Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 19 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 28, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:06 p.m. to examine matters relating to oceans and fisheries.
[English]
Ms Barbara Reynolds, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as your clerk, it is my duty to inform you that neither the chair nor the deputy chair is available this evening. Therefore, I am prepared to entertain a motion for an acting chair for tonight's meeting. Are there any nominations?
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I nominate Senator Watt.
The Clerk: Senator Gill nominates Senator Watt.
[English]
Are there any other nominations? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Clerk: Senator Watt will take the chair.
Senator Charlie Watt (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
The Acting Chairman: The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries is continuing its important studies on fish habitats. In recent weeks, there have been news reports on the practice of ships dumping ballast in Canadian waters. Another issue that we will be dealing with is the discharge of bilge water and the effect this has on seabirds and on the environment.
The committee members will recall that when the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gélinas, appeared before the committee, the subject of exotic species arriving in Canada through ballast water was brought up. We are pleased to have Mr.Morris from Transport Canada appear before the committee this evening.
Mr. Tom Morris, Manager, Environmental Protection, Transport Canada: I would like to talk about the ballast water issue. Ships carry large quantities of ballast— about 10 to 12billiontons a year— around the world. They carry ballast for safety reasons when they do not have cargo. Obviously, they would prefer to be carrying cargo, but they carry ballast when none is available. However, because they pick up the ballast in one area and discharge it in others, there is a risk of carrying unwanted organisms or pathogens that get discharged in whatever port that they are going to.
A number of non-native organisms have established themselves throughout the waters of the world. In particular, most people are aware of the zebra mussel that came to the Great Lakes and caused significant damage. As the introduction of these organisms has been attributed to ballast water from ships, there have been demands for us to bring in ballast water controls.
The first controls were introduced in Canada some 20 years ago, when a notice to mariners was issued for ships going to the Îles-de-la-Madeleine. There were concerns about toxic dinoflagellates in the ships' ballast, so we asked them to do an exchange and get rid of any of these organisms. Therefore, requirements on ballast water have been around for some time.
In the late 1980s, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission came to us to express their concerns. This is where the zebra mussels had just been noticed.
A few other harmful organisms had come into the Great Lakes, and because of that, we brought in voluntary guidelines for ships going there in 1989.
Since then, the U.S. Coast Guard brought in mandatory ballast water exchange regulations in May 1993. They check all ships coming into the Great Lakes at Massena. It does not matter whether they go into a Canadian or a U.S. port on the Great Lakes; they all have to comply with U.S. regulations. Requirements were brought in on the West Coast, at the Port of Vancouver, and also at Nanaimo and on the Fraser River back in 1987.
On the international scene, the International Maritime Organization, and in particular, the Marine Environment Protection Committee, adopted guidelines for ballast water exchange in July 1991. These were based on the Canadian guidelines that we had developed. Canada was one of the main countries pushing for these, along with the U.S. and Australia.
Since then, because there are more concerns about the issue, they are now looking at developing regulations, and it is expected that these international regulations will be finalized next year. There are still a few issues to be dealt with. They have to come up with a treatment standard, and there are still concerns about the safety of ships doing exchanges at sea.
In September 2000, we changed our guidelines so that they no longer applied just to the Great Lakes, but nationally. We studied what had been done on the West Coast in Vancouver, what the U.S. had done, what we already had in our guidelines and what was happening in the international community, and came up with some national guidelines that are still in place today. We do check for compliance with these guidelines and the rate of compliance is fairly high.
Other things have been happening. Just this year, the St.Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation brought in new requirements. The joint practices and procedures of the two seaway corporations were amended to make it mandatory for any ships coming into the Great Lakes to comply with industry codes for best management practices. These expand on what is contained in our guidelines and the U.S. regulations.
When the problems initially came up, we did not have the authority to introduce regulations, which is one of the main reasons we brought in guidelines. However, we amended the Canada Shipping Act in October 1998 and we now have that authority. The recent amendment to the Canada Shipping Act,2001, which is not yet in force, will expand upon the authorities that we received back in 1998.
To address the issue, we established working groups around the country. We also have a national working group under the Canadian Marine Advisory Council. This council is a forum for Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard to consult with all our stakeholders on any shipping issues dealing with safety, navigation or marine pollution. Through these working groups, we are getting a good idea of everything that is going on around the country and are allowing everyone to have input into what we are doing.
