We are Halifax pilots. You have pilots in Saint John, New Brunswick, for Canso Strait and Sydney. You have pilots for the four compulsory areas in Newfoundland.
Senator Adams: You say the other 20 are not around the Halifax area.
Mr. Rae: Thirty would be the total for Atlantic Canada.
Senator Adams: Right now, there are only 10, or are some of them on break until the summer?
Mr. Rae: No, we have 10 assigned to Halifax year round. All the ports in Atlantic Canada are pretty well operated year round. We are assigned specifically for the Port of Halifax.
Senator Adams: You say you have 30 in the whole of the Atlantic. With that automatic equipment, maybe in 10 or 15 years there will be no need for pilots any more.
Mr. Rae: No. You must realize that some of our pilots are moving vessels that are in excess of 300,000 tonnes. There is a tremendous amount of mass and inertia there. An electronic display system will not give the master control of that vessel to put it alongside with five or six tugs. You must have a pilot who is trained in berthing that size of ship with tug assistance.
In terms of the gravity of making a mistake, if you go one metre too far, there can be a tremendous pollution incident. We are here mainly because of public insistence.
Senator Adams: You said that some of the ships coming into the port area are not safe. Canada has a 200-mile limit. We must deal with ships coming from Europe or South America when they enter our 200-mile limit. Can we not do anything before the ships leave another country?
Mr. Stockdale: There is an intelligence system which is operated by governments. Certainly, the Canadian Department of Transport participates in it. A ship cannot go around forever in a substandard state and not be found out. Again, I am not the person to speak on this subject. However, I do know that they have information on various classes of ships, various ships. I have never heard of one actually being stopped, but several have been diverted for inspection to Halifax.
Senator Adams: When a ship like that enters the Port of Halifax, who is responsible for repairs? Do the Canadians do it?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, if repairs are essential, there are the facilities here to do them. Usually, when the port state inspector, who is a government marine surveyor, discovers a substandard matter, he will advise the ships' classification society, which is a private, non-profit operation which certifies ships up to a certain standard. Normally, the classification society will withhold clearance until the ship is repaired up to their standards. If the Department of Transport is not satisfied, it may require further repairs. However, it is usually a joint effort between classification societies such as Lloyd's Surveyors or the American Bureau of Shipping Surveyors and what is now the Ministry of Transport I suppose. I have a hard time following the changes in the Coast Guard and the Ministry of Transport. I understand the survey work is now done by the Ministry of Transport.
A recent case in Halifax involved a joint effort between the classification societies and the Ministry of Transport port state surveyor to get the ship safe to go back to sea.
Senator Adams: I know that shipowners sometimes have financing problems. They may say that when they left a particular country, they were safety approved. Canada then tells them to make repairs. Repairs cost money. Does the shipowner pay for those repairs?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes.
Senator Adams: Do you have problems collecting money from the owners?
Mr. Stockdale: I do not know. Again, I cannot declare myself an expert on that. Normally, the underwriter or the Protection of Indemnity Association pays for the repair, if the repair was caused by weather. If it is just a deterioration repair, then of course the shipowner pays. If the shipowner does not pay the shipyard for a repair, then there is always a sheriff's warrant, which will put a lien on the ship.
Senator Roberge: Do you have an opinion on the destaffing of lighthouses?
Mr. Stockdale: Not really. They have done it on this coast to a large extent. I understand it is more of a West Coast issue. As a pilot, I see no need for all lighthouses to be staffed; however, other people may have different views. I operate not only in Halifax but two ports on the Nova Scotia coast, as well as in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as an ice advisor. From my experience and for my requirements, I would not require staff on a lighthouse.
Senator Roberge: Would that include Sable Island?
Mr. Stockdale: I have worked off Sable Island with supply boats. I would say that as far as the maintenance of the light is concerned, you might not require staff, but it depends on what other duties the lighthouse keeper is required to perform. Is it a weather station?
Senator Roberge: Yes.
Senator Bacon: Or would you need a weather station?
Mr. Stockdale: I do not know. There again, I am not an expert on these issues. The lighthouses on Sable Island are required, and they will be required even more once we get this gas thing going. I say that because the ships will be bouncing around the island off the sand and so forth. Both Captain Rae and I have done this. The lighthouses are required there.
The Chairman: Until such time as AWOS becomes perfected, it probably is not the time to consider seriously demanning Sable Island.
Mr. Stockdale: No, I do not think so.
The Chairman: There is no substitute for safety.
Mr. Stockdale: None. As far as Sable Island is concerned, I think you probably look at that in a different light. It is very isolated.
The Chairman: Could I ask you to take a minute or two to elaborate on something that sounds serious and about which I raised my eyebrows a little this morning? First, in terms of the quality of mariners and the quality, level and accessibility to training, it is not what it was 15 years ago or 20 years ago. What can we do about it? Do you have any suggestions as a professional person speaking outside your responsibilities as a pilot as to what we can do about the development of Canadian mariners? If you suggest that there probably will be a fairly substantial exodus from the ranks over the next five, six, seven years, how will we fill those vacancies without recruiting offshore? Do you have any suggestions about how we can get back into adequate training? We must have 1,500 men and women out there with ON-1s and ON-2s kicking around. They are not masters. They are rarely promoted to master.
What can we do about that? It seems to be a bit of a problem. I declare my interest because of my son. However, notwithstanding that, how can this committee address this problem of ensuring that Canada has a good supply of well-trained mariners who understand how to cope with panic and who understand the necessity of discipline on the bridge, et cetera?
Mr. Stockdale: I can only repeat that the study into the human resources in the Canadian marine transportation industry hit all of those points. Recommendations were made about them.
The Chairman: Like every other report, it needs interpretation.
Mr. Stockdale: There must be a commitment from the start to finish training. You cannot produce a competent expert ship master or pilot unless you start at the high school age, 18 years old, and unless you start with properly ordered training. I put the emphasis on what you might call ab initio training, rather than trying to make the point that we are now going into expensive simulation training of senior officers. The money needs to go into the initial training, and it must be done well. We must start again and repair the chain from start to finish, from deckhand to master and from engine room cleaner to chief engineer. The chain of training and promotion must be repaired.
Our problem in Canada has to do with the layoffs when many people left the industry. We lost people of a certain age. If you notice, you will see there is a certain age group missing from the demographics. I am the front end of a bulge that will retire within the next five years, which is when the most senior people will go. I do not think the attitude in the industry is toward training. I think the attitude in the industry is toward an appearance of safety. There is a great deal of paperwork, checklists, non-reliance on the professionalism of the crews, making certain that the paper trail in the case of an accident leads right past the company offices and to the ship.
The only advice I could give you would be that he must start at the beginning.
The Chairman: Do you mean he should start on watch-keeping training?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, and move the money from expensive simulators into initial training. That is where the limited funds are needed.
The Chairman: Would it be an enhancement to young Canadian men and women, if they were able to complete this circuit of training, academic as well as practical, to be rewarded at the end with a Bachelor of Science degree?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, for some it would be useful; it could be a bachelor of nautical sciences. Other countries have tried it. I do not know that it does any good for the industry. It would provide nautical school teachers of probably a better quality than we have now. As a general rule, a Bachelor of Science for operating ships would not be required, no.
The Chairman: The location of the nautical institute at Port Hawkesbury did little to enhance training. My sense about it is that it could have been quite an instrument had it remained here in the Halifax area.
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, I agree with you.
The Chairman: Captain Rae, would you care to comment? This is very important and I think of it in terms of safety. We do not want an unsafe bump in our Maritime history.
Mr. Stockdale: Despite the fact that we are late in the game, I do not think we should start throwing money at the later stages of training any more. We should take our medicine and start anew, right from the beginning, training people properly from the starting gate.
The Chairman: Would you see that as a federal-provincial industry? I mean a management and personnel effort combined, a united effort?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, and I think it can be done. Some companies are doing it. The last ship on which I was ice advisor, which I got off on Sunday, there were two Canadian cadets onboard. This was a flag of convenience tanker, which was well run and well operated. They were receiving excellent, first-class training. It happens that we are able to train by this method, but there is not enough of it. We do not have enough of our own ships to train; but there are ways and means of doing it, it is just that we should do more of it.
The Chairman: Was that a Canadian-owned foreign registered vessel?
Mr. Stockdale: No, it was Indian owned. It was serving the Ultramar refinery in St. Romuald. Ultramar requires very high standards.
The Chairman: My point in asking was that while a lot of our difficulties come from foreign flag ships, unfortunately, that brand or stigma is no longer generally applicable. As a rule, these ships are efficient, usually very modern and quite new. They have to be, in order to be economic, efficient and to make money. It is unfortunate that every ship flying a foreign flag is deemed to be a tramp steamer, which is certainly not the case.
Mr. Stockdale: No, that is not true. We are in an international market now. I am quite sure that Canadians trained that way would have no trouble finding work in the international market, either on Canadian-owned flag of convenience ships or on foreign-owned flag of convenience ships. If we train the people, they will find employment in today's market. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Rae: We came up through the apprenticeship program. I went to nautical college and was apprenticed on a variety of ships before getting my first certificate. The difficulty we have, as Alan pointed out, is that we do not have a huge variety of Canadian-owned ships. Many cadets from some of the Canadian colleges are being put on foreign ships to get the experience on a variety of ships, ships such as chemical tankers, container ships and bulk carriers. They are getting a well-rounded experience. This is the emphasis that we should be going after.
I know the West Coast industry has a mentor system which supports Canadians going on foreign ships. Salaries are subsidized. There is some kind of leave schedule arranged so that conditions are close to those in Canada. In this way, the person gets a variety of experience and training. We do not have the domestic fleet to absorb all these people.
Senator Roberge: What are the hours of work on a ship?
Mr. Stockdale: Do you mean for the crew or for me?
Senator Roberge: For the pilots.
Mr. Stockdale: Our system in Halifax works eight days on and six days off. During the eight days on, you are on call. You are on call from 10 o'clock on Monday morning until 10 o'clock the following Monday morning, which accounts for eight days, and you go any hour you are required. There are 168 hours in the week and they can choose whichever ones they want to use.
Senator Roberge: What is the longest time that you have worked non-stop?
Mr. Stockdale: As a pilot or as a master?
Senator Roberge: As a pilot.
Mr. Stockdale: About 25-26 hours.
Senator Roberge: Is there not a danger in terms of safety?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes. I have stopped doing it.
Senator Roberge: What about the others, are they doing that?
Mr. Stockdale: No. We have a rule that at 15 hours you should seek rest. It think it is eight to nine hours of rest. The law states that at 18 hours you are making yourself liable if you do not book off. The watch-keeping rules state 18 hours. After 15 hours, or slightly less or slightly longer, a pilot will call in and say, "I am taking nine hours rest."
Senator Roberge: Is there one pilot per ship?
Mr. Stockdale: Sometimes there are two; on large crude oil carriers there are two pilots.
Senator Roberge: Is that automatic?
Mr. Stockdale: Yes. It is at the request of the oil company, not at the request of the pilotage authority.
Senator Roberge: On other types of ships which transport dangerous goods, do they have any regulations like that?
Mr. Stockdale: No. The most dangerous ships are the chemical tankers carrying extraordinary stuff. They are usually very small, coastal tanker size ships.
Senator Roberge: Are there any recommendations that you would like to make to this committee based on the hours of operation or the hours that you are on watch duty?
