FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 27, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne (Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Shipowners Association)

Á

1110

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin (Director, Navigation and Environment, Shipping Federation of Canada)

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Á

1135

Mr. Andy Burton

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Andy Burton

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Andy Burton

Á

1140

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

Á

1145

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Á

1150

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Á

1155

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Â

1200

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Â

1205

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Â

1210

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Â

1215

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Â

1225

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Â

1230

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Â

1235

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Lanteigne

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Â

1240

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Ms. Anjuna Langevin

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 025

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Good morning. We have a quorum for the purpose of hearing witnesses.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're continuing our study on invasive species in Canada.

    We have to deal with a preliminary matter. Our witnesses here have presented us with a written document in one of Canada's official languages. I would ask the committee's permission to distribute that document, notwithstanding that it is in English only. Is there any objection? Fine.

    Mr. Lanteigne and Madam Langevin, if you don't mind, we'll wait until the papers are distributed so that we can follow along with you.

    Just for the record, the Shipping Federation of Canada did provide their submission in both official languages.

    Everybody now has their paperwork.

    We have two witnesses: from the Canadian Shipowners Association, Réjean Lanteigne, and from the Shipping Federation of Canada, Anjuna Langevin.

    Mr. Lanteigne.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne (Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Shipowners Association): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. It's good to see you. I'm glad to have been invited to present our views to the committee on this most important matter. Thank you very much for allowing us to speak today.

[Translation]

    The Canadian Shipowners Association is the leading national association representing Canada's domestic marine fleet. CSA member companies are Canadian owned, operate vessels under Canadian registry and employ Canadian crews. Canadian-registered vessels are the workplaces of over 8,500 Canadians. Approximately 3,000 people work directly on board CSA members vessels.

[English]

    The captains and crews of our members' ships are all Canadians. They work and make their home here, giving them an acute understanding of the importance of the issue this committee is studying today.

    CSA members, whose livelihood depends on the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the shipping infrastructure built throughout, have a vital stake in halting the proliferation of aquatic nuisance species, or ANS. The CSA supports the efforts undertaken by Transport Canada to design workable, evidence-based guidelines or regulations to address this problem. Combating ANS is a complex issue requiring solutions based on sound scientific and engineering principles. Our shipowners have been actively working to reduce and ultimately eradicate this problem, along with other maritime industry stakeholders and in conjunction with federal officials in this country and in the United States.

[Translation]

    The CSA has worked closely with Transport Canada and with representatives of the Canadian and US Coast Guards since the early 1980s to help find solutions to the extensive and costly damage caused by invasive species such as zebra mussels. Collaborative efforts have led to the drafting of national guidelines for the management of ballast water, the exchange of which constitutes the principal cause of the proliferation of the problem in Canadian waters.

[English]

    CSA members' contribution to find workable solutions has not been solely limited to regulatory measures. One of our members, Algoma Central Corporation, used one of their ships, a ship called the Algonorth, in the years 1997 to 2000 to evaluate a project called the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project, at a cost of $1.3 million U.S. This project was designed to measure the effectiveness of filtering ballast water during its uptake, during the pumping-in process, as a means of minimizing the potential for the introduction of non-indigenous species.

    This has been a collaborative effort with representatives from the U.S. shipping industry, environmental organizations, state and federal governments, port authorities, and obviously the research community. Tests progressively larger in scope aboard different types of vessels, including the Algonorth, continued well into 2002, underscoring the length of time required to develop untested technology to combat complex problems.

    With your document this morning we gave you a small handout that is a short description of the so-called Algonorth project. This project has been terminated, and the findings of this project were made available to the Canadian and U.S. administrations, the research community, and the international community at large.

    The current regulatory environment: While final regulatory wording is currently being drafted in Canada, action was taken many years ago to deal with the threat of these aquatic species. There is no doubt in our minds that these actions have reduced substantially the introduction and transfer of these species to the waters of the Great Lakes and other Canadian coastal waters.

    More certainly needs to be done, but actions taken so far have made a significant difference. Some of these actions were as follows. In 1988, along with Transport Canada and other marine stakeholders, we agreed to a voluntary code, which has been implemented in Canadian domestic waters by all vessel operators. Subsequent to this code the U.S. made compulsory ballast water management practices for U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, practices that were largely mirrored on the Canadian requirements. These practices ensured that vessels reported what was being done to manage their ballast waters, and vessels not reporting or not doing what they were supposed to do were not permitted entry into the Great Lakes.

    Both seaway corporations, the Canadian corporation and its U.S. counterpart, have included the control of ballast water management for both domestic and ocean-going vessels in their regular practices and procedures. All these ships are being controlled on entering the Great Lakes to ensure compliance with these management practices.

    These procedures and practices require that all vessels minimize ballast intake in areas where colonies of these aquatic species are known to live or reside. They also require that the ballast tanks be washed or cleaned at regular intervals to remove sediments and to minimize sediment uptakes.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Mr. Lanteigne, excusez-moi. I now have nine members here, and as we discussed before the meeting began, if I might just do five minutes' worth of business in camera, this would give you an opportunity to take a breath. I'd ask you to just absent yourselves for a very brief moment.

    Thank you very much.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]

Á  (1114)  

---

Á  (1116)  

    [Public proceedings resume]

    The Chair: Monsieur Lanteigne, I apologize. It went even faster than I thought. Please continue.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: That's called effective chairmanship.

    I'll repeat what I was saying. There have been measures since the early to middle eighties to deal with this problem in Canadian waters and more importantly to deal with these problems in the Great Lakes. These measures are still in place, either voluntary or mandatory for this country, and all these ships entering the Great Lakes are subject to rigorous control by the authorities before they enter the Great Lakes.

[Translation]

    On the international front, the International Maritime Organization will be finalizing regulations in the near future. These regulations or this convention will require ships' masters and crews to be trained on ballast water management procedures, to have a ballast water management plan specific to each vessel and to follow procedures to reduce the potential for uptake and discharge of foreign species. The regulations will also commit states to implementing procedures and regulations aimed at reducing and eliminating ANS and reporting their activities and results. It is expected that these international regulations will be in place by 2004 or early 2005.

[English]

    We believe that the complexity of the challenge, both in biological and technical terms, dictates a focused effort but also consultation with the industry and with provincial, federal, and state governments. Research and development are perhaps the best example of this. Small local research projects are not likely to be of much value. Finding solutions to these technical challenges will require significant R and D investment. As I mentioned earlier, we have been involved in these R and D projects significantly over the last few years.

    Attempts at the provincial or state level--“state level” being U.S. state level--to address this problem, while well intentioned, are not the best approach, in our opinion. Coordinating our efforts at the federal level in both Canada and the United States to harmonize the regulatory structure will contribute to the better management of international commerce and environmental quality.

    From the shipowners' perspective, Transport Canada in this country is knowledgeable and well placed to provide the necessary leadership at the national level and has the capability to implement changes on a regional basis. From a legislative perspective, which is the role of this committee, as new regulations on ballast water management are developed, they can easily be implemented through recent changes to the Canada Shipping Act, which is Transport Canada's key marine legislative tool.

[Translation]

    Transport Canada has also been working closely for years not only with the Canadian maritime industry, but also with US officials from the Department of Transportation as well as the Coast Guard on controlling harmful aquatic organisms. Its role as lead agency for the Government of Canada would thus maintain the continuity in the international regulatory framework.