There have been many legislative initiatives. To promote the concept of a regional approach to ballast water controls, we announced last year that we intend to introduce ballast water regulations for the Great Lakes and St.Lawrence River. We are in the drafting mode right now and hope to finish them this year.
We have worked extensively with the U.S. on these issues because the Great Lakes are a shared waterway. The Great Lakes Regional Waterways Management Forum has established a subcommittee on ballast water. We have met with the U.S. representatives and made recommendations on how the regulations that we want to bring in can be harmonized with U.S. regulations. Those recommendations were brought forward to the Canadian Marine Advisory Council.
One of the issues that has been slowing us down is the use of the Laurentian Channel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Right now, under our guidelines and in our proposed regulations, we use it as an alternate exchange zone, because for many ships, it is not safe to do an exchange while coming across the ocean. The weather is too bad and they were not designed to do this. Waiting until they get into the Laurentian Channel is much safer and still allows them to reduce the risk of introducing these species.
Concerns were expressed about the use of the Laurentian Channel because, of course, it is the Gulf of St.Lawrence and people feared that if exchanges were done there, then all these nasty things that we do not want in our ports would end up in the gulf. We have had many consultations on that issue. We hired a consultant to do a risk analysis and we just received the results. We have also had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans look at it, and they concluded that using the Laurentian Channel as an alternate exchange zone should not significantly increase the risk of adverse impacts on the aquatic environment, provided that certain conditions are met.
We have participated in many studies over the years. Transport Canada's mandate is to look at shipping issues, not fishery issues. We have looked at safety and also the effectiveness of ballast exchange. In developing standards, we rely on advice from other departments, such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Environment, because we do not set water quality standards.
Recognizing that ships do carry ballast and that there could be harmful effects from its discharge, we realize that a ballast water management program has to be put into place, and in doing that we have to consider quite a few issues. One of them is that it must be safe for the ships, the crews and the environment. As I mentioned, doing an exchange at sea can be dangerous. There have been suggestions about using chemicals — biocides— to treat the ballast, and that too can be dangerous. There are many issues with which we must deal.
We want something that is scientifically sound and that will be effective. In the future, we also will have to look at other vectors besides ships' ballast, because there is also hull fouling. These things can be on anchor chains and in ships' cargo. There are other issues if we want to have a complete program. Any regime we introduce must be consistent with Canada's goals for trade and commerce, and affordable for the government. Enforcement is always an issue.
We also realize that any actions we take must be made in consultation with our clients, stakeholders, industry, other involved government and non-government organizations. Of course, any regime must be enforceable and consistent with what is going on in the international community and with our neighbours.
Shipping is an international business and doing things on our own can be difficult and may defeat the whole purpose. We are making efforts through the International Maritime Organization, and as I said, they do plan to come up with some regulations that will move ahead with the efforts that we are making to reduce risks from these introductions.
We also realize that there can be regional differences. We have working groups across the country because what works on the East Coast may not necessarily work on the West Coast or up in the Arctic.
This is consistent with the way we have developed our present guidelines and with the direction in which the international community is going.
Finally, it is our role to provide a regulatory regime that will protect Canada's waters and establish an environmentally sustainable transportation system so that we will continue to be in the forefront of the response. It will be a balanced response and regulatory regime that recognizes the economic realities of shipping in Canada.
Senator Phalen: Is ballast water exchange a safety precaution in the event there is infected water picked up at sea?
Mr. Morris: That is the main treatment method used at the present time. For example, if you were coming from Rotterdam to Canada, you would pick up water out of the harbour, and it is exchanged in mid ocean. Instead of having harbour water in your ballast tanks, you now have mid-ocean water. It flushes out any organisms or pathogens that might be there and replaces the harbour water with inert water. It is dangerous for ships to do ballast exchange, but it is the easiest method without retrofitting new equipment or getting a water treatment system. Ships can carry huge quantities of water, such as 50,000 tons, and to treat that with present technology is a problem we have been faced with for a few years.
Senator Phalen: Are there are no ships with treatment systems?
Mr. Morris: A few ships have been outfitted with filtering systems and some use a UV system. Many do not take on large quantities of ballast; they might try it with one tank. A lot of work has been undertaken to find a better way to treat the ballast than exchanging it at sea, which is not all that effective. Again, it is difficult for us to monitor a ship coming into one of our ports. We may be advised that the ship did a thorough exchange at sea, but it is not easy, when there is 50,000 tons of water, to verify that that is the case; whereas we can make sure that a treatment system is working. It is a matter of coming up with a workable treatment system that can be installed on the ships.