Mr. Stockdale: The industry is forever pressing for more. The only recommendation I would make to this committee is in Halifax we are doing about as many hours as we should be doing. The system is working. The problem is that every year our hours only amount to, perhaps, between 1,400 and 1,600 hours. People look at it from the point of view of an office job. What I would like this committee to understand, as well as everybody in the shipping industry who does not seem to understand, is that the hours are at the choice of the client and you are working a 168-hour week. You may work six hours there, four hours there. You may be awake all one night and be expected to sleep during the day and then be awake all the next night and all the next day. You get what is called a circadian rhythm problem.
My opinion is that at about 1,500 or 1,600 hours a pilot operating in our class of operation is about pushed to the limit. We are resisting calls from the industry to do more. They request, for instance, that we do 2,500 hours a year, something which we are not prepared to do.
The Chairman: The system is chief mate, followed by the second and third mates. Chief mate is precisely what it implies. He does the loading and unloading and he does the cleaning in between. He also stands watch. To clean up after an oil cargo to acceptable standards for receiving chemicals is a two and a half to three-day proposition. Loading chemicals is a two to three day proposition. It is my understanding that is the mate's responsibility. The old man gets his eight hours of sleep whenever he wants if, but the mate cannot. He is lucky if he gets an hour or two. I have never heard anybody complain because if you complain you will lose your job. They can always find somebody who can do it. The fact of the matter is you have first officers serving in these capacities that are sound asleep standing up and who do not even realize they are asleep. When you look in from the well deck into the pump room and you see a fellow standing there, you assume he is alive and well. Maybe he is not.
I do not know how to correct that. Would it help to make the work of a chief mate who is loading and discharging day work? You could have a first, second, and third mate, which eases some of the burden in that you have somebody to stand your watch. There is really not any way around it, is there?
Mr. Stockdale: Captain Rae just mentioned the deck watch regulations. We have regulations to prevent over-extension of hours. I believe it is 18 hours in one calendar day.
The Chairman: They must rest six hours in any 24.
Mr. Stockdale: You know them better than me.
The Chairman: No, I do not know better than you, that is why I am asking. We were told yesterday it was six hours in 24.
Mr. Rae: That is correct, that is for the first day, but then the subsequent day you must give him eight hours rest. You cannot continually work them.
The Chairman: Can you imagine your mate coming in and saying, "Listen, old man, I have had it. I am going to bed for eight hours and you get out. It is only 22 below now, it is not too bad. We have 14 lines there which need to be ice free before we dare put steam on them." You know where you are going, buddy.
Mr. Stockdale: Yes, indeed.
The Chairman: What is the answer? It is safety that we are concerned with here. What is the answer? If there is not an answer, then there is not an answer.
Mr. Stockdale: This is a problem which I have not touched in my presentation.
The Chairman: I am asking not about your present responsibilities but as a professional seaman.
Mr. Stockdale: In many cases, they are working too long, there is no doubt about that. I can only suggest that the application of the deck watch regulations would probably remove a lot of problems.
The Chairman: They would remove your job as well.
Mr. Stockdale: The application of these regulations must be made from outside.
The Chairman: That pressure must come from outside.
Mr. Stockdale: It must come from the government. If they wish those rules to be applied, then it must come from outside. Right now, the jobs are still tight.
The Chairman: It is not a problem that the guild or the union can cure.
Mr. Stockdale: I think the crew accept it as a matter of course; it is not something about which they complain to the guild. It just goes with the job, as it has for generations.
The Chairman: Since the days of sail.
Mr. Stockdale: It is not new. Whether it is dangerous operating a tanker or not, I do not know. I would suspect, as you suggest, that it would be dangerous. However, if the Department of Transport cared to apply the law, then perhaps it would improve safety. But, again, they are constrained themselves.
The Chairman: Chasing them back and forth up the St. Lawrence River this time of year is not a very pleasant spot for a mate.
Mr. Stockdale: No.
Senator Adams: You are familiar with the fact that we have more ships going up to the Arctic every year. I do not think the Government of Canada has any regulations concerning those ships coming into the Arctic. They do not even need to have pilots. Do you agree with that? I do not know if you are familiar with the Arctic or not. One accident happened last summer on Victoria Island, around Cambridge Bay, when a ship ran into a sandpit. They were there for over two weeks. The crew wanted to get out of that sandpit.
The Government of Canada does not have any regulations up there, according to our one witness from Montreal. The water is deep enough and as long as the captain knows what he is doing, a pilot is not needed up there for the cruise ships.
Mr. Stockdale: I have been to the Arctic. I was first mate of the MV Arctic. I do not know whether you know the ship. You are quite right, there are no pilots up there. I would think it would be up to the territorial government or the public interest to call for a pilotage service. Of course, going into Strathcona Sound, the captain himself put the ship alongside, but there was extremely deep water all the way to the dock and it did not present a particular problem. Mind you, he did run into it one time and we had to repair a hole in the bow. But it is not a particular problem. A pilot service usually is established as a result of public insistence.
Mr. Rae: For a foreign vessel to enter any Canadian water, they must on the East Coast comply with ECREG. For the Arctic, they must comply with NORREG. The master must make a declaration that he has the most recent and up-to-date Canadian charts on board his vessel for the intended passage. That is a statutory requirement on the ship.
The trouble in the Arctic is that you have such a small amount of actual shipping it is very costly to survey. That is because you only have a small operating envelope when you can actually get survey teams in and out. As a consequence, when you do get charting, some of it could be just very much of a reconnaissance nature. You might have soundings that are a mile apart. There have been a few shoals found the hard way up there.
Those are some of the unique features of the Arctic.
The Chairman: I wonder if you are prepared to lend us that tape for a short period of time. We will entrust it to our clerk.
I would like to welcome our next witness, Mr. Peter Turner, the Harbour Master at Saint John.
Mr. Peter Turner, Harbour Master, Saint John Port Corporation: Honourable Chairman and honourable committee members, thank you for the opportunity that you have given to me to address you on the matter of safety and security in the transportation industry. My brief to you will only refer to matters that deal with the marine industry.
I hold a Certificate of Competency as a Master of a Foreign Going Steamship. My career in the marine industry has spanned some 35 years. My experience has included sailing in cargo ships, passenger ships, bulk carriers, supply vessels in world trades, and supply vessels and offshore units in the Canadian Arctic. I have been employed as a Harbour Master in Prince Rupert, British Columbia and Saint John, New Brunswick for the past six and a half years.
Over the past 35 years, I have seen huge changes in the transportation industry, particularly where it relates to ships and shipping.
Modernization of ships and cargo handling equipment has resulted in reduced manning, shorter periods of time in ports for vessels, and the development of cargo equipment which far exceeds the requirements that were in place in the early 1960s. The advent of containerization, large crude oil carriers, VLCCs, ULCCs, specialized product carriers, and ships specially built for the cruise industry have caused the development of the port industry to such an extent that the equipment used today for handling cargo would not be recognized by stevedores and longshoremen of the 1960s. While these developments have gone ahead, the quantity of cargo leaving the ports for other destinations has increased considerably. At the same time, the numbers of vessels and the size of their crews has decreased.
Overall, the increased efficiency in the ships and ports has resulted in a decrease in the numbers of those employed both on board and ashore. From the point of view of those companies engaged in the cargo handling industry and in the marine transportation industry, these economies are profitable. Nevertheless, there are concerns, particularly with respect to fatigue of the operators and the associated stress which such efficiencies produce.
Worldwide reviews of the acts and regulations which are governing the marine industry are long overdue. Canada, in its review process of the Canada Shipping Act and the consolidation and review of the associated regulations, is well on its way to being a leader in the international marine industry. The process being developed for the review of the acts and regulations, with both the Canadian Marine Advisory Council and hearings such as these, give the opportunity for our government to develop the regulations in such a way that they are both comprehensive and, above all, workable. Canada's participation in the International Maritime Organization's Conventions and the adoption of those conventions has necessitated changes in the understanding that those employed in the marine industry have of their own operations, and the need for the review and modernization of the regulations, standards and the act itself.
The Canadian marine industry has been keen to adopt deregulation. Unfortunately, deregulation will also apply to a number of instances which deal with foreign flag vessels trading in Canada's ports. It is therefore necessary for certain regulations and parts of the act to be modified, but to remain in force.
The International Maritime Organization's Conventions, which are affecting the international marine industry, are in some cases not adaptable for use by the Canadian non-convention vessels. This should not preclude the Department of Transport making regulations which closely resembles the IMO conventions, and require that certain standards are met.
With regard to dangerous goods, the Dangerous Goods Shipping Regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act refer to the IMO Code, otherwise known as the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, in respect of dangerous goods that are shipped by sea.
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act refers to all modes of transportation of dangerous goods, including those shipped within the inland waters of Canada. Where a shipper desires to ship his goods from some point in the interior of Canada, through a sea port and from there to international ports, some concerns must arise from the conflicts which may occur between the two acts.
For example, in certain cases, the placarding required for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act is not identical to that required under the IMDG Code. When complying with the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, while the goods are being transported by road or rail to the port, the placarding required will meet the requirements of the act, but may not be sufficient to comply with the IMDG Code.
While these differences may not be significant in themselves, the requirement to comply with one or both of the acts makes it difficult for the shipper or carrier to accept the goods with placarding that would not be acceptable to the appropriate authority.
Further to this, the requirements under the United States laws for the transportation of dangerous goods do not, in all cases, comply with either the IMDG Code or the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Where an intermodal transfer of dangerous goods across borders occurs, it is necessary for the carriers and shippers to understand the differences between the acts, standards and regulations that are in place in both countries and the modes of transport.
The carriage requirements for dangerous goods in respect of segregation, packaging and stowage will differ, depending on the regulations consulted.
It is therefore essential that developments of standards and changes in regulations only occur after review of international and other national codes and regulations, which will have jurisdiction in transborder and intermodal movement of dangerous goods.
Concerning regulations for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ship, under Marpol 5 there is a requirement for ports to have a reception facility for international garbage. Environment Canada has identified international garbage as garbage coming from ships of a foreign country which is associated with foodstuffs. The disposal of international garbage in Canadian waters is forbidden. Environment Canada has allowed for the deep burial of international garbage in approved waste management facilities.
These facilities are strictly regulated and are required to be monitored to ensure that pollutants do not enter the ground water or waterways of Canada. Municipalities, on the other hand, are responsible for accepting international garbage under these circumstances, and there are some questions as to the liability for any garbage which is landed from ships. Because of this situation, there is considerable difficulty in landing garbage from ships, and the holding of garbage on board can be both a health hazard and a temptation for the ship owner to dispose of this garbage illegally, either in Canadian waters or along with garbage which is accepted for landfill sites.
It is therefore essential to ensure that any departments making regulations in respect of garbage reception and disposal bear in mind the need for an approved facility to receive the required waste. Such regulations and standards require the coordination of various departments.
I shall next deal with IMO conventions in relation to the Canada Shipping Act and their regulations. There are a number of instances where the conventions of the IMO, to which Canada is a signatory, require that certain standards be met by the ships or shippers that are trading on an international basis. While the intent of these conventions is laudable, there are occasions where specifics from these conventions would not be capable of being regulated by Transport Canada for vessels which are not convention vessels. It is therefore essential that the transfer of the requirements for the conventions to the Canada Shipping Act regulations is both sensible and workable. It cannot be denied that the intent of the regulations is to ensure the safety of the vessels and the crews of those vessels, whether or not the vessel is a non-convention vessel engaged in home-trade voyages or is engaged in international voyages and complying with the conventions of the International Maritime Organization.