    I would now be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lanteigne.

    You may begin your presentation, Ms. Langevin.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin (Director, Navigation and Environment, Shipping Federation of Canada): Good morning. My name is Anjuna Langevin and I represent the Shipping Federation of Canada.

    The Shipping Federation of Canada is an association of Canadian ship owners, commercial operators and agents. We represent approximately 90% of the oceanic traffic to and from East Coast, St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports. The Federation has been an active player in the implementation of these regulations since the very inception of these Canadian guidelines.

[English]

    We will continue to work with government to reduce the risk of marine introduction, as we consider this issue very important and we fully understand the damaging effect that invasive species could have on the Great Lakes. But we would like to highlight the fact that the free movement of vessels is essential to the Canadian economy, as more than 80% of the world's production is carried by ships. It is an international industry, and no viable solution can be found without a multi-regional and coordinated multi-state approach.

    I will talk briefly about the shipping industry, what ballast water is, the actual measures already in place to prevent introduction, and why this issue is so complex.

    Ships are one of the vectors, but they're not the only one. I think it is important to consider this perspective and not blame everything on ballast water, as there are other methods of introduction. We had introduction of five new species in the Great Lakes further to the guidelines, but I believe only two have possible links to ballast water.

    Again, it is difficult to establish whether the vector is ballast water or something else. The other vector could be aquaculture, aquarium trade, release of research organisms, release of live bait, migration through channels, transplantation due to marine agronomy, or even the submersible platform on the east coast.

    What is ballast water? Ballast is any material that could be used to weight and/or balance an object. Historically, ships were using sand or rocks to ballast their vessels. On modern ships ballast water is used and it is essential for the ship's safety. Anyone who has ever been in a canoe can understand that--the lower you sit, the more stable the canoe is. It's the same with a ship. It is needed for the stability of the ship as well as for the structural integrity, to balance the weight on board the ships. And it is used to trim, to manoeuvre to keep the rudder and propeller underwater.

    You have a few diagrams of a vessel loading and discharging ballast water. You can see that as the cargo is being discharged, ballast water is being taken into the ballast tanks below and above. The species you can see in the tanks are obviously over-dimension, and as I mentioned, they will never pass through the pump.

    So this is our route. The vessel is fully ballasted. On the diagram you see the vessel discharging ballast as the cargo is loaded on board. And finally, the vessel is fully loaded and ready for the next voyage.

    The actual ballast exchange at sea will take place between sequence two and three, where the vessel is fully ballasted for the end route, and the water will be exchanged as per the IMO and Canadian guidelines. It is the same in the U.S. regulations. It is either three times the volume of the water or a complete pump out and pump in.

    In terms of the amounts of water involved, a typical laker will load about 30% of its capacity in ballast water, so it is 10,000 metric tonnes of ballast. However, ballast voyages are not commercially desirable, because obviously if you have ballast water in the ship you don't have any cargo. It's a voyage that doesn't make any profit. So more often, especially on the lakes, you'll see voyages with light ballast conditions. We're talking about 300 to 500 metric tonnes.

    The shipping industry is mainly international. Even the domestic vessels will transit between the U.S. and Canada. There is a strong competition between routes. Cargo shipped on the St. Lawrence, for example, could be easily shipped through the Mississippi River, or the west coast for grain cargo. It is subject to international and multinational standards and regulations, not only for ballast water, but for a number of other issues. This means that any unilateral approach could penalize a region. For example, a vessel that would need to equip itself with a million dollars of equipment would tend to look at other possibilities to avoid having to install this equipment if possible.

Á  (1120)  

    Réjean talked a bit about the actual measures, the IMO guidelines that have been in place since 1998, the international convention. Those are based on ballast water exchange at sea, in water of more than 2,000 metres in depth and more than 200 nautical miles from shore. They also include best practices, such as where and when ballast intake should be minimized. It is based on a risk approach, as not all species will establish and not all introductions are damaging.

    There is currently a draft of a new international convention specifically on ballast water. This shows how ballast water is a problem that is different from any other problem treated by the international conventions. It is something to be treated separately from oil pollution or chemicals, for example, because in essence it is an operational procedure. It is not an illegal discharge or anything to which you could simply say stop, and have the problem solved.

    The United States also brought in regulations in the Great Lakes in 2000. They are mandatory and they actually enforce the Canadian guidelines by testing and controlling all the ships coming in, as many of those vessels may transit to American ports.

    In Canada we have had guidelines since 1989, and a draft Canadian regulation was approved by the national working group in May 2002 and is part of the regulatory reform process to update the Canada Shipping Act. If the process goes as quickly as possible, we may see this out next year for the Great Lakes.

    Réjean also talked about the industry code of best practices, which you have in an annex of the document. This is a voluntary code that was brought together by the industry. It is now mandatory in the seaway and is included in the Michigan state regulation at this point.

    The committee talked previously about treatment systems. Treatment is, of course, a subject of high interest for the industry, as we are fully knowledgeable that although interim ballast exchange is likely to be the norm for the near future, on-board treatments are perceived as the ultimate solution worldwide.

    We have also had members who participated in on-board trials on the federal vessel M.V. Yukon. The test was on a copper ion filtration system. We also tested on board the Stolt Aspiration, and we installed a permanent system on board.

    So there's definitely a high interest in state-of-the-art technology, particularly in building new ships. As shipowners will invest for 15 to 20 years, they want to be really up to date on the new technologies.

    Unfortunately, at this point, although we've done extensive research and trials, as I said, there are no available treatments that have been proven to eliminate all species. Many are even less effective than a good mid-ocean ballast exchange, in terms of species removal.

    In addition to that, an international standard has still to be defined, making it very risky for shipowners to invest in equipment that may not be up to date in a few years, because the international standard may change.

    One of the technical problems is the fact that the treatments are not always time-efficient. In other words, they're not able to do the treatment within the voyage or as the ship is loading.

    The committee also talked previously about chemical treatments. Those have been found to be very unsafe by environmentalists, as the amount of chemical involved to treat 10,000 metric tonnes of ballast water is very large. Also, very few treatments are effective on sediments, especially because they include cysts or larvae. And sentiment is mud, so it's much more difficult to treat than water itself.

Á  (1125)  

    There are also some commercial constraints, as the investments are major. I was talking about $1 million for a ship, which is the average cost of any ballast treatment system at this point.

    Setting requirements only for the Great Lakes could mean transfer to other routes and threaten the economy of the region, so it is something to be considered carefully.

    Modifications could take several years, as dry-docking and long stoppages might be required. Shore facilities could not really be envisaged. At this point, no port has the actual facilities, and they don't even have the space needed to build them.

    There is also another case that's been talked about at this committee, that of non-ballast aboard ships. So vessels that don't have ballast water on board still have a little bit of sediment deposited at the bottom of their tanks. We're talking about 26 metric tons on average for a lake carrier. This is from the study done by Mr. David Reid from the University of Windsor. In the same study, he also found out that about 90% of the live organisms will die when flooded with salt water. So it seems that good on-board practices, such as exchanging the ballast water, even for a no-ballast-onboard vessel, and cleaning up sediments regularly on vessels are still the best practices at this point, or the best solution that can be found to treat loose sediment and to restrain the number of species.