Senator Phalen: Is there a method of reporting?
Mr. Morris: The ships call in through the Canadian Coast Guard. We have places where they can fax reports. The ships do report on what they are doing.
Senator Phalen: There are checks on that?
Mr. Morris: Yes.
Senator Baker: What is the regulation in the United States with respect to the exchange of water? Is it within their territorial seas or from headland to headland?
Mr. Morris: The U.S. regulation applies to the Great Lakes and the Hudson River, where a mandatory exchange is to happen outside of the U.S. and Canadian exclusive economic zone. The exchange is to be done 200 miles out in 2000 metres of water. In that way, a complete exchange is done in mid ocean.
Senator Baker: What is the comparable Canadian law?
Mr. Morris: Currently, we just have guidelines. We have the authority but no regulations.
Senator Baker: Municipalities have spent hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with zebra mussels. The Government of Canada has spent roughly $8milliona year to carry out experiments on zebra mussels, yet we do not today have a law that prohibits the very cause of those things?
Mr. Morris: The U.S. regulations apply to all ships going into the Great Lakes. It covers all shipping.
Senator Baker: You said the U.S. law applied to only two places. Does the law passed in the U.S name those two places?
Mr. Morris: It was expanded a while ago, and now ships going to coastal ports have to report what they have done, but there is still no requirement to do an actual exchange.
Senator Baker: Canada does not have a similar law?
Mr. Morris: No, not at this point.
Senator Baker: Is there a current restriction with respect to being outside the economic zone of 200 miles?
Mr. Morris: It is in the guidelines, but it is not mandatory.
Senator Bacon: If it were mandatory, you are saying that it could be dangerous for ships to do that.
Mr. Morris: It can be. A ballast water management plan has been developed, and this where the designers look at how it can be done safely. The ship operators will have to pay probably $20,000in order to develop a safe plan for an exchange.
Senator Baker: What is the rationale for the 200 miles?
Mr. Morris: It was determined by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Once you are 200 miles out, there are few living organisms in the water.
Senator Baker: Is that true, Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris: That is what they told me.
Senator Baker: There is territory that extends beyond 200miles, out to 350 miles, and according to the Canadian Hydrographic Service, it is equal in size to the three Prairie provinces put together. It includes the continental shelf and extensions thereof, as defined by the United Nations commission on extension of territorial zones. Are there people who say this should extend out to the continental shelf of a nation, rather than the 200 miles?
Mr. Morris: It is 200 miles and 2000 metres of depth.
Senator Baker: That would not cover the Flemish Cap.
Mr. Morris: I am not sure what the depth is.
Senator Baker: The Flemish Cap would be approximately one third of that.
Mr. Morris: If it is under 2000 metres, they could not do the exchange there.
Senator Baker: Even if it were 500 miles from shore?
Mr. Morris: As long as it is a depth of at least 2000 metres.
Senator Baker: The bottom line is that we do not have regulations in Canada comparable to those in the United States and other nations that forbid the practice. Can you cite any reasons why Canada does not, when there are people advocating that we should?
Mr. Morris: The U.S. regulations cover all shipping. Therefore, if we brought in a regulation, it would have little effect. We are now at the drafting stage of a regulation and hope to finish it this year.
Senator Baker: In trying to determine what to do with the ballast water that contains organisms like the zebra mussels and so-called ``exotic species,'' have other nations brought in measures that differ from what the United States has put in its law, and which we recognize as being the answer?
Here we are demanding that ships get rid of all the water outside of 200 miles, but it is not logical to do that in the open sea. We are demanding that they do that according to our regulations and guidelines. Has anyone said, ``Why not do something like not allowing them to exchange their ballast water? Just plug it so they cannot let the water out, or if they are going to let the water out, they must put it into a scow behind the vessel''? Have there been any such suggestions or any imaginative engineers who have figured out a better system that is guaranteed to give us protection?
Mr. Morris: Many people have looked at it, and we keep saying there is still no silver bullet. Ships have a lot of difficulty pumping ballast off because it is all done below the water line. Getting the water out of the ballast tank into a barge or ashore is more difficult than it sounds. You would have to re-pipe the ship to enable the pumps to pump it off somewhere other than just through the bottom of the ship.