An example of this may be the requirement for the convention vessels to comply with the carriage of duplicate navigational lights and power supply systems capable of operating independently. The smaller non-convention vessels operating on coastal or home-trade voyages may not be able to comply with the requirements as designated by the regulations. The regulations made pursuant to the CSA are now reflecting this, following input from CMAC members.
Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act require that certain vessels above specified sizes are inspected by Transport Canada marine safety inspectors. There are also requirements under the Ports State Control Convention that the Transport Canada marine SAFETY inspectors inspect foreign vessels coming into Canadian waters. Such inspections are carried out by the inspectors in order to ensure that the ships are seaworthy, the crews are properly trained, and the specific vessels meet the requirements and standards of the convention and regulations.
Because there is a limit on the size of vessels to which these regulations apply, there are certain smaller vessels which are not required to be inspected by the marine safety inspectors. These uninspected vessels tend to be of poorer quality than vessels that are inspected. For example, commercial vessels with a gross tonnage of less than 15 and passenger vessels with a gross tonnage of less than five are not required to be inspected by the inspectors. The lack of inspections on vessels of this size has, on occasion, resulted in vessels being of substandard nature in respect of safety requirements that are normally placed on larger vessels.
Another concern is for unmanned barges which, until recently, have not been inspected at all. Since the concerns and standards of oil barges have been brought to the forefront, barges carrying oil with a gross tonnage of greater than 15 are intended to be inspected starting on February 28, 1998. Other barges which may be carrying various dangerous goods or other pollutant substances -- not in bulk -- are not inspected and have been subject to marine casualties.
It is therefore necessary that standards be introduced to cover the vessels which are of a lesser size than those vessels which are required to be inspected to ensure that minimum standards are met on any vessel which may be transporting goods that could be pollutants or hazardous to the environment.
My next topic concerns pleasure crafts and unregistered vessels. In the recent past, the data banks for the Registry of Vessels has reverted to Transport Canada Marine Safety from Canada Customs. While this accounts for a large number of vessels, it does not account for the majority of pleasure vessels which are used in Canadian waters, or for fishing vessels not required to be registered.
The intent of licensing a vessel was to account for the balance of the vessels which are not registered. In point of fact, this does not always follow. It has been found that vessels which are either registered or licensed and to which the marine services fee applies have been invoiced for the marine services fee, only to find that the vessel has been scrapped, sunk or has transferred ownership.
Vessels using port facilities, causing damage to port properties, or being abandoned on port properties are not always traceable. The system of licensing vessels which are not registered has been discussed at length for some years. It has been suggested that the Motor Vehicle Branches in the various provinces should take on the duties of licensing vessels, and this has stalled for a number of reasons.
For example, the province of British Columbia is unwilling to collect moneys on behalf of the federal government unless all those moneys are spent in the province of British Columbia. Part of the intention for licensing, when this was discussed, was for the collection of a portion of the marine services fees which could be attributed to pleasure crafts. If British Columbia insists on the requirement that the moneys remain in British Columbia, then the licensing and collection of marine services fees would result in no moneys being paid to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The abandonment of vessels on port or Crown property becomes an expense for those who have the stewardship of that property, unless the ownership can be identified. Such abandonments are unsightly and can be hazardous to the environment. It is therefore necessary to formulate some system by which all vessels operating in the waters of Canada can be identified as to ownership, size and use. Such documentation and data banks must be able to reflect any changes in respect of the vessel or owner.
With regard to the licensing of small craft/pleasure craft operators, for a number of years the Canadian Marine Advisory Council and the Department of Transport have been reviewing the certification required for operators of fishing vessels, small vessels and pleasure crafts. It is axiomatic that education and, where practical, an examination in the operation of any equipment will reduce the likelihood of incidence which may involve injury or damage occurring by use of that equipment.
While it is accepted that if a person wishes to drive a vehicle, he or she must be examined to ensure that they can operate the vehicle safely, there is no such requirement for pleasure vessels. A person may purchase a vessel in the afternoon, put it in the water and operate it the following day, providing that that vessel meets the requirements of the licensing authorities. No training is necessary or required by law to ensure that the operator of such a vessel understands the limitation of the craft, or the expected actions of himself or other vessels. While this example may be considered to be extreme, it has been known to occur. The Canada Gazette, Part 1, dated February 22, 1997, has indicated that six regulations are being consolidated and a requirement for certification will be implemented.
Where search and rescue is required, it must be noted that a majority of incidents involve small vessels or pleasure craft. Cost reductions in the operation of the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary will result in a situation where search and rescue is not immediately available to a person calling for assistance on the water. It must also be borne in mind that following suitable education, the call for assistance is less likely.
Fishing vessel operators have been advised over a number of years that there will be a requirement for fishing vessel operators to have certificates of competency to identify their capability of handling fishing vessels. Fishing Masters I, II, III and IV have been designated as examinations for operators, dependent on the size of the fishing vessel that they wish to operate.
While the examination has been in place for a number of years, the regulation in requiring this certification for fishing vessels of less than 100 tonnes gross is still not in place. The consequence of these groups not having certification to operate vessels means that a large number of operators on the water may not know the requirements that are placed on them for seaworthiness, navigation and safety, and consequently will not know the intended movement of other vessels in their vicinity.
It is essential that the question of certification of operators is addressed, and that regulation requiring that operators have some form of licence or certificate of competency be enacted and enforced as soon as possible.
The next topic to which I wish to turn is standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, or STCW - 1978. The IMO and the signatories of the Standards of Training Convention have done an excellent job in attempting to ensure that standards for safe manning and watchkeeping on board vessels is maintained at a high level. The result of the convention has been both an improvement in the standards of training from countries which previously had been regarded as less than adequate and the acknowledgement from other countries that the standard has improved.
Further development of new technologies has required that additional training take place. Cost of this training is borne in part or totally by the seafarer. The outline of the standards set by the Department of Transport has been fleshed out by those colleges where the training will take place. While it may be laudable to enhance the training standards to ensure that the Canadian seafarers have the best qualifications of any nation, it must be borne in mind that the standards required to be met by the convention are those by which the seafarer must be examined.
For example, it has been a requirement recently for first aid for seafarers to meet standards which are presently in excess of those required by the convention. The initial course, the Safety Orientated First Aid, SOFA, will enhance the seafarers' understanding of hazards, as well as the capability of dealing with injuries that occur on the job site. An advanced first aid course of 17 hours is also required to ensure that injuries that occur on the job site and beyond the capability of the SOFA first aider can be dealt with by someone on board the ship. This course is undertaken by the supervisors and senior watchkeepers for whom a Certificate of Competency is required.
There is now a third level of medical course, this being the medical care course, which the schools have identified as a 50-hour course, with three hours of examination. The Scandinavians and the Americans have recognized that this course can be completed in 45 hours. Could this be an attempt by the colleges to ensure that training schedules meet requirements beyond the intent of the Department of Transport?
Another example of the training courses which are being set by the colleges are the courses for the Global Marine Distress and Safety Systems, or GMDSS. In 1992, the course was set as a one-week course. Those who completed the course had sufficient qualifications to undertake the operation of the equipment. The course has now expanded to a two-week course.
The time has come for the trainers to review their training schedules to ensure that the full required training is imparted in the minimum possible time. At the end of the course, if the candidate is unable to satisfy the examiner that he has gained sufficient knowledge, then the course can be retaken.
Four separate pieces of legislation relate to personal safety on and around ships. The Canada Labour Code directs safety on federal property. The Occupational Health and Safety Act legislates for provincial property and operations. The Marine Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Safe Working Practices Regulations are made in respect of ships' crews and those working in the vicinity of ships. There are grey areas where these pieces of legislation cross borders. In these cases, either more than one jurisdiction demands compliance or none do.
In order for operators to understand their obligations and comply with the safety requirements, it is essential the lines of demarcation for responsibility be clearly drawn or that the responsibility be placed on one jurisdiction.
Once again, I thank the honourable senators for this opportunity to make this presentation, but regret that I had limited time for preparation. Should the committee require any further clarification or expansion on the items, I request that you allow me some time to prepare a comprehensive reply.
The Chairman: That was very informative, Mr. Turner.
Senator Roberge: Thank you for a well presented report, with specific recommendations.
On page 3 of your brief you state:
The International Maritime Organization's Conventions, which are affecting the international marine industry, are in some cases not adaptable for use by the Canadian non-convention vessels.
Could you explain that in layman's terms?
Mr. Turner: The International Maritime Organization, while based in London, requires that vessels training on an international basis adopt their conventions if they are signatories to that convention.
Vessels that are not trading on an international basis and operate within Canada are not required to abide by these conventions, even if Canada is a signatory of that.
Senator Roberge: Are there major differences between the non-conventional Canadian vessels and the vessels departing internationally?
Mr. Turner: As far as Canada is concerned, the regulations that are made under the Canada Shipping Act generally take care of the concerns that Canada may have, where standards are set by the convention and they need to be adopted by non-convention vessels.
There are some instances where vessel operators have suggested at the CMAC meetings, the Canadian Marine Advisory Council meetings, that their vessels are unable to comply for one reason or another. Because of CMAC, the regulations have been adapted so that in most cases the non-convention vessels can comply with the regulations, even if they are not complying with the convention.
Senator Roberge: You talked about prevention of pollution by garbage from ships under Marpol 5. What is Marpol 5?
Mr. Turner: Marpol 5 is the Marine Pollution Prevention Convention. Again, this is an IMO convention known as Marpol.
Senator Roberge: Does that require that every port should have a facility?
Mr. Turner: That is in the convention, that is correct.
Senator Roberge: Do we have facilities for garbage disposal in all of our ports in Canada?
Mr. Turner: I would say in all the ports there is definitely a facility that is capable for taking this garbage. The laws of Canada requiring that international garbage can only be landed and follow the deep burial are falling down because of the question of liability to the municipalities. A vessel coming in and wishing to land international garbage into that landfill site may not be able to do so because the municipality is not convinced that there is no liability to them if that garbage is landed and the damage gets into the waterways.
Senator Roberge: Then you have federal jurisdiction, provincial jurisdiction, and the municipalities which do not want it. You are saying that we should get our act together to try to get something which is standard across the country. Is that basically what you are recommending?
Mr. Turner: There needs to be further consultation particularly with regard to direction to the municipalities in order that international garbage, under these circumstances, can be landed and accepted by the municipalities without liability.
Senator Roberge: Are you saying that we cannot accept this garbage in certain parts of our country?
Mr. Turner: I would say absolutely.
Senator Roberge: Would that mean that the garbage is disposed at sea?
Mr. Turner: It is disposed either by incineration on board the vessel, once it gets out, or the disposal is at another port or, in the worst case, dumped at sea.
Senator Roberge: In your experience, would you think that the latter is more probable because there is not enough space to keep this garbage until they get to the next port or they cannot properly incinerate it?
Mr. Turner: Unfortunately, not all ships carry incinerators. There is the question of what to do with the garbage between one port and another. There is no follow up to see whether the garbage that has left one port is still on deck when the ship arrives in another port. This could be transported under those circumstances.