    In conclusion, treatments are long-term options. More research is needed on treatments and on risk evaluation. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done a number of studies on ballast water in cooperation with universities and U.S. and European researchers, but a risk evaluation still has to be done to evaluate where the risks are higher, and where there are areas where we can do an exchange safely, especially for coastal vessels.

    As we have said many times, there is a need for a coordinated multi-regional approach. It's one of the main or key points in this file.

    Canadian regulations are already drafted, and part of the Canada Shipping Act regulations. So at this point there is no point in bringing in something else for something that has already been verified for many years. This came out of the guidelines process. Controls are required to verify and enforce compliance. Though this is not the case currently, there will be compliance when the regulations are finally in place.

    At this point, Transport Canada is handling this file very efficiently. While they do collect the ships' reports, they are lacking resources to verify and compile the information and to maintain a national database.

    These are the main points of my presentation. Thank you.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'd like to thank both of our witnesses for being succinct in their presentations, which is greatly appreciated.

    We'll now go to questions, beginning with Mr. Burton, for up to ten minutes.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to start with Mr. Lanteigne, if I may. Right at the beginning of your presentation, you talked about a study done on the Algonorth, which was a complex study. You also said that the results of that project were published and made available to the IMO in the marine community. Though there may be something here on that, I don't have any information on it. So could you possibly summarize the results of that study for the committee? Just a summary.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Yes, certainly, sir.

    The Algonorth experiment was part of our contribution to international efforts in testing various measures to deal with this problem. The Algonorth was basically used to test means of filtering these critters out of the water. We did the filtering experiment; Brazil did a chemical procedure to kill these species; Australia and New Zealand did a treatment plan, which basically heated the ballast water to kill the critters; and the University of South Florida had another mechanical means of getting rid of them, using UV or ultraviolet killing procedures. So this was part of the international effort.

    We used the filtering equipment. The basic design of the equipment was Ontario Hydro's, which they use to filter and cool water for their nuclear power plant. In a nutshell, we set up a huge ballast water pumping station on the ship. The water was sent through high-velocity and high-capacity filtering equipment, and we evaluated, analyzed, and calculated the degree to which these various filter sizes would lead to a reduction of these species in the large quantities of ballast going in and out the ship. So this was our effort with one means of dealing with this problem.

    It was a highly successful means of getting rid of these species, getting rid of 95%, and over, of them. There were technical problems with the system, but that's not to say it doesn't work. These were the results of our efforts laid out in this paper here.

    In a nutshell, it's basically high-throughput, high-volume, high-tech filtering equipment.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

    Further on that, I understand from both presentations that there is some level of regulation in place. Yet in reading your presentation, you say that regulations for ballast water management are finalized and can be implemented, but I'm not clear as to how far we're going in terms of the actual legislation in place. What I'm hearing today is that we still require legislation. Is this correct? There may be some legislation, but it has to go further?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Yes. Actually the way that it works is that a draft regulation has been defined by a technical working group on ballast water. This went through a consultation process with experts and the general public, and it was approved by the national committee in May 2002. But it now has to be reviewed by lawyers to be put into legal format.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: If I may complement that a little, until the mid-1980s, Canada had voluntary measures in place. The international regulations are almost finalized, and the Canadian regulations will be in place in the very near future. But the only known means of dealing with this problem at this point in time is undertaking what is known as a ballast water exchange in mid-ocean. In other words, you dump your water that you've pumped on board from the Caspian Sea or the North Sea or from a port in Europe, and exchange it for salt water in deep ocean. This is known to be effective—but to what degree is a big question mark. But the only known mechanism to deal with this at this point in time is an exchange of ballast water in mid-ocean.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Okay, thank you. I understand that.

    I guess what I'm having a little difficulty with is that it appears that the U.S. has some compulsory regulations in place already, yet we're still developing regulations. These ships are coming into the Great Lakes and are subject to U.S. regulations. Do we have something comparable we're subject to at this point in time, or are we still getting to that point?

    If we don't have something comparable, it seems to me that it would be somewhat useless to have.... You know, once the ship's in the Great Lakes, the water is all the same. So how do we control that from a Canadian perspective if we don't have regulations like the U.S. has?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: At this point, what we have are guidelines. Those guidelines were developed between the U.S. and Canada at the beginning. The U.S. had the same guidelines as we have. They simply put those guidelines into a regulation that is now mandatory, but in a sense it is the same measure: the ballast exchange at sea, mainly, and the minimization of intake in critical areas. Basically, they're the same guidelines.

    What it means is that as the U.S. has a regulation, it makes the guidelines enforceable in Canada.

    Mr. Andy Burton: So the U.S. is mandatory, and because it's mandatory for the U.S., it's mandatory for Canadian vessels as well, or vessels entering Canadian areas of the Great Lakes. Is that right?

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The way it works is that they control the vessel at St. Lambert. They go through Canadian or U.S. ports, so all vessels are controlled and have to apply the same exchanges. That means they have to comply.

    The reason those regulations were drafted was to be in line with the U.S. regulations. Hopefully, once those regulations are in place we'll be in line with what has developed in the U.S.

    Mr. Andy Burton: What kind of timeframe are we looking at for finalizing the Canadian regulations?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: They're all agreed to. It's now a process of publication in the Canada Gazette and putting them in place. By and large, these regulations are all agreed to by the industry. We've been doing this for years and years already, so it's the regular process of gazetting. Hopefully, by the end of this year, or sometime this year, they will be in place.

    Ultimately, these regulations will have to be redone when and if an international agreement is reached on some alternative measure or measures to deal with this problem in a different way from what we're doing now, which is the so-called exchange of this ballast water in mid-ocean. It is satisfactory, as they're the only known measures, but it does not entirely get rid of invasive species that are carried by ships.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Do I have time for one more, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Yes, indeed.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Okay, one more question.

    Is it the feeling of both groups that you prefer to have some sort of regulation in place so that you know what the rules of the game are, rather than wondering, so to speak? Are you in agreement with this approach?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Yes, definitely. That's why both of us are supporting Transport Canada in what they undertake to do. What we are not in agreement with--and I've seen it happen in the last number of years--is the emergence of local regulations. For instance, the Port of Vancouver has local regulations for ships entering the port. The State of Michigan imposed some local regulations for Michigan waters. The State of New York was coming up with local regulations. The Province of Ontario had a bill that was debated in the provincial legislature on ballast water for Ontario waters. The Port of Halifax was having some.

    For a business that is international in nature, it was the emergence of these local regulations where nobody knew what they were supposed to comply with that was causing us major headaches over time. We had to defend ourselves or make our case all over the place, from Lansing, Michigan, to Albany, New York.

    We've been making a push for a number of years to Transport Canada to stand up to the plate and the U.S. Coast Guard to stand up to the plate and make federal regulations we can live with. And we will comply. It's not an issue of non-compliance. It's an issue of coming up with appropriate federal standards.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that sums it up quite nicely.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: I wonder if our witnesses would be kind enough to look over your right shoulder. You'll see a person there who looks like the pilot of an aircraft. She's in charge of the microphones in front of you. I know it's tempting, but we'd appreciate it if both of you would leave them alone. She will make sure that your evidence gets on the record. Thank you.