Yes, there have been many suggestions, but so far, nothing has come through that is reasonable and practical, other than ballast exchange. The international community is looking at developing a standard that can then be applied to new ships. New ships that are being built will have something better and more effective than ballast exchange. Of course, it is also more costly. Trying to find something for existing ships is difficult.
Senator Johnson: What about treating hazardous ballast before it is released? Would that eventually be considered in regulations if it could be done?
Mr. Morris: There have been many suggestions on what kind of treatment you could use. One of the main problems is that there is no discharge standard at this point. We just say, ``Please exchange it at sea,'' and that is it. Do you want a drinking-water standard implemented, or how should it be treated? Many of theship operators and the manufacturers are reluctant to invent a $2-millionsystem that might not comply with a future standard.
Senator Johnson: Is the technology not being worked on now? Surely, internationally, this would be the first line of attack on this problem. Leftover water after ballast exchange is not a big problem. Would that not solve the problem once you have treated the water? Surely this is being looked at.
Mr. Morris: Yes.
Senator Johnson: Why are we so slow in Canada? You say the United States has laws and we do not, so we will let their regulations operate in this country. What am I missing here? In this technological age, there are ways of doing these things. It is like the hog farms in Manitoba. There are ways of treating the waste without allowing it to get into our lakes. There are 6 million hogs in the three Prairie provinces and 5million people. It is the same in terms of the oceans. Are we happy to just dump it in the middle of the ocean and hope it does not go anywhere? Why are we not on top of this technologically?
Mr. Morris: We have been involved in and have participated in a few experiments. We have looked at chlorinating the water. We recently completed a study using copper ions. There are many filtration systems out there. There are UV systems that some thought might work. However, they are still in the testing stages. It is basically a matter of the expense. It costs a lot to refit these ships, and operators are reluctant to do it unless it is an international requirement.
Senator Johnson: It must be frustrating for you.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: The shipping industry seems to be suggesting that ballast water should be dumped in specific areas since that will mean less contamination of affected species. However, regardless of where the ballast water is to be dumped, fish travel; they know no borders. That solution would not seem to resolve the current problem with respect to ballast water and waste water.
My question is: Would it not be possible in the shipping industry, as is the case in other transportation sectors, for ships to always carry actual cargo rather than being forced to carry artificial cargo?
It must not be very cost-effective to carry cargo to a destination and then return with ballast water in the ship's tanks, for the sole purpose of ensuring the appropriate ballance. Has the international community discussed the possibility of coordinating cargo management, and specifically cargo transportation management, whatever companies happen to be involved?
[English]
Mr. Morris: First, on the issue of whether discharging in the ocean causes harm, a few people have mentioned that, not so much for the Atlantic side, but on the Pacific side, where there are many islands. They say we are getting rid of one problem by exchanging the ballast in the middle of the Pacific, but it may be causing new problems. That is why they want to get away from ballast exchange and move to treatment systems. Again, that is still in the development stage internationally, testing these systems and establishing standards.
As to your second question about the cargoes, certainly the shipping people would love to be able to carry cargo all the time. In Canada, we have a particular problem because we are an exporter of raw goods. The ships that export these goods are specialized, and there are no cargoes they could bring back with them. The ships are designed to carry iron ore or grain or whatever, and they are coming into remote ports on the St.Lawrence where there is just no cargo they can bring back. They would be happy to bring back a cargo and get paid for the return trip.
The shippers use international agencies to find cargoes for them, because that is how they make money.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: We discussed the technological side of ballast water treatment. I dare say shipbuilders will have to be increasingly aware of environmental issues. In ship design, solutions must be considered that will eliminate the need to carry a cargo of 50,000 tons of water on the return trip. Are shipbuilders looking at that?
[English]
Mr. Morris: That will be included in the international regulations that are being developed. Again, it will not happen tomorrow, but we are hoping that it will eventually.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Are you a biologist?
[English]
Mr. Morris: No, I am not.
Senator Adams: I understand that zebra mussels can get into a ship as it travels from Europe to the St.Lawrence, for instance. How does that happen? How do zebra mussels attach to the ship and migrate?
Mr. Morris: There are a few ways that would be possible. When the ship drops its anchor in mud, zebra mussels can come up from the mud. They can come in with the ballast water. They may be in the egg stage at that point. They are not necessarily the full-sized mussels. They can attach themselves to the hull of the ship and drop off when they get to the next port. Those are the three main ways.
Senator Adams: When I was in Nova Scotia, I saw ships in dry dock where the zebra mussels were being scraped off. With new technology, are shipowners able to find out whether zebra mussels are attached to the ship?