Senator Roberge: Do you know which port in Canada has problems with municipal requirements?
Mr. Turner: I was Harbour Master in Prince Rupert before I took up the job in Saint John. While provincially and federally it was accepted that international garbage could be landed in Prince Rupert, the municipality and the department of engineering in the municipality refused to accept international garbage at the time because of a question of liability.
Senator Roberge: Did you send it back?
Mr. Turner: It was never landed.
Senator Roberge: In your evaluation, of all the ports in Canada what percentage of municipalities have refused garbage?
Mr. Turner: I would be surprised if it was under 50 per cent. I would say that 50 per cent of the municipalities would refuse garbage going into their landfill site for deep burial.
There is another aspect to this, and that is the question of whether the municipalities know that this garbage is being landed.
Senator Roberge: Are you saying that some of the municipalities do not know?
Mr. Turner: It is my belief that in the smaller ports there is the acceptance of garbage going ashore without the realization of the municipality or even, perhaps, the terminals that this is international garbage requiring that certain regulations be enforced.
Senator Roberge: Has an official list been prepared to which we could have access listing all the ports and municipalities that refuse to accept this garbage?
Mr. Turner: No.
Senator Roberge: That is an environmental concern.
Mr. Turner: It is a concern, but it is not too much of a problem to the environment. The concern comes not so much from the actual garbage itself, because when it goes ashore it is buried quite deep. It is more a question of the knowledge of the municipality that it is going ashore or the question of the liability to the municipality and then refusing to allow it to be brought ashore.
Senator Roberge: You have talked about certification of all the vessels and operators in Canada. Is that not provincial jurisdiction?
Mr. Turner: The registration of vessels comes down to the Department of Transport and is now under the marine safety inspectors data bank.
The licensing of vessels has not taken into account the province in which they are operating, other than fishing vessels have a licence which indicates from where that vessel is coming. The licensing, under these circumstances, has normally been carried out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The small pleasure craft are escaping the net, to a greater or lesser extent. They may have a K-number on the vessel, which indicates that a licence has been issued; but once that vessel is licensed, it is a question of entering it into a data bank. There is no follow-up. If the vessel changes hands, the K-number might remain the same. You cannot trace the owner beyond what information is passed through to whoever is the authority.
If it became a provincial control, which is the case with automobiles, the transfer of ownership of that vessel could at least be traced. The access to that information could be obtained on a national basis.
There is a need for a data bank to identify where all vessels are registered and who are the owners.
Senator Bacon: Mr. Turner, what is the major safety concern for ports, if you had to name one?
Mr. Turner: The greatest safety concern is for the environment one way or another. A casualty to a ship, nine times out of ten, will cause a certain amount of environmental damage. Whether or not this is a major pollutant or something which is sitting on the bottom of the harbour, it is still an environmental concern. Under these circumstances, the movement of vessels and the control of those vessels tends to reflect on the safety of the cargoes and the damage to the environment.
Senator Bacon: You mentioned pleasure crafts and unregistered vessels. Would recreational boaters pose a safety concern near a port?
Mr. Turner: Not so much in Saint John. Again, I would like to clarify that. I have been in Saint John for only three months.
In Prince Rupert, pleasure boaters and non-licensed or non-registered vessels caused a great concern to us from the point of view of being able to trace the ownership and, therefore, the control of who is the owner and how that vessel is operated.
Senator Bacon: You are referring to the identification of the craft?
Mr. Turner: The identification of the vessel, yes.
Senator Bacon: On page 9 of your brief you state:
It is therefore necessary to formulate some system by which all vessels operating in the waters of Canada can be identified as to ownership, size and use.
I take it that this is not done right now. Is there no registry of vessels?
Mr. Turner: There is a registry of the vessels. The follow-up on the vessels that are registered is very well done. It is the larger vessels that are normally registered vessels. I do not say all of them are registered. There are smaller vessels that are also registered as well.
With respect to pleasure craft and fishing vessels, the licensing goes into place and the data bank ceases to be updated in such a way that you can follow the natural progression of the ownership of that vessel. The consequence of this is that if you need to collect fees or dues or, worse still, if you need to contact the owner of an abandoned vessel, you do not have the opportunity to do so in the existing data banks.
Senator Bacon: Who would be responsible for not following the various changes that take place?
Mr. Turner: There is nothing in place at the moment that requires this.
Senator Bacon: You say that it has been suggested that the Motor Vehicle Branches of the various provinces should take on the duties of licensing vessels. Do they not want that responsibility and is that why it has been stalled for a number of reasons?
Mr. Turner: It has been stalled. They would be perfectly prepared to do that providing that the money they collected under those circumstances remained in that province.
Perhaps a poor example of that is if someone lives in Saskatchewan and has a boat that can be transported by trailer out to the East Coast or the West Coast, he might license the boat in Saskatchewan yet operate it in B.C. Part of the marine services fee is to pay for the navigational aids in the area where that comes into place. If that has been licensed and held in Saskatchewan, then the money remains there. They are not paying anything towards the navigational aids in the area in which they are using the boat.
Senator Bacon: Would they not have to register it in B.C., then?
Mr. Turner: I am using that as an example. At the moment, there is no question of licensing in place in B.C. or anywhere else.
Senator Bacon: On page 6 you say:
It is therefore essential to ensure that any Departments making regulations in respect of garbage reception and disposal bear in mind the need for an approved facility to receive the required waste. Such regulations and standards require the coordination of various departments.
Would you develop this a little more, please?
Mr. Turner: The first thing I ought to bring to mind is that I mentioned at the end "various departments".
Senator Bacon: Can you name some?
Mr. Turner: Departments under those circumstances are departments with a small "d". When we are looking at garbage disposal from ships, we are certainly looking at the Department of Transport because of the method that it is brought into the country. We are looking at the Department of the Environment because of the requirements of the department for certain environmentally safe processes to come into place. We are looking at the different ministries because of the provincial landfill sites and the control and monitoring of those sites. Then we are looking at the municipalities which, while they may have a landfill site that meets the standard, do not necessarily feel that they can accept the liability for anything that occurs under those circumstances.
In order that the convention is complied with, all these people must be able to feel happy with the fact that that garbage has landed.
Senator Adams: Yesterday, we heard from a port manager. You are a Harbour Master. What is the difference between a Harbour Master and a port manager?
Mr. Turner: I need to climb the ladder a little higher. Canada Ports Corporation ports have a staff which includes in their management a Harbour Master. That is the person in charge of the harbour, which involves every aspect of it, including financing, leasing, staffing, et cetera. The Port Manager is your President/Chief Executive Officer.
Senator Adams: Before a ship comes into harbour, if the Harbour Master thinks that ship is not in shape to come into the harbour, is he able to stop that ship? Is there some kind of inspection which takes place beforehand?
Mr. Turner: I would like to give an example of that. About two years ago there was a rail barge which was leaving Whittier in Alaska and coming down into Prince Rupert. He was going to be discharging his rail cars in Prince Rupert. On board the ship there were some explosives which, according to Canadian law and the law of the International Maritime Organization, the segregation was not correct.
When this came to my attention, I initiated a stop of this vessel coming in with the cargo in that state. What we were looking at was the safety of the people in the area of Prince Rupert.
The ability is there to stop the vessels coming into the port if, there is a reason to do so on account of safety or the environment. We are not going to stop vessels coming in because we do not like the colour of the hull. There has to be a specific reason for that vessel to be stopped. I would not dream of doing this without reference to my superiors, that is, the President or Chief Executive Officer.
Senator Adams: If you do not have the power to stop such ships, does Transport Canada have more say about that if they are concerned that a barge is carrying dynamite or something like that? If the captain of the barge says to you that you cannot stop him because you have no title and he just keeps going, what is the alternative? Is Transport Canada or the Coast Guard able to seize that barge?
Mr. Turner: It is not so much a question of seizing the barge. The Coast Guard has its Marine Communications and Traffic Centres, or MCTSs. The information passed to them in this case was that this ship was not to come into Prince Rupert. The direction came from the Port Corporation. In fact, there was insufficient time for her to go elsewhere and make changes. The information was passed to the barge through the Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Centre.
Senator Adams: A few years ago I remember hearing on the news about a barge full of garbage from New York that was sailing up and down the coast. Everyone was saying, "When are they going to dump that garbage?"
Are there some municipalities that are dumping garbage in the sea on the Atlantic coast?
Mr. Turner: I think not, not to the extent of a barge load of garbage. It is much the same, if you like, with, say, an oil tanker that is pumping dirty ballast over the side. It does not take very long before that is spotted. Generally speaking, you can always trace it to the person who has done it.
If you have a barge load of garbage that has been refused, a very close eye will be kept on it, either through satellite or aerial surveillance. I do not think there is any major disposal.
Senator Adams: Is the Coast Guard able to prevent those barges from dumping in the sea? Do they have the ability to do that?
Mr. Turner: The requirement to report in to the Marine Traffic Centre, particularly for foreign-going vessels, and to meet the requirements of the regulations, would also require that they declare what cargo they have on board, if it is of a hazardous or dangerous nature.
Senator Adams: Does the United States have a similar standard? What if they are right next to the border and the current takes them across the border, do the United States and Canada work together to ensure that they are not dumping into the sea?
Mr. Turner: On an international basis, there is cooperation between one international state and another. The realization that it will damage the environment is sufficient for the cooperation to come into place.
There is cooperation between the Coast Guard groups in Canada and the United States. While there is a certain amount of difference between their regulations and enforcement, the damage to the environment is a concern that both countries would address.
Senator Adams: We have foreigners fishing close to the border or within the 200-mile limit. Some of them have holding tanks. Therefore, they pump out the human waste and other waste when they arrive in port. Do you check the ships that come in?
Mr. Turner: Most of the larger vessels these days are operating either with a holding tank or with a purifying system. Earlier on I was talking about convention as opposed to non-convention ships. Until recently, there was no requirement for non-convention ships to have these holding tanks and they were able to pump over the side.
The operators of these vessels have generally taken the standard that there must be some sort of holding system or a treatment system on board the vessel so that you are not pumping raw sewage into the harbour.
Having said that, there is a tendency to put a lot of blame on ships for pumping raw sewage into the harbour, while there are a number of municipalities throughout Canada which do not have any sewage treatment at all. So, you have a small ship and a large municipality.
Senator Adams: In the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, we heard about the observers on fishing draggers. Does an observer on a ship have any jurisdiction over all types of ships even if they are outside the 200-mile limit?
Mr. Turner: I am afraid I cannot answer that. The port's jurisdiction is limited to the harbour limits. That would certainly be well within the 200-mile limit. While I have an interest in it, I do not have the required knowledge.
The Chairman: Could you give us an explanation of what "deep burial" is?
Mr. Turner: As I understand its meaning, it is that it must not be laid on the surface and that it be covered over with only a layer of soil or whatever the process is for the coverage. It must be put deep into the garbage pit and then covered over at that stage.
The Chairman: How do the municipalities around Saint John handle this situation? Are the arrangements for the collection and disposal of international garbage worked out between the Port Corporation and the captains of the ships, or do you simply administer a set of regulations that are already in place? Could you tell us how you handle it in Saint John, New Brunswick?