    We now go to Monsieur Roy.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have several questions, but first of all, I want to say that I was struck by one of the comments that was made. I'm not sure whether it came from Ms. Langevin or Mr. Lanteigne, but someone said that certain regions could be penalized if the regulations were too strict or if a system other than deep water exchange was developed for ballast water management.

    I don't quite grasp the logic of your argument because basically, if Canada were to adopt the same regulations as the US, or similar ones, in any event, vessels coming to North America would have no choice but to transit through an American or Canadian port. Therefore, I don't see how this places us at a disadvantage. I agree with Mr. Lanteigne's assertion that any regulations adopted must be standardized. If different regulations applied to different ports, this would likely create pointless problems for the industry.

    However, do you consider the regulations enacted by the US for the Great Lakes to be acceptable and appropriate? In your opinion, should Canada adopt similar regulations?

    Secondly, what about regulatory compliance? Do we have any assurances that the US regulations respecting the Great Lakes...? When a vessel enters the Great Lakes, the US regulations apply. In terms of regulatory compliance, how does the industry fare?

    You say that the Federation represents 90% of oceanic traffic to and from St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports. Where are the majority of these vessels coming from? Do we have any assurances that these vessels comply with existing regulations and that all, or at least the majority, of them in fact exchange ballast water outside the 200-mile zone?

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: I will attempt to answer your question which had several components.

    First of all, in so far as the port of origin of vessels is concerned, clearly the majority of vessels ply the waters of the North Atlantic. Hence most hail from Europe. A few vessels set out from ports in the Baltic and Caspian seas, and a small percentage sail from ports in South America. That's just an overview of shipping traffic.

    US regulations allow for control measures to be taken at Saint-Lambert, as I mentioned. Officials conduct salinity tests. If a vessel is carrying seawater, this means it has exchanged its ballast water and is therefore in compliance with the regulations.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Are all vessels subject to these control measures?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Yes, all vessels are subject to these control measures at Saint-Lambert.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: And these controls are mandatory.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: That's right.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Verified and verifiable control measures.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: That's correct. The Coast Guard is responsible for enforcing these controls and according to current data, compliance rates are between 93 per cent and 95 per cent. The remaining 5 per cent to 7 per cent of vessels are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. For example, a vessel might be exempted because it didn't have time to exchange its ballast water or was unable to do so for security reasons. In such instances, the Coast Guard will issue specific instructions for this vessel. It might be allowed to exchange its ballast water closer to shore, while minimizing the risks at the same time.

    Are Canadian regulations similar to US ones? Yes. Our objective was to have similar regulations to ensure a standardized approach to the problem. The existing US regulations are not stricter than the regulations being proposed in conjunction with the review of the Canada Shipping Act. Basically, they address the same concerns. The difference between Canada and the US lies in the existence of regional annexes that enable the regions to develop specific regulations, albeit ones that are still consistent with a central standard set by Transport Canada.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: When you claim that a unilateral approach could penalize a region, that is to say St. Lawrence and Great Lakes ports as compared to the port of Boston, for example, where there is no requirement to exchange...

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: As far as regions go, I don't look upon North America as a region. It really is an area in which regulations are coordinated. This does not pose a problem and we're really heading in this direction. However, it will be a few years before treatment becomes mandatory in the United States and in Canada. By even the most conservative estimates, it will be 10 years before all vessels are equipped with treatment facilities. I think that's the norm.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: What I was trying to get at was that vessels heading to the ports of Boston and New York are not subject to the same requirements as vessels on the Great Lakes. That was the gist of my question.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Our concern is that a particular state, for example an East Coast or Great Lakes state, might decide to set it own standards. In that case, the region could indeed be penalized by this unilateral approach because a vessel could chose to dock at other ports.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That's right. However, as things now stand, do the same regulations apply at Great Lakes, Boston and New York ports?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: No.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Therefore, as things now stand, vessels face additional constraints on the Great Lakes?

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Yes, but not economic constraints. We're talking more about operational constraints. They are not disadvantaged from an economic standpoint.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: However, if vessels were required to treat their ballast water, which could be quite costly, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence ports would be severely penalized, from an economic standpoint.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: That's correct.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: That answers my question. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: I have a quick question on that point.

    Surely there must be a difference between the Great Lakes and Boston. Boston is a seaport. Any invasive species that would thrive in fresh water.... The whole idea of ballast water is to flush the fresh water out and bring in the sea water to kill the freshwater organisms. How could regulations imposed by the State of Massachusetts dealing with the saltwater port of Boston have any impact on the shipping industry as it relates to the fresh water of the Great Lakes?

    I think that's roughly what Monsieur Roy was getting at. Could we have a direct answer to that? We don't quite follow.

    Mr. Lanteigne.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: This is an excellent question, by the way.

    In recent years the focus has been largely on the transfer of invasive species from a freshwater body to another freshwater body, because species that thrive in fresh water will not survive in salt water, and vice versa. But there has been significant transfer of invasive species from a saltwater medium to another saltwater medium. Perhaps I could use an example that is close to mind, because I'm an east coast guy--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): You can't be all bad, then.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Yes, that's good.

    The so-called red tide--most people have read about the red tide in P.E.I. that affected the mussels and oysters and killed people. Some people died. That was a transfer, actually, of micro shrimp. That's what it was. It was a transfer from a saltwater medium--the Baltic Sea, if I recall--to another saltwater medium. That problem exists, too. It's not purely fresh water to fresh water. It is also a problem of salt to salt--maybe not the size of the other one, but it is there.

    The Chair: Surely it would require a different regulatory approach, because at least, based on your evidence, the flushing of the fresh water and bringing in the salt water would take care of the freshwater organisms for those ships that are going into the Great Lakes. Those ships that are not going into the Great Lakes and are dealing with ocean ports would have some other approach, would they not?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: The only approach known is the changing of ballast water in mid-ocean, because it is understood, by testing by the scientific community, that there are very few harmful species in mid-ocean, 2,000 metres and more. There are very few small species in mid-ocean. There are whales and fish, but they don't get into ballast water. The change of ballast water in mid-ocean is the only known solution. It is not 100% effective, but it is the only known solution.

    The Chair: All right. To be clear, according to the best scientific evidence you have, that would likely kill any saltwater organisms that live coastally. They are then dumped into the 2,000-metre-depth ocean. Is that the general scientific thinking?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The other thinking behind that is also that it is a volumetric exchange. It is an exchange of the water inside the tanks. Depending on the study you are looking at, the exchange is efficient between 85% and 95%, so you reduce the risk even between salt water and salt water. However, the risk is maybe a bit higher, of course, but the coastal vessels are a different problem, because they don't go outside the 200-nautical-mile limit and they basically exchange from salt water to salt water, sometimes in the same ecosystem, in fact.

    The Chair: I'm sorry for the intervention, colleagues.

    Mr. Provenzano.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): By the way, Mr. Chair, I think I was going to be asking very similar questions.

    The Chair: Sorry about that.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I have sort of a general comment, firstly with respect to the members of your association. I think we can say they are good corporate citizens. I have experience, naturally, with Algoma Central Marine, which operates out of my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, and it has long been a very good corporate citizen. It's very pleasing to receive a presentation that indicates that the association and the people involved in the industry are prepared to walk the talk, put their money where their mouth is, in order to address the problems we're discussing this morning.