Mr. Morris: They use anti-fouling paints for the hull and in the ballast. However, it is a difficult situation because it is not just zebra mussels we are dealing with. There are thousands of different organisms and it is difficult to check for all of them. A ship is a big piece of equipment.
Senator Adams: Are there any laws in Europe, the United States or elsewhere that address ships and their operation in this regard?
Mr. Morris: The U.S. is one of the few countries that have regulations. Australia has just brought in some regulations. There are a few other countries that have such regulations, but internationally, the majority of people are waiting for the International Maritime Organization to develop theirs.
It has taken quite a few years and people are starting to become tired of waiting.
Senator Adams: Is there available technology that does not involve scraping off the zebra mussels? How do the systems work? Is something being worked on that might be available in the future? Is there some treatment that could be applied to the ship so that the mussels would drop off automatically?
Mr. Morris: I have not heard of anyone trying to develop anything like that. However, the seaway would be a good place to do that.
Senator Adams: You spoke about 50,000tons of water. Many heavy tankers are built with pipes and carry fuel and gas. There is more danger with heavy oil or things of that nature. Are there well-protected and separate compartments for ballast and heavy oil, for example?
Mr. Morris: Any modern ship has separate tanks for ballast. The zebra mussels would not go into an oil cargo tank. Some of the older ships still ballast their cargo tanks, but if they do, that must discharge ashore, because the water can be contaminated with the oil. The modern tankers are double-hulled and have separate ballast tanks. That is no longer an issue.
Senator Adams: Are there any oil tankers that still have all the pipes inside the ship?
Mr. Morris: There are many tankers that still have heating coils.
Senator Adams: Do cargo ships that carry heavy oil and return empty fill up the hole with water?
Mr. Morris: That is right.
Senator Adams: What happens before the ship is filled with water? Do people check to see if there has been any leakage from the cargo or the ship?
Mr. Morris: Its depends on what the cargo was. Often it is iron ore, so there is not a problem. If it is a chemical or oil, the tank must be properly cleaned.
Senator Adams: Do the American regulations apply to Canadian ships, or is there a better system?
Mr. Morris: The system has worked, in that all ships must comply with U.S. regulations. However, there has been criticism that the U.S. regulations are not strict enough. In doing the exchange at sea, new organisms are still introduced.
The complaint has been that they brought in a regulation, but is it effective? Is more needed? The ``more'' would require ships to do some form of treatment, such as adding chlorine or a chemical treatment, filtration or something else.
Senator Adams: If a foreign ship that has contravened American regulations comes into Canadian waters, will they say, ``You cannot charge me, you have no regulation. These are American regulations''?
Mr. Morris: Every ship that comes into the Great Lakes must go through locks at Massena, New York, which are U.S. waters. You cannot get into the Canadian Great Lakes without going through the U.S. When the ships are in the locks in the U.S., the U.S. says, ``We apply our regulations to every ship.''
Even if you were going from Montreal to Toronto, you must go through U.S. waters. Everything should have been approved by the time you get into the Great Lakes.
Senator Adams: Last year or the year before, a ship was caught with a concrete load on it. What happened there?
Mr. Morris: Is that the one that broke?
Senator Adams: Did it break on the Canadian side of the border?
Mr. Morris: I believe that happened on the Canadian side. We have agreements with the U.S. for issues such as that. There are emergency plans in place to ensure that people can react.
Senator Tunney: Mr. Morris, I am sure you are aware of the international law of the sea. Would that have any effect on how these ships take on and discharge ballast?
We should ask ourselves, ``Do we want ships picking up ballast in one of the Eastern European ports?'' I have been there many times. You can virtually walk across the river that runs through Moscow. It flows down to the Volga, into the Caspian Sea and then eventually out into the gulf. They pick up that junk and they get halfway across the Atlantic on the way to North America and they dump it. Do we want these ships distributing that pollution?
When they get here, hopefully they are taking on better quality ballast. They go halfway across and they dump it. If they pick up our higher quality water and dump it, eventually another ship will pick up the polluted ballast and bring it in to our ports, unloading it there before taking on cargo.
Mr. Morris: That has been brought up before. It has been looked at as a risk management issue, because if they do not do that, then all the stuff is going right into our ports. If they take it from somewhere that is nasty and do not dump it in the middle of the ocean, it will then go to Thunder Bay or wherever the ship is headed. Even though there are risks with discharging it in the middle of the ocean, it is better than dumping it right in our ports.