Mr. Turner: The honest answer to that is no, sir, I cannot tell you. The concerns of the municipality are generally addressed by the fact that the vessels coming into Saint John in the main have an incineration capability. You may be aware that Saint John has, at the moment, a certain amount of doubt as to where the next landfill will be. Obviously, they do not want to receive any additional garbage.
If there is a requirement for the garbage to be landed, then it would have to be arranged with the municipality and not through the Port Corporation.
The Chairman: Would you administer and police it, since you are the boss of the port?
Mr. Turner: No, I am not the boss of the port.
Mr. Chair: If I wanted to do something in the Port of Halifax, I would call the Harbour Master.
Mr. Turner: It is very nice of you to give us a little more power than we have. In effect, we would want to know about anybody wishing to land garbage. We would ask the ship's agent or the ship to make arrangements through the municipality for the collection of that garbage and its consequent disposal.
The Chairman: As we get into these very large cruise ships -- 4,000 to 6,000 passengers -- we are not talking about an insignificant landing of international garbage. We are talking about very significant storage and movement of it. In the case of Halifax, we have to truck it 130 miles on our highways. This poses serious long-term questions.
In addition, I have always been fascinated by the total absence of any way of checking on disposal, for example, of needles or other medical paraphernalia, of human parts. We know that the high seas have been used for that kind of disposal. How do you police that?
Mr. Turner: The question of disposal on the high seas is a very difficult one to police. Bilge water floats on the surface and you can trace that back to its source. In fact, ships have been found to have disposed of garbage in areas where they are not supposed to dispose of it. As a consequence, it has been traced back.
I am making a statement about which I am not 100 per cent certain. Foodstuffs from passenger ships, if coming up from the United States, are not deemed to be international garbage. If it is coming in from further afield than the U.S., then it is. The cruise ships that are coming into Saint John are coming in from the United States.
The Chairman: Would the Caribbean be included under international?
Mr. Turner: I would not like to say one way or another on that.
The Chairman: If a 5,000 passenger cruise ship pulled into Pier 29 and it had only a tonne of garbage on board and had been at sea for five days, I would want to call Shearwater and have somebody go out to see if they would be able to follow wherever it was they came from.
Mr. Turner: There is the capability of incineration on most of these vessels.
The Chairman: That is a very serious problem. We did not have a chance to discuss this when we were on the West Coast, but in Vancouver they handle an enormous number of these vessels.
Mr. Turner: On the modern cruise ships, the capability of incinerating all of their garbage is generally in place.
The Chairman: Is there a Canadian requirement on Canadian-registered vessels for incineration or treatment? Do we have that kind of regulation, a compliance requirement for disposal?
Mr. Turner: The compliance will come under Canada being a signatory of Marpol 5.
The Chairman: Just because we are a signatory, we are not necessarily obligated as long as our standards are higher. Is the burning, for example, under Marpol?
Mr. Turner: No, it is not. It is more a question of the contravention as a result of disposing garbage inside the economic zones of countries. The landing of garbage under those circumstances is addressed in Marpol 5. It is not really a question of telling them how to do it.
The Chairman: We take your comments about unmanned barges with every bit of seriousness, having just gone through the Irving Whale situation, which was successful in its completion and correction.
Senator Roberge: I have a supplementary question. I was surprised when I heard that barges carrying oil have no inspection requirements. When did that start?
Mr. Turner: It is a question of unmanned barges. If the oil barge were manned, then they are required to have an inspection.
Senator Roberge: I am referring to page 7 of your brief, which states that as of February 28, 1998 inspections will start. If they had decided on that some time ago, why would it take until February 28, 1998 to become mandatory?
Mr. Turner: It is a question of existing barges and barges that are newly built. With regard to a newly-built vessel, if the keel is laid today then that vessel will be inspected. If, on the other hand, you have an existing barge which has been carrying oil for however many years, the latest time that that barge must comply with this regulation is February 28, 1998.
Senator Roberge: That does not make sense to me. Why the delay? If it is an environmental hazard and a safety hazard it should be immediate.
With your experience in Prince Rupert, what is your opinion on the staffing of lighthouses?
Mr. Turner: Particularly in Prince Rupert there has been major discussion about the destaffing of lighthouses and how important these lighthouses are to foreign-going vessels and smaller vessels.
I would contend that the light itself is the aid to navigation, not the lighthouse keeper. The question of rescue from a lighthouse keeper to a vessel is a red herring because if the weather is bad, the lighthouse keeper cannot get away from his lighthouse anyway.
If you look at the height of eye of the lighthouse and the range that you can see on the visible horizon for that lighthouse keeper, it is fairly limited. The thought that the lighthouse keeper is going to be able to see vessels that are in distress is stretching reality just a little bit too far.
In my period of time deep sea, I never once spoke to a lighthouse keeper -- that is not correct. The Island of Socotra at the bottom of the Red Sea has a lighthouse keeper. We were obliged to talk to him because I believe it was in 1968 that the last lighthouse keeper was eaten. So, we spoke to the lighthouse keeper there to find out whether or not he was alive and well.
The idea of using the lighthouse keeper as somebody who can aid in navigation to a deep sea person is non-existent.
The Chairman: Mr. Turner, I would like to thank you for coming from Saint John to be here today. We welcome you to your new job and wish you well in it. As we define what the real problems are, we may have to come back to you in order to test out some solutions.
We will now hear representatives of the Halifax Port Corporation. I ask Messrs Bellefontaine, Sherman and Malec to come to the table.
Will you proceed, please.
Mr. David Bellefontaine, President and CEO, Halifax Port Corporation: Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, first, I want to apologize for Mr. Merv Russell's absence today. He spoke to one of you this morning, and something came up in his real life job, where his bread and butter comes from, so he was required to bow out of the hearing.
I have with me Captain Randall Sherman, our Director of Operations at the port and our Harbour Master, and Mr. George Malec, the Assistant Harbour Master and a specialist in many areas of the port, including hazardous goods.
I would like to read a very short presentation just to set the stage for the discussion, after which we will be delighted to answer your questions.
The Halifax Port Corporation is a federal Crown corporation, established by the Minister of Transport in June of 1984. The mission of the corporation is to develop, market and manage the assets in the port in order to foster and promote trade and transportation and to serve as a catalyst for local, regional and national economies.
Last year, the port handled 12.9 million tonnes of cargo, including 3.2 million tonnes of containerized cargo, which represents the most important part of our business in terms of revenue and port activity. The economic spin-offs generated from all the activities in the port, including at private facilities, account for about 7,000 jobs, over $233 million in income, and $306 million in direct expenditures.
The port handles a variety of cargoes, such as bulk, which include oil products and gypsum at private facilities, break bulk, as it is known, such as forest products, steel, rubber, heavy lifts and project cargoes.
A very important factor in the delivery of Canada's export trade is in relation to the safe transport of goods to and from our country's trading regions.
I would like to raise a number of issues for further discussion with the subcommittee, and I will just touch on these because we have the experts here who could further debate them. First, there should be enhanced integration of road and rail movements of hazardous goods with other agencies which are involved after the goods exit port property. Things such as truck access routes to provide for the safe movement of goods through densely populated areas comes to mind. We are working with the municipality in this regard to ensure that the port operates in the most efficient manner.
We understand that Transport Canada has undertaken fewer spot checks lately on hazardous goods, which may be the result of the reduced staffing component that they face.
Second, this is a minor point, perhaps, to the committee, but it is important for us at the port; the downsizing of the rank of Queen's Harbour Master results in a less efficient problem-solving mechanism now at DND. The control of movements of auxiliary military vessels is an example where a higher rank may result in more expeditious decision making and, therefore, greater efficiencies for both agencies involved.
Third, Transport Canada is restructuring its operations, which may have an impact on call-out procedures for emergency responses. The VTS, vessel traffic system, could be managed differently than at present. Captain Randy Sherman and George Malec can discuss this with you, if you wish.
Fourth, as you know, the Ports Canada Police Organization, managed by the Canada Ports Corporation, will be disbanded shortly. Each port authority will be required to enter into agreements with other policing and security organizations to fulfil the requirements of the port. We are presently studying this issue and we have meetings planned with the local department of justice and the municipality to work out the arrangements.
Issues that we must work with include the handling of silent hour responses in emergency situations. Silent hours are normally referred to as after 5:00 and before 8:00 in the morning; in other words, evening hours. Other issues include the enforcement of boating safety; interface with the military; Canadian obligations for passenger safety under IMO regulations; and policing of exclusion zones during special events in the harbour.
Our goal is to ensure that customers, passengers and the public are satisfied with the safety and security procedures within the port, and that policing and security is carried out in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We are confident that the transition can be accomplished without disruption to the port's solid record of being a reputable, safe port, through which Canada's trade can pass.
Mr. Chairman, I will stop at that point. We look forward to discussing these matters with you further.
Senator Roberge: You are talking here about the possibility of better integration of railroads and trucking routes and all that, which makes an awful lot of sense. How do you go about it? First, you will have to make a deal with the railroads and then you must talk to the municipalities. Do you have anything more specific as far as recommendations are concerned?
Mr. George Malec, Assistant Harbour Master, Halifax Port Corporation: That is correct, sir. To this end, we have initiated an ongoing dialogue with the Halifax Regional Municipality, being cognizant of the fact that they have just undergone a radical restructuring. We now have the opportunity to speak to one political entity which represents all the various municipalities around the port area that are impacted by our cargo base. This gives us a unique opportunity to deal with one level of municipal government, in addition to one provincial level of government through the Emergency Measures Response Organization of the province.
We see our mandate here in terms of expediting their accumulation of knowledge. We will provide them with the data about the cargo and the traffic patterns in the port, so that they can then analyze it, look at it in terms of their rail and road access routes through the municipal corridor, and then determine best what their response should be. We are there to support them with technical advice and information, which otherwise would be extremely difficult for them to come about since we are the ones that have that kind of cargo operational knowledge and information from the shipping agents.
Senator Roberge: For example, if something being transported which is very hazardous arrives in Halifax, and it must go to Montreal by rail or by truck, how do you ensure that this same integration follows through? That is also an important element.
Mr. Malec: That is quite right. The rail aspect is governed by one agency or one commercial entity. Therefore, to some extent it is a bit easier. We deal with them and at that point it is their responsibility.
Truck access routes interprovincially are an area of concern, something which, unfortunately, transcends our area of expertise. We really could not do much in terms of impacting that movement. It is quite outside the limit of our authority. What we would do, however, is ensure that the Transport Canada Dangerous Goods Directorate, which is the regulatory authority governing the movement, is appraised of that cargo prior to its leaving this port. They could then determine how they want the highway inspectors to function in this regard because that truck should be checking in with the various weigh bridges and weigh scales between Halifax and Montreal. If we put that in the hands of the TDG directorate, hopefully they would then be able to monitor that interprovincial passage.
Senator Roberge: On another note, there is talk right now, although it is not certain that it will come about, of changing all the security aspects of the port. I am referring to the special police. There is talk right now that they will revert back to either provincial security police or municipal police, depending upon the province. That causes me some concern. I would like to get more information from you as to your concerns.