    We happen to be the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I think if you were making this presentation to Transport Canada or to the Standing Committee on Transport, they'd be very happy to hear all the compliments that have been made with respect to the relationship between the industry and that government department.

    Having said that, what I want to ask is, from the standpoint of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and also from the standpoint of Transport Canada, while you've acknowledged that it's a good relationship and there are a lot of good things happening, is there somewhere we're perhaps dropping the ball? Is there a void that you would like to see filled from either of those departments, especially if you perceive a role at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that isn't being adequately fulfilled?

    That's to either one of you or both of you.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans of course has been very involved in the issue since the beginning, and one of their main roles is definitely to be a research adviser. They are doing the research, the studies, and their input is very important. It is an issue that needs biologists' advice, and this is where DFO is highly involved.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Are you satisfied or as happy with the industry's relationship with DFO as it is with Transport Canada? You've been very complimentary to Transport Canada.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: I think the relationship is also very good with DFO. We have good cooperation, and when there is a working group or any meeting on ballast water, DFO is always there. They are present, and they participate in the development of regulations. Although Transport Canada is the lead agency for regulations on ballast water, they definitely participate.

    The only comment I could make for improvement on the issue, on DFO's side, is that we still need research, and it's something that needs to be further developed. We especially need research on a risk approach. We have a lot of information on different species and species that are present in different areas, but we need to know in what areas there is less risk.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I noted, Ms. Langevin, in your presentation--and this is going back to the questions the chair had raised--you made a specific point that we need a coordinated multi-regional approach, actually approaches, in line with international developments. Mr. Lanteigne ended his presentation with a statement that we need to harmonize the regulatory structure and that the structure should recognize regional differences and the need for distinct provisions for domestic and international carriers.

    I have to say, the question that comes to my mind, related to this, is that when we talk about regional differences, the regional differences can be geographic; the regional differences could relate to the differences in regulatory jurisdictions. Are we talking about both of those things? When we talk about the need for a multi-regional approach, are we saying geographic as well as regulatory jurisdictional differences need to be harmonized?

    Can both of you respond to that?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Thank you for your comments, in particular with respect to Algoma and the members of the Canadian Shipowners Association. I appreciate that.

    We are big supporters of Transport Canada because they are the regulatory authority. They are the control mechanism in this country that we've historically dealt with, for the last 200 years or more. Transport Canada is the lead agency for the international community, the International Maritime Organization, and they have a good handle on what is happening here. They've been very active in the past 20 or 25 years on this.

    We have to admit that once the problem is created, once zebra mussels enter the Great Lakes, it's a DFO problem. It's no longer a transport problem; it's a fisheries problem. Once the red tide comes to Newfoundland, it's a fisheries problem. It has consequences in the food chain. So as I said, we are very respectful of the role DFO has to play dealing with a problem once it has been created. But Transport Canada has been focusing its efforts to avoid this being set up in the first place. We're continuing to try to achieve that goal. It has not been successful yet, but we're doing a lot of work on it.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: So what you're saying, I take it, is we need to harmonize between regulatory jurisdictions, and geography really isn't a consideration here.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: In terms of geography, the trade of different ships is a consideration. Mostly the foreign-flag ships, trading from the Caspian, the North Sea, and the Baltics, have been deemed to be the vector that imported these things into our domestic waters.

    We run ships within the Great Lakes, and between the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, so we're not a vector that would import it. But we are a carrier that will move these things from one area to the next. So our mechanism to avoid this transfer, let's say from Hamilton to Thunder Bay, has to be different from what it is from the Baltic Sea to Hamilton, I would say. The management practices that the ship will have to put in place--or are in place right now, because we have management practices--are different. That's what we meant about having to deal with a problem in a regional approach.

    For instance, I can't take any of my ships and bring them into the middle of the Atlantic and change ballast and then come back into the Great Lakes. That's just not feasible. But there are mechanisms by which I can avoid this transfer of the Asian carp or ruffe from Hamilton to Thunder Bay. We have these in place. Maybe filtering will be the mechanism by which we will avoid this transfer from one area to the next. We don't know, but we're working on it actively.

    I guess the bottom line is there isn't one solution that fits all, either internationally or domestically. It will have to be a basket of mechanisms by which you would deal with this problem once it's in place. But the ultimate goal is to avoid this happening at all, completely.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: I have an example of regional specifications under regulations. I said this before, that the Canadian guidelines provide annexes, and it is the specifications of the Canadian guidelines--which is still different from the U.S. regulations at this point. Those guidelines provide a regulatory opportunity for the region to be distinctive within the framework of the national regulations. I think it is an interesting approach, as it allows the region to define particular areas within their region that could be more problematic and discuss those, while the national is still keeping an eye on things and making sure it is a coordinated approach at the national level.

    At this point, the people on the east coast are dealing with the equivalent as the U.S. east coast, to be able to tackle the problem of coastal vessels, as those vessels cannot exchange their ballast at sea, because they are restricted by their trade limits to stay within the 200-nautical-mile limit. So now they have to define areas where exchange is possible, but without compromising the commercial effectiveness of those vessels that are trading between the U.S. and Canada.

    So it is an example of a coordinated regional approach, and it is not always easy to do that, as each of the states has its particular regulations, and of course the ecosystems also have their particularities.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Provenzano.

    In accordance with discussions we had at the steering committee and with the permission of the committee, I'll call on Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I guess most of the questions we can ask about the exchange and so on have already been asked. I have a couple of questions in relation to your two groups, the Canadian Shipowners Association--and we listed all the different Canadian shipping firms that are members of that group--and the Shipping Federation of Canada. Do you overlap in any way, or are you two entirely different associations? You mentioned that you represent 90% or most of the trade plying the area. If there are two different groups, that doesn't leave a lot for the other group.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: No, we don't overlap. My association represents Canadian-owned, Canadian-flag, Canadian-crewed ships mostly involved in the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence, Arctic, and the eastern seaboard trade between Canada and the United States. With Anjuna's group it's mostly the foreign-flag ships that trade between Europe, the Caribbean, and South America through the Great Lakes.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: They use our waterways.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Yes.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: As I approached the airport a couple of days ago, I met a taxi driver who was standing there. I knew the guy, and I said “What are you doing here driving a taxi? I thought you worked on the boats.” He said “I did until they laid off a bunch of Canadians and hired Filipinos at a reduced rate.” Is that happening?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: I would be lying to say it's not happening. Yes, it is happening. There are at this point no more Canadian-flag ships, and I'm the first one to say that it's a shame. We're not the only country in this case; I think it's a worldwide situation. Actually, it's a situation such that to be competitive, foreign shipowners cannot operate a Canadian-flag vessel on transoceanic routes at this point.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Are these Canadian-owned ships, are they ships owned by Canadians flying flags of convenience, or are they both?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: We represent both. We represent foreign-owned vessels as well as Canadian-owned vessels.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Are they all doing it? Are they all hiring as cheaply as they can?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The link to our organization is that they are represented by a Canadian agent or a Canadian commercial operator.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: You mention in your report that most of your boats are Canadian-owned with Canadian workers.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Yes. By law, Canadian-owned, Canadian-flag ships can only employ Canadians.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: You're saying Canadian-flag ships, but what about ships owned by Canadians flying flags of convenience?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: They all have foreign crews; they're all foreign nationals. I don't know of one Canadian-owned foreign-flag ship that is crewed by Canadians.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: There is one, but they're in the Arctic.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: So they hire foreign nationals even though they're Canadian-owned?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Even though they're Canadian-owned.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: And they're plying Canadian waterways, but they also operate internationally, I assume.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: They're only involved in the international trade.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Do we have any ships from either group that would be plying strictly Canadian or maybe Canadian-United States waterways who still hire foreign crews?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: No. According to the coasting trade legislation in this country, if you carry cargo between one Canadian port and another, you have to be Canadian-owned and you have to have a Canadian flag and a Canadian crew.