Senator Tunney: As long as you are patient, we can pollute the area out there until it compares with the ports that I am talking about in Eastern Europe.
There must be another way. I know why they carry ballast. The ship has to be built to carry cargo. It is too buoyant if it does not have ballast when it is travelling without a payload. However, do you think that we should just phone the U.S. authorities and tell them to fax us a copy of their regulations, which are apparently protecting us now?
It should not take months and years to adopt our own regulations. We should not be satisfied with not having our own. It does not please me to be riding on the coattails of my American friends— and I am using that word loosely— in enforcing our wishes, which should be in law. If we do not have our own regulations, we are almost saying, ``If you can get by the Americans, you are in our waters. You are home free.''
Mr. Morris: With respect to our regulations, as I said earlier, we formed a subcommittee, chaired by myself and someone from the U.S. Coast Guard, the purpose of which was to make sure that we were harmonizing our efforts with what they had done. We are certainly taking their requirements into consideration in developing our regulations.
We met with them several weeks ago. They are satisfied that we are not going against what they have done and what they intend to do in the future.
Senator Tunney: I am sure all of these problems have been looked at and I am sure people smarter than I will eventually come up with a solution to this issue of taking on ballast and discharging it at another place. I know they have to have it.
Mr. Morris: That is why we are hoping that technology will find a way to treat it. Again, if you chlorinate, then you are dumping chlorine.
Senator Johnson: I read recently about the fight between environmentalists and people who want to import species that are not natural to the waters. Did you hear about the Chesapeake Bay situation in the United States, where people wanted to bring in Asian oysters?
Mr. Morris: No.
Senator Johnson: Asian oysters evidently multiply like mad and can quickly take over the ecology of a given area. This is another battle taking place. I mention this because it is similar to what happened in the Great Lakes with the zebra mussels. We did not realize the effect they would have.
In your work on the environment side, of course, you say that you get much of your guidance from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. When you are working in conjunction with them, and as you bring in these new regulations that are not enforceable, what power would you like to see to make stricter, enforcedlaws? Do we not have people out there on the oceans, watching what is going on?
Mr. Morris: That would be the ultimate, but unfortunately, there are many ships out there and we do not have that many people.
Senator Johnson: That is what they said when Iceland took onthe British Navy, without which we would not have had a 200-mile limit. Can we not get Canada to be more aggressive?
Mr. Morris: If the technologies come through, then as long as the ship has the equipment on board and we can check in port that the equipment is working, that solves the problem, instead of having to be out in the middle of the ocean to see what is going on. That is our preferred option. It is a major problem, not just for ballast, but also for ships discharging oil, polluting garbage, anything, 200 miles out on our vast coast. It is impossible today.
Senator Johnson: Is there not a tremendous amount of will power internationally to doa cleanup?
Mr. Morris: There is at the International Maritime Organization. The ballast issue is their number one priority, and has been for the last few years. We have a working group there of over 100 people who show up from around the world looking to develop these international regulations. There is certainly a large international interest in the issue.
Senator Johnson: Where would we find their latest recommendations?
Mr. Morris: It is under the International Maritime Organization. It has a Web site and issues thousands of papers.
Senator Johnson: Have you been to one of these meetings?
Mr. Morris: Yes.
Senator Johnson: Do you think they are effective?
Mr. Morris: It is a long, slow process. You are trying to draft regulations with 100 people from around the world with different views. Until you get the whole world to agree to things, to have Canada try to regulate the world's shipping is not all that effective. You need an international regulation that everyone is aware of, and then there is more chance of people complying withit.
Senator Johnson: Can you give an example of one that everyone has complied with?
Mr. Morris: Enough life jackets on board; everyone has to have that. That is an international requirement.
Senator Johnson: Is that it?
Mr. Morris: There are hundreds of requirements for ships. All the regulations come out of the International Maritime Organization. There are thousands of requirements for any ship sailing internationally. However, they are the same around the world and that is what makes them work.
With the ballast issue, we need something that is consistent around the world, and then people will comply with it.
The Acting Chairman: I would like an opportunity to ask questions on this.
Do you periodically clean the storage tanks? If you do, how often do you clean them out, after the exchange of water?
Mr. Morris: The tanks on the ship get sediment in the bottom, so they have to be cleaned out. The ships do not want sediment because they can only carry so much cargo. When the ballast water is dumped out and cargo is to be taken on, if there are 20tons of sediment, that is 20 tons of cargo that cannot be carried.