Mr. Bellefontaine: First, in the province of Nova Scotia, we do not have a provincial police force. The municipalities have their police operations. On Friday, we received a directive from the minister to meet first with the provincial Department of Justice, which has overall authority in this province for the establishment of police forces and for the assignment of duties to police forces which are already established. We had a task force last year comprised of representatives of the RCMP, the municipality, the Department of Justice and ourselves. We interviewed the shippers, the shipping lines, the terminal operators, the police and the senior people. We came to the conclusion that in fact there was an alternate method that could be used, that is, the municipal police force could be used with proper transition procedures, training and so on.
I believe such reports were undertaken at each port in Canada which has a police force. There was a large report, which I have not seen yet, from the British Columbia government which also recommended that this take place. Based on all that information, the minister made a decision to do it.
Our first job now is to meet with the Department of Justice and the municipality to find out what level of service they will provide to the port. Second, we must define what level of policing and security we think we need from the point of view of customers, passengers and public safety. If they do not want to do this, then it will come down to some form of negotiations with the municipality, or the Department of Justice, in terms of who pays for what.
We have been paying taxes for many years in this port, unlike other ports. We have our own police force for which we are not given a deduction from our tax grants. It does not make sense. All we are asking for is that the port be treated the same as any other business in the municipality with respect to police services. In terms of anything that we require above that level, then we must make some form of agreement with the municipality to pay for it. That has not been worked out yet. We will have our first meeting tomorrow.
The Chairman: While we are on the question of changing the police structure, how is it paid for now? Is it paid for out of port charges or cargo charges?
Mr. Bellefontaine: Yes.
The Chairman: Is it a burden on the taxpayer of Canada or is it pretty well self-sufficient?
Mr. Bellefontaine: No. All the ports that have police services are self-sufficient. They generate their revenues from charging shipping lines fees based on the size of the vessel and the amount of cargo that is loaded or off-loaded. We have two major types of charges. The shipping lines and the shippers pay the fees. Those fees come to the port. Even though we have no jurisdiction over the police component, because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Canada Ports Corporation in Ottawa, the port authority itself pays for the police operation. It comes out of the fees of shipping lines, basically. There is no subsidy from the taxpayer.
The Chairman: Theoretically, we make a profit.
Mr. Bellefontaine: We do make a profit in real terms.
The Chairman: There is no economic advantage to the Canadian taxpayer in changing the present system.
The fear that I have about this is that we will wind up with at least five different police acts under which policing could be carried out. They will differ in respect to pursuit, for example. They differ in the manner in which you may pursue on your own property, for example, private conveyances on that property. In some provinces that is strictly taboo, you just do not do that without other forms of search warrants, et cetera. Does this present a bit of a problem to you?
Mr. Bellefontaine: Actually, we have that situation right now. It should not get any worse. We have the RCMP, which is responsible for federal law enforcement, and that will remain, with respect to drugs and so on. We have the immigration officials.
The Chairman: Would that include theft?
Mr. Bellefontaine: No. Most likely, matters of theft would involve the municipal police. In terms of the theft of drugs, they are certainly involved, and they will continue to be involved. Immigration will continue to be involved with respect to stowaways and the like. They have jurisdiction over port property when it comes to that. Then we have our own police detachment, which has jurisdiction over the port confines. That role will be handed over to the municipal police. The municipal police are on our property from time to time. I am not sure how much they do because we have our own police force.
The Chairman: They have a right of pursuit on your property while, in some instances, the reverse is not true.
Mr. Bellefontaine: I believe that is correct. But they collaborate with each other and cooperate. I think it has worked rather well in that context.
The Chairman: Would you like to see it stay the same or is their merit in going another route?
Mr. Bellefontaine: As I said, we had this review and we talked to the customers. We said there is another option that is more efficient and cheaper, "Do you support it?" to which they replied, "Yes."
Senator Roberge: How will it be cheaper?
Mr. Bellefontaine: We do not know. We hope it will be.
Senator Roberge: It is the municipalities which take the brunt of it and have to pay for it, while right now it is your customers who are paying for it.
Mr. Bellefontaine: That is right.
Senator Roberge: The customer is getting a good deal.
The Chairman: How would the customer know for sure that the savings were being returned to him?
Mr. Bellefontaine: They would not unless we show them in a tariff that here is a discount resulting from the police reduction. It is unlikely that will happen.
I will give you one example of what we have done and what we are continuing to do. For the last seven years, the port has had no increase in tariffs. Why? Because we have been able to cut our costs, including the costs of policing, to a degree. We have cut our overheads in every area. We have cut some departments out completely, just like the private sector has done. By doing that, we have been able to pass those savings on to the customer. If in the future the police operation is cheaper, then the savings will be passed on to the customer through either no tariff increases or more incentives.
The Chairman: At least that would leave you in a position to argue for no increases.
Mr. Bellefontaine: That is right.
Senator Bacon: What is the major safety concern of the authorities of the Port of Halifax?
Mr. Bellefontaine: That is a bit outside our jurisdiction. However, one of the concerns that we have involves the excess hours worked by the longshoremen. This is something you will hear from the president of one of our container terminals. He is concerned that there are excess hours being worked which, obviously, is unsafe. I do not know how someone who works 30 or 35 hours straight can be considered alert. That is a concern.
Another concern which has just arisen is with respect to workers not wearing the proper safety equipment. There was an article on ATV News last week about this very matter. The reporter did a very long investigation. I think he did a very comprehensive review. He concluded that no one has really taken the responsibility to enforce the labour code with respect to safety, including the wearing of hard hats and safety boots, et cetera.
Senator Roberge: Whose responsibility is that?
Mr. Bellefontaine: That is the problem. You can pick seven or eight different organizations that are responsible. Can we as a port authority enforce workers, and anyone else who comes on to port property, to wear hard hats? When you read the code, you see that it states that hard hats must be worn in hazardous areas. You must then define what is a hazardous area.
Senator Roberge: Could you not define the whole port as a hazardous area and impose those rules? It is your land.
Senator Bacon: Do you have the power to do that?
Mr. Bellefontaine: I think we do, yes.
Senator Roberge: Good luck.
Mr. Bellefontaine: That is right. And then there is the enforcement issue; how do you enforce it?
What has happened is that the employers have gotten together over the last few days and they have looked at the safety aspects of not wearing headgear, et cetera. I can assure you that they are taking steps. We are taking steps with our employees. If anyone is caught not wearing a hat in an area that they should be wearing one, then they will be sent home. It is as simple as that. We have made that very clear. We will have zero tolerance.
We are now talking to the other employers on the waterfront to ensure that they follow through as well. It must be a blanket policy because, in the past, it has not been. What we have had in the past is one group looking at another group and making fun of them for wearing hard hats. That is what we are facing. It is a question of culture. It goes back to 50 or 60 years ago.
Senator Roberge: You are saying, for example, that some of the longshoremen are working up to 35 hours straight. Is that the responsibility of the employer?
Mr. Bellefontaine: The employer and Labour Canada. I know in our own organization, the Halifax Port Corporation, we must apply for a permit to allow employees to work longer than 48 hours. I am not aware of that happening with the other employers.
Senator Roberge: Have you spoken to the employers about that?
Mr. Bellefontaine: They are well aware of it.
Senator Roberge: It is definitely a safety issue.
Mr. Bellefontaine: I think so. The difficulty is that you have more than one employer. You can have a gentleman working for company A for eight hours, and then he takes a break, comes back to work for company B, right after supper, for another four or five hours. That is the problem you have with five employers and two large container terminals on the waterfront.
Senator Roberge: Is that a problem which the other ports in Canada are experiencing or is it particular to your port?
Mr. Bellefontaine: I think other ports have similar problems, whether it is as critical as here I do not know.
Senator Roberge: Do you communicate with each other to try to find out who is doing something better than the other in order to improve and to find new ways of doing things?
Mr. Bellefontaine: We do. however, this is a responsibility of the Halifax Employers Association, formerly the MEA, the Maritime Employers Association. They control the hours of work and so on. This is a serious matter that came up in the video. The president of Halterm mentioned that he finds this to be one of the biggest problems that we have. We are working on the wearing of headgear, vests and boots. However, excess hours is another issue.
Senator Bacon: On page 5 of your presentation you mention a number of issues that must be resolved. You mention specifically the enforcement of boating safety. Do recreational boaters pose a significant safety threat in your port?
Mr. Randall Sherman, Harbour Master, Director of Operations, Halifax Port Corporation: I am not certain they pose a safety threat so much in themselves as that there are certain regulations which apply to them. They must be enforced. For instance, with regard to drinking infractions, they operate under the same tolerance levels as what they do on the highways. Someone must be responsible for ensuring that there are not impaired operators. There are also safety issues around public areas. The Northwest Arm in Halifax is a highly used recreational area in the summertime. There are many children learning to sail small boats, kayakers and canoers. If you get that mixed in with people running fast motor boats or these personal water craft, then that can create hazards. There must be a presence to ensure that these sorts of thing are kept under control.
At the present, where these matters fall under our jurisdiction, it has been our police force which has been maintaining this. However, but if they are no longer to be in service, then we must look for some other way of maintaining this control.
Senator Bacon: Will that be part of the discussions you will have?
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Senator Bacon: On the page 4 of your presentation you mention that the downsizing of the rank of the Queen's Harbour Master, DND, has resulted in a less efficient problem resolution situation. Would you care to elaborate on that? What does DND mean?
Mr. Sherman: That is Department of National Defence, the navy. We are primarily concerned with the navy in the port because they have a large presence here, this being the largest base in Canada. We have a lot of interface with them on various activities, whether it is visiting warships or special events going on in the harbour and that sort of thing.
The office of the Queen's Harbour Master is my counterpart in the navy. That rank has been diminished, with some of its authority having been removed from the job, at least as far as we see it. As a result, in order to get prompt decisions, it is a little more difficult because he must go up the line now to his superiors to get the answers. Before, they could have given them more directly when we were involved in a situation.
Senator Bacon: Do you feel it is less efficient now than it was before?
Mr. Sherman: Yes. The level of cooperation we once enjoyed seems to have diminished somewhat in the last couple of years since this has taken place.
Senator Adams: The government has export and import regulations. Customs and Immigration have government inspectors. You must have similar concerns in your port with respect to the unloading of ships. Products unloaded in Halifax may move on to Montreal and Toronto. Everything crossing the Canada-U.S. border is inspected. Do you do the same thing at your port? Do you inspect the goods as well?
Mr. Sherman: I think the controls for those sort of things lie with Customs and Immigration. As a matter of course, when a ship comes to port, that is part of their clearance requirement. They report to Customs and Immigration, and they will then carry out whatever is necessary from their point of view.
Senator Adams: And you work with them. My concern is with respect to dangerous goods getting on to the highways. If a truck carrying dangerous goods from the Port of Halifax has an accident, who is responsible?
Mr. Malec: Under the law of the land, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and its regulations, the shipper is responsible for having a Canadian bonded recipient here. That person has the responsibility, under law, to respond to that incident. If the incident were to occur within the port limits and, under the terms of our operating by-law we felt that the response time or level of response were insufficient, then the port authority could step in, effect remedial action and then recover costs from the shipper. The TDG act allows an inspector from Transport Canada to determine whether or not a suitable response is being undertaken. If not, remedial action can then be directed by TDG and the same kind of cost recovery method can be implemented. The shipper is always ultimately responsible for the clean-up and containment of the problem and for any cost recovery associated therewith. It really does not matter where the accident occurs, the shipper's liability remains until the place of rest.
Senator Adams: Do specific companies pick up dangerous goods?