    Foreign-flag vessels, Canadian-owned or otherwise, also share the same trade and waters as Canadian-flag ships.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'm just wondering about this. You talk about the fairly stringent efforts by our boats, our crewed boats, our own boats, in relation to dealing with this problem. Are we getting the same cooperation, the same interest, and the same effort by boats that are not Canadian-owned?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: I can reply to that.

    There's a common idea in the public that foreign flags mean substandard vessels. I can tell you it is not the case, especially for the Great Lakes, where the demand on the trade is so important that you need well-trained people; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to bring the ship all the way to the Great Lakes. Also, there are ice conditions and you have to go through locks. It is an area of high-quality vessel transit.

    Most of the vessels we represent are really high-standard vessels. They have a commitment to quality, and quality is also something that's sold in terms of markets for shippers who want to put their cargo on the vessel, especially if it's regular trade. They would have a strong interest that the ship be well maintained and not be responsible for any spillage or any incident en route. The standard in shipping is also a contractual obligation.

    The situation has changed, I would say, from what it was twenty years ago, as the four-state control is also in place and is now controlling those vessels much more strictly and is looking at more areas on board the vessels. It is for all the developed countries that the inspectors are on board and check the vessels very carefully at this point.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: A couple of years ago we had a boat that actually broke in half in the mid-Atlantic. That raised a lot of concerns about the safety of some of our huge freighters and tankers that operate in transoceanic traffic.

    You're saying our boats are up to a very good standard. I've seen a few that are operating you would question as to their stability. Certainly they are not Canadian-owned boats; they're foreign-owned boats. If we had such a disaster in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for instance, and it was an oil tanker, you can imagine what would happen. Are you finding the quality of the boats is improving because of change in legislation? Do we still have those floating time bombs we did have?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: There are still substandard ships in the world. This is a fact. All countries have to face this problem and find ways to address it. What I'm saying is our organization is committed to quality shipping, and the vessels that are within our membership are mainly young vessels. They are on average less than 15 years old, which for a vessel is a good average. This is restricted through many contracts. Many of the contracts will say we will not accept any ship more than 15 years old. This is to ensure the quality.

    A ship that breaks in two is most of the time an old vessel with difficulties. Again, the question of stability is of course related to human mistakes that could happen, but the more well maintained the ship and the younger the ship, the less chance there is for that to happen.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

    Ms. Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'm new to this committee, and I just want to ask a question of clarification. My understanding is that there are regulations, and while they're an attempt to harmonize, they are mandatory in the United States and voluntary in Canada. Is that right?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: At this point, that's unfortunately true.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Is that what we see projected as the final result as well?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: No, definitely not. There is a draft regulation in process, actually, and one of the main reasons was to be on the same level as the United States. So it is not something that's here to stay; it's maybe for the coming year, but....

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Will it be voluntary at the end of the day, or will it then be mandatory?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: It will be mandatory once we have the regulation in place.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Do you know right now what the ramifications of not complying with the regulation are? Is there a regime of, if you don't comply, if you get caught in violation, or if you don't get--

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Yes, there is provision for cases of violation. There is provision for control and inspection as well.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: The control measures in this country--

    The Chair: Mr. Lanteigne, the control measures and the provisions you're talking about, as far as Canadians are concerned, are voluntary; as far as the Americans are concerned, they are mandatory at the present time. Isn't that right?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: The only existing compulsory measures in all the North American continent are for the Great Lakes. This will soon be extended to all North American waters, Canada and the United States, by these regulations coming into being. What is lacking is an international regulation; that has been under development at the International Maritime Organization for the best part of eight or nine years, and they're not there yet. They're expecting to have an international treaty in place by late 2004, likely by 2005.

    Having being associated with this for so many years, I suspect we will have international regulations within the next ten years. The only mandatory system we have in place now is for the Great Lakes, and soon, this year, we will have something compulsory for the whole North American continent.

  (1215)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: And it will be mandatory?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Yes.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: The reason I'm asking this question is I've spent a lot of time in the environment, and I know that from time to time you see vessels releasing their grey water, which I realize is a different issue. There is a suspicion that that's often done within certain miles outside of boundary waters, or indeed perhaps done within Canadian jurisdiction. The ramification of doing that is seen as much more of a slap on the wrist, as opposed to the kinds of charges and fines that you may be given in American waters.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: The disposal of grey or black water in the Great Lakes is against the law in the United States. So for a Canadian ship or a foreign-flag ship, all grey water or black water has to be kept on board or discharged ashore into special....

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I recognize these are two separate issues, but it underscores for me the absolute need that the regulations not only be harmonized, but also that the ramification of not complying be at least somewhat if not exactly equal, because you will encourage a redistribution of people who are choosing not to comply.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Yes, that grey water is an acute problem, especially for cruise ships trading into Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Quebec City, and other ports where cruise ships visit because of the sheer volume of grey water or black water that is generated by these monsters. That industry is trying to deal with that problem in a forceful way.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Actually there is a regulation in the Great Lakes about the grey water and there is none in the St. Lawrence. It is something that is being developed at this moment. The discussions are going around and the draft regulations should be out very soon.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: You talk about an international treaty being ten years away. Why will it take that long? Is it going to take that long just to get multiple jurisdictions on the same page?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: They're hoping to have the draft of the treaty finalized by the end of this year or early in 2005. The implementation of this treaty takes a significant amount of time because you need to capture so many signatures of so many countries before this thing can come into force. Historically speaking, these treaties take an awful long time to come into application.

    Now, Canada would probably be one of the first to sign in on it, and so would the United States, but we don't control a huge volume of shipping, tonnage-wise. You need a number of countries to ratify that, and these countries have to control, under the current draft, at least 50% of the shipping under their flag.

    So the two criteria that have to come into place are 50% of the tonnage plus 25 countries to sign on. For this threshold to reach these two criteria takes a significantly long time. It may happen fast, but speaking from experience, it traditionally doesn't.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Redman.

    Could you help me, at least, on what is grey water and what is black water?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Black water is generated from kitchens and from washing decks, washing clothes, and so on. Brown water or grey water is from showers, wash basins.

    I mentioned that cruise ships generate a lot of both because of the sheer volume of people. A commercial ship does not generate very much because of crews of only 25 to 30 people, even fewer sometimes.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Stoffer.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Madame, you talked about the fact that your shipping industry was quality. You talked about quality shipping. My friend from Newfoundland asked about his friend who was a former employee on board a ship. What would his Canadian salary have been before he was laid off? How much would he have made a month?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Do you mean a Canadian employee on ships?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: That really varies a lot. I've been a navigation officer myself, and I can say--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. Let's say the minimum Canadian employee's salary, a deckhand, say.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: It may vary between $30,000 a year and $70,000 a year. It's really a very high range.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Say it's $30,000 to $70,000. How much would the average Filipino deckhand make?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Again, that depends a lot on the companies. You'll find very cheap salaries, but you'll find very high salaries.