For most of the ship operators, it is an annual exercise.
The seaway has brought in new requirements this year asking people to regularly clean out the sediment from their ballast tanks.
The Acting Chairman: Do you know how often they clean them out?
Mr. Morris: At least annually. Many of them rinse them out at sea. When they have cargo on board and there is no ballast, they can do a quick rinse. There are chemicals they can throw in there to help clean them out. The better shipping companies will clean them out regularly.
It is a requirement to get into the seaway today.
The Acting Chairman: If you clean them out periodically, some bacteria will still remain in the tanks. Those bacteria, whatever they may be, are also released because you are not purifying the storage tank. It is being dumped out raw. It could be a live parasite that is being dumped out.
If you are pumping the water into the ballast tank, is there a way to purify that? Can you kill off the insects before they get into the storage tank? At the same time, when you are discharging the water out of the storage tank and you have a boiler, you can boil the water coming in and going out. Has that been looked at? Is there a technology that could be put in, not necessarily on the intake, but perhaps on the outlet?
Mr. Morris: We have looked at both. The ship operators prefer something on the intake because that eliminates sediment coming in.
There is a big program going on in the U.S. now, with Canadian participation. Many of the scientists working on it are Canadian.
I received early reports that said when they put chemicals in, because the sediment is thick, they did not kill everything, so it was not effective.
There have been other suggestions, such as a tank-cleaning unit, but you have to retrofit that and put it in the ship.
There have been many other suggestions, such as heat. The Australians did a test a few years ago now, but it is easier in Australia because it is already warm there and they only had to heat the ballast up a little. In Canada, it would be more of a problem because the ballast is cold and raising the temperature takes more energy. Some tanks are equipped with heating coils if they are carrying very thick, heavy oil, and that can work. A normal ship would not have a heating unit. Again, you would have to retrofit something, which is expensive and has to be maintained, and it raises other issues.
The scientists have looked at many treatments involving heat. However, there are so many different organisms out there, along with bacteria and everything else, that they have not found something that will kill off everything.
The Acting Chairman: I would imagine that the time and economic factors are also taken into account with whatever additional technology will be built into the ship. An economical way of purifying the water that is pumped in and out has not been discovered yet.
Mr. Morris: If we can come up with a standard, then different manufacturers can come up with different solutions, and it would be up to the ship operator to decide which one is the best for his ship.
Senator Robichaud: You say you have guidelines and that you are working to develop a code. Who is going to apply or monitor the compliance with that code, and how much manpower will you need to do it properly?
Mr. Morris: At this point, we will only apply it to the St.Lawrence Riverand the Great Lakes. It is not every ship coming to Canada. As it is fresh water, we will check the salinity of the ballast. That will be the indicator that it was exchanged in the middle of the ocean and poses less of a risk to the fresh waters of the Great Lakes, because most organisms in salt water would not be able to survive in fresh waters. It will be the same simple salinity check that the U.S. Coast Guard is doing now. Our people will be able to do that. We do not see it as a big problem for us. We think we will be able to do it with our existing resources.
Senator Robichaud: You mean Transport Canada, not the coast guard?
Mr. Morris: It will be Transport Canada. We do the inspections and we go onboard to ensure the ship is safe and properly crewed.
Senator Robichaud: Will that be done in port?
Mr. Morris: Yes. That is when the ships discharge their ballast.
Senator Robichaud: If a ship arrives with ballast water that is not clean, what do you do with it? Do you send the ship back?
Mr. Morris: It depends on the quantity. If it is a small quantity, you may be able to seal the valves to the tank and tell them they have to keep it onboard while they are in our waters. If there is a larger quantity, in the past the U.S. has just sent them back into the Laurentian Channel or the ocean to do the proper exchange.
Most ships, once they know the requirement is there, are compliant.
Senator Robichaud: Is there a high level of compliance where the Americans check them?
Mr. Morris: Yes, and if any do not comply, that is when they take the extra measures of sealing the tank or sending them back out to do an exchange, and a few ships have had to do that.
Senator Robichaud: That would be a costly operation.
Mr. Morris: Yes, it is. They are more careful the next time.
Senator Phalen: Earlier, we had a few scientists talking about water pollutants, and I asked how long it would take for Lake Ontario to clean itself if we shut off the inflow into the lake. The answer was that they could help that along, and it would probably take seven years.