Mr. Malec: There are a number of response companies. Under the law of the land, every shipment of dangerous goods must be accompanied by not only a declaration as to its nature, but a 24-hour emergency response number which can be activated as to some type of plan. Most of the companies that are engaged in the transportation of particularly volatile substances have mutual aid agreements with chemical response agencies, professional clean-up companies such as Sanivan or Lavalin, which are then hired directly by these companies on a retainer, much like an informal insurance arrangement. Once the shipper is notified, the shipper then goes to his parent group, association or umbrella company and says, "I need help in Moncton. I have a derailment," or "I have a truck off the road in Edmundston." They will then send a professional clean-up team to assist.
The local municipality or the local responders are normally in the first response mode, which is to isolate the area, identify the problem and then make sure that public safety is paramount.
Senator Adams: On another committee, we heard testimony from the Atomic Energy Control Board. Who handles contracts for nuclear power stations?
Mr. Malec: The Atomic Energy Control Act requires all class 7 radioactive goods -- anything above a low specific activity substance -- to be passed through the Atomic Energy Control Board for prior approval, whether they be in transit on a stopover on a vessel, for example, in Halifax but not for discharge here, or for conveyance through the port to an inland destination. The Atomic Energy Control Board, once it receives that document and grants a Canadian endorsement number for approval, then sends both Transport Canada and ourselves a copy of that authorization.
The regulations that we have in place require the shipment to be handled just like any other dangerous goods shipment, once the Atomic Energy Control Board has approved the fact that it can come into Canadian waters. That is covered under the regulating procedures for all dangerous goods shipments.
Senator Adams: You mentioned something about a police force. Does it have its own union, or do they belong to you or any other union of port workers?
Mr. Bellefontaine: Are you referring to the police?
Senator Adams: Do the police have a union?
Mr. Bellefontaine: Yes, there is a union. The police force belongs to the Police Association of Nova Scotia, the PANS group, and they are separate from the other unions in the port.
Senator Adams: Is all they do police the port? Do they have anything to do with the unloading of different types of material from certain ships?
Mr. Bellefontaine: The police detachment is the first to respond in emergency situations, especially after hours. If there is an incident, in the evening for example, the person who uncovers it or finds that there is a problem should contact the police immediately. The police would then call Randy or George, whichever one of the two is on standby, and they would immediately introduce DFO procedures if need be and get on with the situation. They are the first point of contact in the port at the present time, yes. They are involved with respect to the operational side and, of course, they would help to keep people away from areas that are supposed to be secure and so on. There is an involvement there, yes.
Senator Adams: Ships enter the Port of Halifax to unload their containers and inventory. Do you have lists of the inventory?
Mr. Bellefontaine: Do you mean all the manifests?
Senator Adams: The manifests, yes.
Mr. Bellefontaine: Yes, we do. We must have manifests. Customers have their manifest for the clearance of their cargo. We have the manifests mainly for the billing procedure because we charge based on the type of commodity and the volume of cargo. The railway would have the manifest for handling the box inland, or from inland to the terminal. Yes, there is documentation, a lot of which is done by computer these days.
Senator Adams: Sometimes other cargo on a ship is mixed in with dangerous goods.
Mr. Malec: In addition to the document flow that Mr. Bellefontaine has just referred to, we also require that shippers submit a dangerous goods manifest 24 to 48 hours in advance of the vessel or the cargo's arrival in the port. That is above and beyond the customs cargo manifest. It sets out the additional criteria we are looking for about the correct technical name of the goods, the quantities, the proper designations, proof of packaging and the other pertinent requirements under the TDG act. That information is fed into a computer system in the operations office. That information is then made available to Transport Canada, Environment Canada, and the Halifax Regional Municipality Fire Department, so that all the affected agencies which have a stake in the safe handling and movement of those goods under their regulatory mandate can be apprised of dangerous cargoes as distinct from just the general cargo flow through the Port of Halifax.
Senator Adams: Other countries have freight trade now. Are there ships coming from other countries and shipping to Canada? We have trade agreements with the United States, Mexico, Chile, and there may be others.
Mr. Malec: The regulations have not affected that in any respect. The regulations remain constant. Regardless of the cargo source, they must pertain to the Canadian legislation which is contained under the TDG Act. It really is immaterial what arrangements there are commercially. Legally, they must do that declaration process anyway.
The Chairman: Could you elaborate on the present state of the relationship between the port and the military with respect to movements? Could you give us a better sense of understanding your concerns? I link that to such things as visitations by foreign ships that have almost antiquated propulsion systems.
Mr. Sherman: We are in contact with the navy on a daily basis. We exchange faxes every day as to what they are moving, and we let them know what is moving commercially in the harbour limits. As a result of this, we get advance notice of any special requirements from them, for instance, if there is a NATO fleet visiting or some ship with particular requirements.
Our normal procedure would be to set up a meeting with them. Then we go through the plan as to how to handle this particular situation. For instance, if we have a large aircraft carrier in, we know we cannot bring it alongside, and we may have to put an exclusion zone around it to keep spectator craft or activists away from it. We establish all these points prior to the ship's arrival, and then get on with the plan as the days proceed.
It is a fairly straightforward operation. It means constant communication with these people. With the downgrading of the rank, sometimes this information is not as readily available as it used to be. Sometimes we do not find out what is going on until very close to the fact. This is something we are trying to address in order to bring it up to speed again.
The Chairman: What is the present rank in the military with whom you deal?
Mr. Sherman: It is Lieutenant Commander at the moment.
The Chairman: Has it traditionally been captain?
Mr. Sherman: Commander or better.
The Chairman: Has it ever been commander?
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
The Chairman: Has this caused you any problems or given you any reason for concern? Looking ahead, we have some tall ships coming in a couple of years. The military have always been very cooperative and very helpful in dealing with this mass invasion of our port. Does this downgrading impair that type of planning or is that so long range that it should not be a problem?
Mr. Sherman: I expect that we should have good cooperation with the navy for events such as this. We always have in the past. With the long-range planning, we have plenty of time to get this organized well in advance and iron out whatever details have to be ironed out.
One of the prime concerns we have is the visitation of some of the support vessels for foreign fleets. Occasionally, there are commercially-chartered vessels which carry military supplies. We are not always certain as to what standard they may be. On occasion, we may have to look very closely at their entry into the port. This is where we get into conflict with the military because they have their idea of how it should be and, of course, we have jurisdiction in the harbour.
The Chairman: When we have a nuclear vessel visiting our port in other than emergency circumstances, how much advance notice do you require?
Mr. Sherman: We have nothing formal as to how much time we need, but we get notification from the QHM on the arrival of these vessels. It is normally several days ahead.
The Chairman: Does Shearwater remain an adequate berthing facility?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, that is the berthing facility.
The Chairman: There is no difficulty with exclusion zones or territorial zones, is there?
Mr. Sherman: No, there is not. The navy provides their own exclusion zone around those vessels.
The Chairman: Does it supply their own divers?
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Senator Roberge: We were talking with Mr. Turner earlier about garbage and waste disposal from the ships. Do you have an entente with the Halifax municipality?
Mr. Bellefontaine: Yes. We have set up a new arrangement with respect to international garbage disposal. I would ask Captain Sherman to speak to that.
Mr. Sherman: The disposal of international garbage comes under the auspices of Agriculture Canada once it lands on the shore. We have several contract service providers who are licensed to operate in our port who meet Agriculture Canada standards. They provide specialized bins to take off the garbage, which is then transported to the airport incinerator for incineration.
Once it lands on our property, it then becomes Agriculture Canada's mandate to ensure that everything goes according to their rules.
Mr. Bellefontaine: We charge them so much per year to have the right to dispose of international garbage on the port. They have to buy a licence from us. Only those who are licensed can put a disposal container on the port.
Senator Adams: Are people in kayaks or canoes and things such as that policed by the Coast Guard or the RCMP? We have heard about cottagers with boats and that there is no protection for the municipalities. We would like to hear more about that.
Mr. Sherman: Presently, the way it works is that the Coast Guard is responsible for the regulations concerning safety on the vessel; in other words, ensuring that there are proper life jackets, proper capacity plates, all the regulations that pertain to the vessel itself.
However, the situation here is that they are operating within our jurisdiction. Traditionally, it has been our police who take care of the infractions which would lead to, shall we say, the Criminal Code aspect of it such as the impaired operation or the reckless or dangerous operation of a craft, that sort of thing. The actual checking of the craft itself to comply with safety regulations is the responsibility of the Coast Guard. However, I believe our police in the past have overlapped in that area. When they stop a vessel for a certain check, they may also inspect it to see if they have the proper safety equipment on board.
Senator Adams: Is it true that the municipalities along the Atlantic coast do not have any protection because they are on the coast, or is it policed for a certain number of kilometres along the shore? How does that system work?
Mr. Bellefontaine: If you look at the map, you will see that we have an imaginary line along the north end of McNab's Island. That becomes our harbour boundary in terms of the jurisdiction of the Halifax Port Corporation. From that point, going north, including the main harbour, the harbour narrows to the bridge areas and, including all the Bedford Basin, is under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority. Beyond that southern line on McNab's Island the Coast Guard has jurisdiction.
The Chairman: Where does the port end?
Mr. Bellefontaine: On the north side of McNab's Island in terms of our jurisdiction.
The Chairman: Where would the line from the Nasca property to --
Mr. Bellefontaine: Purcell's Cove to Shearwater. You draw a line across there. That is very important, because if an incident occurs with respect to a vessel or a hazard or a navigational issue, that line determines who takes charge of the incident. If it is within that line, then we would take control of it, take the lead; if it is outside that line, then it would be Coast Guard. It is important from a legal point of view.
The Chairman: I always thought it should include the natural harbour. However, that has to do with union problems and goes back a long time.
Mr. Bellefontaine, you mentioned that you had some concern about the VTS system in general. You suggested that it might be managed differently. Can you tell us first what the problem is and then how it might be corrected by different management?
Mr. Bellefontaine: I will speak about the commercial side and I will ask Captain Sherman to talk about the operational side.
There is a big issue these days called the Coast Guard Marine Services Fees that we are challenging in terms of what level of fee the port should pay. We feel that the fee introduced last year on a one-year basis is too high. We have done a lot of homework in Halifax with the industry which shows that the rate is probably four times what it should be, if you look at pier user pay. It is to recover navigational aids from the Coast Guard service for the Halifax users. Part of that could be the vessel traffic services system.
We are saying that the Coast Guard has to look at the cost of their operation and get that down before they implement a large fee structure that may chase away some of our business. The VTS is part of it. There may be another way to handle it. One option could be -- and we are not looking for more work -- to put it under the Port Authority. It exists in certain European ports. That is an option. I am not saying we have studied it in depth, but it is an option that someone should look at.
Senator Roberge: Could you elaborate on the Port Authority?
Mr. Bellefontaine: We are called the Port Authority, which is a generic name. We are the Port Authority here, even though we have a different name. Many port authorities in Europe operate the vessel traffic system; they operate the tugs, the pilots, and their own terminals. In many cases, they are operating ports.
In Canada, to a large degree, there are what we call landlord ports. On behalf of the Crown, we manage the property as a trustee and we lease the property out to private terminals. So, we are operated by the private sector. We have no problem with that.