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, it is very interesting, but we're studying invasive species.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I can understand that, sir, but the reason I'm asking that, and my question will come forthwith, is we get inundated in our office with materials from the shipping companies about how great they do their business on both domestic and foreign-flag carriers. Every time I call them, they refuse to address the issue of foreign workers on board these ships.

    In Halifax, at the mission for mariners, we see these workers all the time on the companies you represent.

    It's a simple question. What's the average Filipino salary on board both ships that a Canadian used to be working on?

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, I'll use a judicial phrase, if I might. I'll allow the question. I'll give you some leeway, provided you demonstrate the relevance to invasive species.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. I will, sir.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: We are fully open, if you want to contact us or discuss anything. We can provide you with statistics, which I don't have with me now.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's fair enough.

    The reason for this question is this, Mr. Chairman. These are invasive workers. Our Canadians used to have--

    The Chair: I knew that was coming.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have nothing against foreign workers, but it upsets me when I see Canadian workers who are paying taxes now sitting on the dry dock.

    Sir, I say this with the greatest respect, because I don't hold the view that you do. On page 8 of your submission, it says that the Department of Transport has been working closely for years with organizations on controlling harmful aquatic organisms. For years, harmful aquatic organisms have been entering the Great Lakes. So I don't share the enthusiasm of the Department of Transport or other organizations to actually protect the interests of the fishing communities or the Great Lakes.

    We heard from the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers and there were many other organizations we corresponded with. And they say, more or less, that the Great Lakes are improving slightly, but they were a cesspool for years. The fact is, there have been many organisms in the lakes that are costing taxpayers, on both sides of the border, a lot of money to control--the carp, the sea lamprey, etc.

    In the United States we have regulations, but in Canada we have guidelines. You talk, sir, about coming up with this multilateral, multi-stakeholder approach. So what's going to have to happen, in my opinion, is the regulations in the United States are going to have to become guidelines or our guidelines are going to have to become regulations. Because right now the States have stronger regulations than ours. They are approaching this in the way I think we should be approaching it, with regulations. They are making it so that if you break those regulations, you'll be subject to the law, whereas in Canada things are subject to guidelines. The fines or whatever wouldn't be as restrictive as that.

    I would like your comments on that. Perhaps I have a prejudiced view on it. I don't think Transport Canada or any other government organization is doing that great a job of protecting the interests of wild fish in their habitat. You seem to have a different view, so correct me if I'm wrong, please.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: There are two views on this. I'm ex-Transport Canada, so I'm maybe biased here, but--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's fine.

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: --take it for what it is.

    Canada was the first to bring this problem to the attention of the international community, in the early eighties. I was part of the meeting in London that did this. We were having a problem, particularly on the Great Lakes, and we said something ought to be done about this.

    This country was the first one to put together voluntary standards to be met, because there was nothing else. There was nothing else anywhere else in the world. DFO was the first one to invest money into doing some research into how this could be controlled--not avoided, but controlled. This country took the leadership, significant leadership, on this issue.

    The second side of your question is the Government of Canada, through the Department of Transport, had no legislative power to make regulations for ballast water until 2000, when they modified the Shipping Act. At that time they rewrote the Canada Shipping Act entirely, and inserted some very strong power in there for the Government of Canada to regulate shipping insofar as ballast water was concerned.

    I remember us and our business partners, the Shipping Federation of Canada, making a strong pitch to the Standing Committee on Transport to make sure the powers in the Shipping Act were wide and big so that they could do what ought to be done in the regulatory framework for this. But until the year 2000, they had no power in the act to regulate this business at all. We said the second best is put in some voluntary guidelines, which they did, and we abide by them.

    The U.S. went faster than us, admittedly, and in 1996 they passed a bill in the House and Senate called the National Invasive Species Act, which was basically legislation that contains penalties and everything you're arguing for, which we have no problem with. It was done by legislation. The obligations of the U.S. law were the same as the obligations of our voluntary standards--by design, not by law. By design, for the Great Lakes, as soon a ship enters the Great Lakes, it hits U.S. waters in Massena. So the gate for control of entry into the Great Lakes for our ships and the foreign-flagged ships was imposed on entering, right in Massena, when you pass U.S. waters, because you have to pass there.

    So blame can be assigned, and your comments are well taken, but they did whatever they could do with the tools they had.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: The reason, Mr. Chair, is in 1998 this committee did a recommendation on ballast water exchange, and five years later we're still talking about it.

    Recently there was a ship in Halifax, and I'm not sure of the country it came from, but we thought it percolated from the bottom of the Halifax harbour because it just showed up all of a sudden. I got to see this ship on a little boat going around it, and, Mr. Chairman, it's unbelievable how this vessel ever got in Canadian waters, how it ever got across the ocean.

    It made two stops, one in Montreal and one in Halifax. Only when it got to Halifax did the government say this ship is terrible, it's leaking, it's dangerous; working conditions are terrible, we have to stop it from moving any further.

    In your opinion, sir, and yours, how does a ship like that even enter our 200-mile economic zone? How does it even get here? The thing was incredibly ugly. It was a rust bucket. The conditions for the workers were unbelievable. It was leaking water onto grain, and we know the danger of that. How did it ever get here, and how could anyone have said this is normal business practice? Are you competing with that type of environment internationally?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: We are.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. It's incredible how it got here. And if you've seen the Halifax harbour, we just thought it grew from there and percolated up.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: As I say, that's unfortunate, and we can only say that we disagree with substandard shipping. We don't promote it by any means, but it is still a reality in the world nowadays. I think there are actually measures to minimize those types of vessels entering the St. Lawrence or the lakes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's why I don't share the view that Transport Canada, which has authority, and the coast guard should allow this vessel to even get close to Canada. If they're doing such a great job, how did this big vessel show up out of nowhere?

  (1230)  

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: If I can come back to the invasive species, you mention the fact that there has been an invasion despite the guidelines.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: I think it is important to see there that invasion could happen even if there were no shipping in the Great Lakes. There are other factors.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I understand.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: And in addition to that, not all the introduced species are invaders, or damaging species. The chances of getting another zebra mussel in the Great Lakes are very low. It is a risk approach that we have to take there.

    I'm not saying that nothing should be done. I think we've proven that we want regulation. We went up front to say that we need regulation. We need something to stop it, and the shipping industry is willing to do something. If there is a treatment option that works, and that it is possible to buy at this point, I think it will be put on board some ships, but--

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: You should read--

    The Chair: Mr. Stoffer, I've given you eleven minutes. If you don't mind, I have a few questions, and if nobody else has a question we'll recognize you.

    Let me begin my questions by saying please do not ascribe any motive to the way in which I ask questions. I just have a way of asking questions.

    It's interesting how many witnesses have picked up on your cheerleading of Transport Canada. I'm more closely aligned to Mr. Stoffer's view.

    We heard from Transport Canada, Mr. Lanteigne, and in fact they told us that the Canada Shipping Act was amended in 1998, not the year 2000. And in 1998 the Canada Shipping Act was amended to give authority to introduce regulations to control the management of ballast water--in 1998. It's now 2003, and we have no such regulations. I don't consider that a speedy solution to the problem.

    It's all well and good that Transport Canada is working on these, but if it takes us five years plus to go from guidelines to regulations, of course it's going to take 10 to 15 years for the international community. It seems to me Transport Canada could have led by producing these regulations a lot earlier than it did. That's not a question, that's a statement.

    I do have a question on invasive species. This is a geographic question. I do not know the answer. I'm looking for an answer from you. If you have a ship coming in, docking at Montreal, and it hasn't hit Massena in New York, it hasn't been inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard, I believe I'm right in saying it's in fresh water. Of course the fresh water is flowing toward the sea, but so what? The invasive species could be dumped in Montreal, theoretically, and swim upward into the Great Lakes without the American regulations being complied with. Is that not true at the present time?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: That is true at the present time, and that's why we want the regulation in place.

    The Chair: Absolutely. A Canadian regulation would cover that.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: We fully agree with you that there needs to be a regulation. This needs to be made, and we need control.

    The Chair: Right.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: That's definite. We fully agree with that.

    The Chair: Good. All right.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: But--

    The Chair: But?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: But we don't want to blame everything, and say that nothing happened in the past ten years. It is not the case.

    There were studies done in the St. Lawrence by Yves de Lafontaine that show that the introduced species in the St. Lawrence have been reduced by more than 50% since the guidelines have been in place. So there has still been improvement. It's not as if nothing had been done in the last ten years.

    We fully agree: we need a regulation.

    The Chair: My point is that the American regulations, mandatory though they are, don't get implemented, if you will, until the ships actually get to Massena, New York, so that the St. Lawrence River is exposed to this problem without any mandatory regulations at the present time.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The control point is actually St. Lambert.

    The Chair: That was my next question, because some witnesses--including Mr. Lanteigne, who has mentioned that--say Massena, and you say St. Lambert, and I'm wondering, what's the difference?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The inspectors are in St. Lambert because it's the more convenient place to inspect ships. It's as simple as that. But the head office is in Massena.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Is St. Lambert in Quebec, or is it in New York?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Quebec.

    The Chair: So the American officials come over to St. Lambert and do their work there?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: Through the seaway, as the seaway is a binational authority.

    The Chair: Good. Thank you.

    On page 5 of your submission, Madame Langevin, just so I understand--the questions were already asked--it says “Unilateral approach could penalize a region”. I think Mr. Roy asked a couple of questions. I'm not quite clear on the answer. Aren't the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of the United States and the National Invasive Species Act both unilateral actions?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The NISA is a national action. It does not have any effect regionally for a specific region. There is no provision for a specific region in the NISA.

    With regard to the coordination between NISA and Canada, at this point there's no contradiction.

    The Chair: Unilateral then refers not to nations but to areas.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: To areas. But it depends on where you are. For example, on the east coast, if one of the states would start with a very stringent regulation, it could have an effect, although it is a state. And the same thing could happen in Europe.

    The Chair: On page 8, to hammer home the obvious, in your conclusions you say “A Canadian regulation for the Great Lakes is already drafted and urgently needed”.

    And Monsieur Lanteigne, you were talking about the Canada Gazette. There is absolutely no reason, is there, that the regulation couldn't be gazetted immediately?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: The only reason, I understand, for the delay is the fact that they are reviewing the whole Canada Shipping Act and this comes into a long process of reviewing many regulations. The ballast water is one of the most important ones, but I don't know where they actually put this particular one.

    The Chair: But what's the need to review a brand-new regulation?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: What is out is not a regulation, it is a draft regulation.

    The Chair: I know that.

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: It has to be reviewed by lawyers before it becomes a regulation that is a legal requirement.

    The Chair: Yes, but it needs to be gazetted. The usual timeframe is 30 days of consultation. A regulatory impact statement--

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: It is not ready to be gazetted yet. It still has to be reviewed by lawyers word by word before it goes into the Canada Gazette.

    The Chair: So that's five years that we've been waiting for this.

    Thank you.

    Finally, so I can be clear, even if we had Canadian regulations that mirrored the American regulations, that mirror the Canadian guidelines, that still doesn't do the entire job. We still need the international regulations under the IMO guidelines. Is that correct?

    Mr. Réjean Lanteigne: Correct.

    The Chair: Transport Canada says that's going to be not before 2006. That's what they say. I tend to agree with Monsieur Lanteigne that it will be ten years from now, based on their track record, so I think we'd be lucky if we got it around 2006. I don't blame Transport Canada for that, because I understand there's a lot of international documentation that has to be done. So that's fair. That's all I wanted to get clear.

    Monsieur Roy, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I do not have a question as such. However, I would like some more information, although it's not critical that I get it right away. You could always forward it to our research officers.

    You provided us with a general overview of the port of origin of vessels. Do you have statistics for the past ten years tracking the ports of origin of vessels? Have patterns changed any?

    There has also been talk of a significant increase in traffic in the St. Lawrence as a result of globalization. Could you provide us with some statistics on traffic in the St. Lawrence heading for the Great Lakes? Has traffic volume really increased?

    I'm also curious as to whether you have information about the types of goods being shipped on the Great Lakes. What types of commodities are we talking about? Is steel one such commodity? What commodities are being shipped on the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes?

    The question put earlier by Mr. Stoffer is very interesting. If highly toxic products are being shipped on vessels that are substandard, I think an ecological disaster in the St. Lawrence could have far greater ramifications than a disaster off the coast of Newfoundland or elsewhere, for example, one occurring in the middle of the ocean.

    I don't need an answer right this very minute. What I want is specific data on shipping traffic over the past 10 years in the St. Lawrence headed for the Great Lakes.

    Thank you.

  (1240)  

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: If I can briefly respond, without giving you the numbers, I do have that data. If you get in touch with me later, I can pass it along to you.

    Fisheries and Oceans, among others, has conducted specific studies on the ports of origin of vessels to learn about new species being introduced. Therefore, this kind of data is available.

    As for the increase in traffic volume, it's a fact that worldwide, shipping traffic has increased. However, the same cannot be said for traffic on the St. Lawrence or on the Seaway where shipping traffic has actually decreased.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Do you have any data on the goods being shipped?

    Ms. Anjuna Langevin: That type of information can be obtained from the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. However, we also have some statistics. Obviously, grain, iron ore and steel represent the main commodities shipped, the main vessel cargo.

    As for pollution caused by hydrocarbons, we do have a considerable amount of data since many studies were done on the risks of pollution. Response measures have been put in place to deal with potential spills. Vessels must comply with numerous international prevention measures as well as with oil company requirements.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Fine. In any event, you can pass that information along to our research officers so that it can be made available to all committee members. However, I think I'll try and meet with you or with industry officials sometime next week.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: On behalf of our committee members, I want to tell you we greatly appreciate the time you took to come and answer our questions. We're going to do the best we can to try to come up with some good solid recommendations that will perhaps nudge the appropriate departments to get moving on the things that you'd like to see to prevent invasive species. Thanks again.

    The meeting is adjourned.