Then I asked how long it would take if we were talking about the ocean. The answer was that they had not really done a study on it, but the guess was 1,000 years. Weighing 1,000 years against the cost of filtration systems is what it boils down to for me.
You talked about bilge water. Is the unloading of bilge water time consuming or costly?
Mr. Morris: We have requirements that forbid the dumping of oily bilge water in our waters, and I do not think any of the ports in Canada have fixed facilities. A tanker truck goes down to the dock and they offload it.
We did a study on the East Coast a year ago that showed that it costs a couple of thousand dollars to offload. It depends on the port. The ships radio in 24 hours before so the truck is waiting for them. There are not usually long delays. It depends on the port and what they have to do.
Senator Phalen: Why are they dumping off the East Coast?
Mr. Morris: If we knew the answer to that, we would stop it.
That has been a problem for decades, although we have surveillance flights and we check ships coming into our ports.
Senator Phalen: If it was easy for ships to unload bilge, and not too time consuming or costly, then they probably would not dump it as they have been doing.
Mr. Morris: That is right.
Senator Robichaud: Do we still have regular flights over the St.Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to monitor ships that get rid of their bilge in our waters? A few years ago, the Canadian Coast Guard, under Transport Canada, maintained a regular flight over that area to monitor the dumping of bilge water from ships. They could even pinpoint something as small as one litre of oil on the surface of the waters.
Mr. Morris: Yes. Environment Canada is looking at a new program that utilizes radar/satellite imagery. The plane performs a visual check only, so it only goes out in fair weather during the day, and the ships know about that. If a ship wants to dump its bilges, it is done in the middle of the night or on a stormy day. The chances of being seen are pretty slim. Therefore, Environment Canada is looking at using radar/sat. That system has limitations, but we are hoping to identify the polluters through its use.
Senator Baker: Could the witness comment on the law of the sea and how a great many laws stem from that? When you are a party to the law of the sea, there are many commissions open to you that actually monitor the seabed. If you have not ratified the law of the sea, then you cannot take part in these commissions.
Since Canada is the only coastal nation in the world that has not ratified the law of the sea, I am wondering whether the witness knows of, or can point to, a particular activity in which we have not been able to participate. I am well enough versed in the law to know that we have a law of the sea, and that once it is consummated, that becomes international law. We have not ratified the law of the sea. Does Mr. Morris know of any particular activity in which we could be involved in this area that we are not currently involved in because we have not?
Mr. Morris: There is nothing that I am aware of in your area. All the international conventions that we sign on to, as well as the future one on ballast water, are based on complying with the law of the sea. All the current international requirements are based on that. We can sign on to those without being party to the law of the sea. I have never come across anything in my work that contained a restriction because of non-ratification of the law of the sea.
Senator Baker: That is in respect of this particular area. There are other areas in which we cannot belong to the relevant commission, or even contemplate the extension of jurisdiction over the continental shelf, because we do not belong to the commission. We have not ratified the law of the sea, which would be the first step.
Mr. Morris said that the Great Lakes are taken care of because the U.S. is looking after that with U.S. law. There is Newfoundland, which is not in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and there is the coast of Quebec, which is not in the Gulf of St.Lawrence. We also have Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Nunavut, which are not in the gulf either. In effect, we have the U.S. law to protect us in the Great Lakes; there is no doubt about that. That is not, of course, taking into account the fact that the U.S. has legal jurisdiction over areas other than the Great Lakes.
Mr. Morris: That is right. We want to go with the Great Lakes and the St.Lawrence first because they are freshwater systems where serious problems have been identified. We have our existing guidelines, which are based on international guidelines. We are hoping that by next year, the International Maritime Organization will have come up with some international regulations that we will apply to our coastal waters, and then everything will be covered. It is all covered by guidelines now, but we would prefer to wait for the international regulations before dealing with our coastal ports. It will all depend on the timing. The U.S. has hinted that if the International Maritime Organization does not come up with something quickly, they will go ahead, and perhaps we will follow them.
Senator Baker: You were talking about voluntary guidelines.
Mr. Morris: That is right.
The Acting Chairman: Does that mean that areas not covered by the American regulations could be considered dumping grounds?
Mr. Morris: They would not be in compliance with our guidelines, but it is not a mandatory—
Senator Baker: — not with the guidelines, but in compliance with the law.
The Acting Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Morris, for your submission. The documentation brought forward this evening will be filed with Ms Reynolds, clerk of the committee.
The committee adjourned.