The tugs, the pilots, the Coast Guard, everything else, is outside our authority. That is what you are hearing today. You are hearing all of these different bodies that are involved in running the port, from Agriculture, to Coast Guard, to Customs, to Immigration, to police, you name it. It takes a lot of work to bring all these parties together and to have it work seamlessly, but it does work.
All we are saying is that the Coast Guard should look at their costs, which I am sure they are doing. One area that we feel should be looked at perhaps more critically is the VTS system. Perhaps there are savings to be made there.
Mr. Sherman: Where I am coming from is the fact that new technology has changed the way you can operate a VTS system these days. The present system is based on a radar surveillance and radio communication system. With the advent of these global positioning satellites in a stationary position above the earth, you can get extremely accurate ship positioning, in fact much more so than can be done by radar. Basically, a transponder and a computer are needed to run it.
With portable computers and portable transponders, these could be established on board vessels visiting the port. You could have a real-time computer picture of what is going on out there in the harbour. These transponders are such that when they are initialized by the person, they can broadcast all the relative information of the ship at the same time. To begin with, it would reduce the radio traffic.
The cost of this system is significantly less than a radar system as far as the capital outlay to start it up is concerned. In the next few years, I am sure they will be looking at upgrading the present VTS system by replacing the existing radar, if they are to stay with that system. Again, that involves a large capital outlay. However, they are also interested in this new technology. We have been corresponding about it lately. They are quite interested in trying a pilot project to see how it would work in the future. It may be something we can do jointly with the Coast Guard or, perhaps, on our own or in conjunction with other ports. At this point, it is in the very initial stages, but I can see some real possibilities for savings.
The Chairman: I should like to thank you very much. Over the years we have had a number of round table discussions such as this. As always, I continue to be impressed with your professionalism. I congratulate you on the manner in which you continue to run the Port of Halifax.
When we have identified some of the problems, we may want to ask you to comment on the solutions we will be considering.
Mr. Eric Mott, who is the Secretary of Ports Canada Police, Local 112, is in attendance. He has the concurrence of his union to respond to any questions that we might want to ask a member of the force about this movement. I would ask Mr. Mott to come forward.
Mr. Eric Mott, Secretary, Ports Canada Police, Local 112: We were not prepared for the meeting, but I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing us to come forward.
The Chairman: Could you tell us what the position of your association is?
Mr. Mott: I would point out that I am not speaking for the Police Department but, rather, the Police Association, the union. What I have to say is not the policing position, but the union position.
We have grave concerns about reverting back to the old system along the waterfront. When I joined the force in 1975, it had been a police force for only seven years. Prior to 1968, it was a watchman security-type situation, similar to what is being planned for use around the waterfront. The pilferage was so high that in 1968 they formed a police force so they could do their own enforcement on the property.
Over the years that became known as the National Harbour's Board Police. Several years back, they decided to take away the local autonomy. Mr. Bellefontaine mentioned that now everything is controlled in Ottawa. Prior to that, when it was the National Harbour's Board Police, it was controlled by the Port of Halifax directly under the Port Authority. When the Ports Canada Corporation was formed, they moved the police department to national autonomy. We are handled out of Ottawa. Our office is under the present Director-General, Sid Peckford. We have had this transfer back and forth.
The police force has been studied on a regular basis on an average of every three years. I believe Senator Forrestall was involved in overlooking a study a few years back. More recently, the closure part has become a major concern to members of the force. Most of them are middle-aged, at around 45-plus. Their careers are definitely in jeopardy, as you can well expect. Not only that, we have created a family with the people we work with. We have grave concerns with the thefts and the organized crime that exists on the waterfront. There is no secret that there is organized crime on the waterfront in any port in the country. Members of these organized crime units do not always have a beard and ride motorcycle. They are businessmen dressed in shirts and ties.
Over the years, our people have learned to know who those people are, how to identify them, and how to approach them. Bringing in another police force will mean that there will have to be some time taken to identify those people. Thus, the safety aspect to the policemen who will be coming in must be considered. Their lives will be in jeopardy because they will not know who they are stopping on the road, which is similar to the duties they do now in some cases.
I am sure that Mr. Malec impressed everyone at this hearing. I worked with Mr. Malec two years ago when I rewrote the emergency plans for the police department. I was not very knowledgeable about the matter, although he brought me up to speed fairly quickly. I am not as knowledgeable as he is by any means, but the expertise in these areas within the port is second to none in Canada. I have dealt with a lot of people in Nova Scotia, including provincial emergency situations.
The concern in policing circles is with the dismantling of the force. It is being done very quickly, although it has been talked about for two years. We know the bill will not be passed during this session. However, our understanding as of yesterday is that now there will be a straight abolishment of the force.
Our president makes his apologies for not being here. He is getting ready to take a flight to Ottawa to meet with ministers, which is why he is not addressing you today.
The safety aspect of boating was not dealt with in Mr. Bellefontaine's presentation, a topic which I believe Senator Adams brought up. With the trends today in vacationing, people have a tendency to stay at home. Since 1975, when I joined the force, harbour traffic has increased significantly. I do not want to guess by how many percentage points it has increased. It is not unusual to see 300 to 500 sailboats blocking the harbour entrance when a ship is coming in. There are no safety problems as far as the ship is concerned because when fibreglass meets steel, it is the fibreglass that will lose. However, there is a safety problem with the people who are there.
As police officers in the port, we have a responsibility not only to protect the port property and its people, but those areas which come under the jurisdiction of the port, the northwest arm and the harbour proper. Many people overlook that part of the port.
Back in the 1960s, two businessmen drowned off northwest arm 100 yards from shore because we did not have a boat in those days. We now have two response units there that can get out and take care of those situations. We do the regulations for water safety, life jackets, impaired operations and criminal offences.
I was surprised when I heard the Pilot Authority talking this morning about how they prefer not be involved in investigations. For your knowledge, we have had three groundings of ships in Halifax in the years since I have been a member. We attend all of those. This is for the protection of the pilots to make sure they are not negligent or impaired, which could result in criminal charges. I believe that most of these groundings were caused by equipment error, although I have not followed this up. You would have to check that yourself. Not only do we act as protection for them, we also act as the body that can lay charges in the harbour.
Everyone has heard of the Maersk Dubai. It was our agency that initiated that incident. It was us who got people to move. We finally turned the matter over to the RCMP. We are experts in the fields in which we work. We are a very specialized police force. We deal with Europeans on a regular basis, and know each country's rules and regulations. We know the plates of convenience and which ships would be a plate and which ones are not. Regular policemen do not know that. Those are things you have to learn. It takes years to learn them.
Senator Roberge: With regard to Bill C-44, which we have not received as of yet, there is no phasing in of a National Harbour Police Force into the municipal police force or a new force which will be created.
The Chairman: Senator Roberge, they took everything out of C-44. It is removed, so it no longer needs an authority.
Mr. Mott: One of our members was talking to his MLA. He lives out in Newport Corners, which is out by Windsor. He said that his minister called him the other day and said that the one section concerning police has been removed from Bill C-44. They have abolished the force section from the bill. That is hearsay. I would have to check to ensure that it is out of the bill.
As Mr. Bellefontaine stated, they are starting negotiations now with the municipalities to see what they will do with the policemen. We had hoped that that would have been done well before this.
Senator Roberge: You can rest assured that that bill will not pass before the next election.
The Chairman: I should know the authority under which the police act, and I do not.
Mr. Mott: It is Ports Canada Corporation.
The Chairman: If it is in Bill C-44, then it was certainly in the old Ports Act. If it is in the Ports Act, that has not been repealed yet. There is an authority in place. I do not think we could remove the police force without authority, but I assume the Department of Justice knows what it is doing and that it is proceeding in a proper way.
Senator Adams: Are the Ports Canada police forces only in Nova Scotia or are they on all coasts?
Mr. Mott: The Police Association of Nova Scotia represents the local here at the Port of Halifax. We have a police force in Saint John and St. John's; we have one in Quebec City and Montreal; we have our headquarters in Ottawa. Our other port is the Port of Vancouver.
The corporation owns 109 ports in Canada and is responsible for Churchill, Manitoba. We used to send a man to Churchill in the summer months.
Senator Adams: You have been here for over 20 years. Are you entitled to transfer to other ports?
Mr. Mott: We could. When Churchill was open, I went up there for two terms for summer employment. We are allowed to make lateral transfers ourselves if management accepts them.
Senator Adams: Would you be able to move to another city or do you like it here in Halifax?
Mr. Mott: I am a former RCMP member. One of the reasons I came home was to come back to Nova Scotia. I was posted in Saskatchewan. I like the availability of staying in one place. It is not cold in Nova Scotia.
Senator Adams: You want to have more authority for policing in the harbours. It sounds like the only authority you have right now is in terms of vandalism in the port. Is that mostly your job or do you also check the ships for drugs and such things? Do you want to have more responsibility to deal with drug dealers and things such as that around the port? Is that what you are concerned about also?
Mr. Mott: We do have a high drug situation through Halifax. You have seen the media reports about Customs. The drugs seem to come in the container terminals. I heard you ask about the inspection of containers. When you handle ships that handle 3,500 containers and, for example, at the Series Terminal it is nothing to see the liquor come in on the ship, not even touch the dock, and go directly out of the province. So the containers do not get checked. The Customs people spot check as many as they can, from time to time, but the Ports Canada police should also be doing that.
We are the authority under the act. Our job is to help out the port and to make sure that it maintains a high level of professionalism within the port to protect its interest.
Senator Adams: As soon as the containers leave the port, you have no control.
Mr. Mott: When they hit a rail car there are locks in a rail car so they cannot be opened unless they are taken off physically. There is paperwork that goes with them and it goes on the train. There is a very good paper trail on this stuff. The port has a very solid reputation in that respect. I cannot speak for what the people do after they leave the port.
Senator Adams: Does the port belong to the federal government or to the municipality?
Mr. Mott: It is my understanding that the land is the property of the federal government, including Point Pleasant Park, which is on a long-term lease to the city. We do some policing down there as well. When you look at the jurisdictional area of the Ports Canada Police, which is a 25-mile radius of the port, just to give you the numbers that we work within, Halifax Harbour, the water circumference itself, is bigger than Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford combined.
Senator Adams: You have jurisdiction for the Port of Halifax. Are there any undercover officers or members of the RCMP working with the Port Authority?
Mr. Mott: In terms of anything going on in that particular area, there are cooperative investigations between the agencies. Yes, we work together if there is an investigation. They usually go through management for that. Recently, our detachment put on one under the previous director, Bruce Bryan, for recovering stolen vehicles. I do not know if you noticed it. We have recovered almost $3 million worth of stolen vehicles going out of the country. That is only one area we have looked at. All those other containers are going out because there is not the manpower to inspect them all.
Senator Adams: Your boss is in Ottawa right now and is concerned about the bill. Is he looking for an amendment to that bill?
Mr. Mott: We would certainly like to see the police stay, yes. We figure it is a very important cog in the system, not only with relation to enforcement but in terms of safety, too. As you heard Mr. Bellefontaine say, the police officers take care of the 16 hours when they are not there. We also take care of the eight hours he is there. Two-thirds of the time the first to respond is the police department. If you know emergency planning and things of that nature, the first to respond usually die. If there is a chemical spill, they are usually the first ones to die because they usually go in and find out what is happening.
The Chairman: I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing today. The committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned.