;

SMAR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Marine Transportation of the Standing Committee on Transport

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

1550

The Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.))

Mr. Robert Lemire (Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority)

1555

1600

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

1605

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ)

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Roger Gaudet

M. Robert Lemire

Mr. Roger Gaudet

M. Robert Lemire

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

1610

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

1615

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

1620

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

1625

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

1630

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

1635

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

1640

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

1645

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

1650

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Robert Lemire

1655

Mr. Roger Gaudet

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

The Chair

Mr. Roger Gaudet

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comuzzi

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lemire

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lemire

The Chair

CANADA

Subcommittee on Marine Transportation of the Standing Committee on Transport

NUMBER 005

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1550)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. It's very quiet in here, so there's no need for order.

We welcome today, from the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, Mr. Lemire and Monsieur Ménard.

Before you start, gentlemen, I must say that we have your brief here--your PowerPoint presentation, I'm assuming; I haven't looked--and it is only in English.

Monsieur Gaudet, everything is in English. I would need your permission to distribute this. Do you have any problem with that?

Do other members have a problem with it?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: The French translated version will be in tomorrow. Okay, we'll distribute this.

I don't know which of you two will be speaking, or perhaps both. Whoever is going to proceed, please start.

Mr. Robert Lemire (Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Pilotage Authority): Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

I apologize for the non-translated copy. We had short notice of this presentation and meeting on Friday. Unfortunately, our translator was in Europe--I won't try to explain that one--and she just came back today.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaudet, we will send the French copy to the Clerk tomorrow morning.

¹ (1555)

[English]

An effective pilotage exemption process for Canadian vessels may be more important in the future than it is in the current environment.

GLPA is governed by a board of directors appointed by order in council. The board has historically been made up of two pilots, two industry users, and two public interest representatives. The current board is chaired by Mr. Brian Ducharme, a public interest representative who is a part-time appointee, and one representative from the Canadian Shipping Federation, one from the Canadian Ship Owners Association, two pilots, and a public interest representative who also works in the shipping industry. The board structure has worked well and has effectively represented the interests of all stakeholders, including the people and Government of Canada.

I'll give a brief explanation of the authority's operations, specifically the revenues and expenses. GLPA is subject to the federal financial control framework established for all crown corporations; that is, the Financial Administration Act, directives of the Auditor General of Canada, as well as Treasury Board directives. It has been financially self-sufficient since 1993 and no longer qualifies for parliamentary appropriations.

GLPA revenues are 95% from foreign vessels; the other 5% is from Canadian tankers that request the service of pilots even when they are not required to have a pilot. These costs are generally passed through to the shippers, a policy endorsed by the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents most of the major oil and chemical companies.

Ninety-three percent of the cost for the authority arises out of direct delivery of the service. That's pilotage wages, benefits, pilot boat expenses, pilot dispatching, and pilot travel costs. The other 7% includes management, administration, professional services, board expenses, and amortization. While revenues have fallen in the past five years, costs have also gone down. Losses have been covered from the accumulated surplus originally established for this purpose.

As for the tariff structure, the annual tariff-setting process involves extensive industry consultation. The tariff structure, once established, is gazetted in accordance with government requirements, giving all stakeholders an opportunity to file a notice of objection if they feel the proposed tariffs are unreasonable. There has been no such notice of objection filed in the last decade.

An important note here is that in the period 1994 to 2002--that's a nine-year period--tariffs were frozen for six years and were reduced in two years, by 5% in 1999 and by a further reduction of 5% in the year 2000. Inflation for the same period was in excess of 18%. The savings to the industry are calculated at close to $8 million.

A recent study has shown that the cost for pilots in the Great Lakes is the lowest in the world. These tariff freezes and reductions in the Great Lakes have been realized mainly because of the work of the board of directors, the pilots themselves, management, and customer cooperation. I challenge anyone to deliver pilotage service in an area that spans 2,000 miles and covers two countries, three provinces, and five states in a more efficient and cost-effective fashion while respecting the primary objective of safety to navigation.

This, Mr. Chair, brings me to my final point in this presentation. Over the years a number of individuals have indicated that the present model of pilotage in Canada should be changed and fashioned on a more commercial basis.

We have the perfect opportunity in the Great Lakes to see what this type of pilotage system would look like, as the U.S. operate, in conjunction with GLPA, pilotage services that are open to competition and based on a commercial model. The Americans operate three regional pools, set up as entrepreneurial pilotage companies regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard in Washington, and allow competition within the different groups to provide pilotage services.

The American model has experienced a much higher level of labour problems resulting in work stoppages, lawsuits, and delays to shipping. The U.S. tariff structure is on average 30% higher than the Canadian model; in the Detroit region the Americans have been charging 28% more than the Canadians over the last three years. This has recently been increased, and the differential is now 50%. In other words, Canadian pilots perform the same pilotage duties as the Americans--in the same sector, for the same vessels--but charge 50% less for the service.

Our apologies.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

My name is Robert Lemire. I'm the president and CEO of the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. With me today is Mr. Réjean Ménard, who is the secretary-treasurer of the authority.

I wish to thank you, Mr. Gallaway, for allowing us to speak to your committee today. Hopefully you'll have some questions, and we'll be able to share the knowledge we have on the Great Lakes basin regarding pilotage.

To begin with, I've been with the authority now for 18 years. I've had the opportunity to experience five major pilotage reviews in those 18 years. I'm now working on my sixth review. That's on the Transport Canada marine service fee; I'm getting a bit of experience in that domain.

We started with the Gauthier report in 1990, the Brander-Smith report of 1990, and the Standing Committee on Transport report of 1992. From 1995 to 1998 we had the review that yielded the 1998 Canada Marine Act, and finally the one-year study, which generated 21 recommendations, approved by the Minister of Transport in November 1999. That's a lot of history, but I wanted to bring it up to your committee.

The topic has been well studied by all stakeholders and has made pilotage in Canada the most modern and efficient pilotage system in the world.

When I was asked to appear here today, I asked myself what message I wanted to make to you in this short amount of time. I guess my first goal is to add some balance to the information you already have on pilotage and leave you with the view that pilotage in Canada, specifically in the Great Lakes, is serving its stakeholders well. Major changes to the system are not warranted at this time.

I've prepared a nine-page deck for you so you can follow my presentation. I've been told by the clerk that you have it. Again I apologize for the English-only copy.

Great Lakes Pilotage was established in 1972, following a ten-year royal commission, with the following mandate: to provide economic, safe, reliable, comprehensive marine pilotage in the Great Lakes basin; to provide the effective utilization of the authority's facilities, equipment, and expertise; to provide service in a commercially oriented framework, based on financial self-sufficiency at the least cost to the users; and finally, to be responsive to the government's environmental, social, and economic policies.

This royal commission was the sixth royal commission in 50 years. There are a lot of trees out there with pilotage information on them.

Speaking to the pilotage model, in the Great Lakes pilotage is mandatory for all foreign ship vessels. For the Canadian domestic vessels, the Pilotage Act provides for the Canadian officers to receive pilotage certificates in order to waive the requirement of having a GLPA pilot on the vessel.

This provision in the legislation has never been enforced by the authority or by Transport Canada. Instead, an exemption system was introduced as a temporary measure in 1972 to deal with the issue of grandfathering all Canadian officers. This exemption system is based on minimal experience criteria and has been viewed in a number of studies as inadequate. Currently the authority has been directed by the Minister of Transport to enhance the existing exemption system for domestic vessels sailing in the Great Lakes.

Turning to safety, safety is a critical part of the GLPA mandate. The safety record for both the GLPA pilots and the Canadian officers has improved significantly over the past several years. The record of the two groups is comparable, despite the fact that the pilots operate under more difficult and varied conditions.

I see Mr. Lanteigne is in the room today. I'm glad he won't be asking any questions about that comment.

The last risk analysis report prepared by the authority noted concerns over the changing environment of the Canadian fleet, including a growing shortage of qualified Canadian personnel, a tendency toward overreliance on technology at the expense of traditional pilotage skills, and an economic environment that is placing increased pressure on some Canadian companies to cut costs, perhaps at the expense of safety.

The U.S. Great Lakes Port Association has recently lobbied the U.S. government to reorganize U.S. pilots in the Great Lakes along the lines of our Canadian model.

In conclusion, the GLPA pilotage activities have enhanced the safety of marine transportation in the Great Lakes pilotage area in a cost-effective manner. The current pilotage legislation provides the necessary flexibility to exempt Canadian vessels from compulsory pilotage, but the criteria must be enhanced.

Enhancing the exemption criteria will ensure the maintenance and improvement of the safety record in the GLPA pilotage area. The governance structure has been responsive to the needs of the stakeholders, including the government's priority of safety and environmental protection.

Costs have been effectively managed, hence the tariff structure has been widely accepted and represents a minimal cost to both foreign and Canadian shipping interests. It has been calculated by Stats Canada that pilotage costs for vessel trading in the Great Lakes represents only 2% to 4% of the total cost to ship the merchandise in and out of the Great Lakes.

It is my view that the users are paying a minimal cost for a service they need and want, so as to assure that the Canadian Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin are protected against costly and environmentally devastating shipping incidents. Exxon Valdez and Prestige oil disasters conjure up numerous images that the Canadian public can do without.

Mr. Chair, panel members, this concludes our presentation, and we welcome any comments or questions you might have.

Merci pour votre attention et votre invitation.

º (1600)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

I'm certain amongst us here today there are questions, so we will start with Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your presentation.

I guess you're probably aware that we have heard a fair bit about pilotage over the last little while, specifically more from the industry. We've heard some concerns from the industry. I'm a little bit confused. My understanding was that we had to have pilots and it was law. I'm hearing now there are exemptions. Maybe I missed it, but I think that's the first I've heard about that. Could you expand on that aspect of things a bit first for me--what's exempt, how you qualify for an exemption for pilotage?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Mr. Chair, I'll try to explain that in a couple of lines.

When the Pilotage Act was enacted in 1972, the Great Lakes--and that would be Montreal westbound right up to the head of the lakes--was designated mandatory pilotage for every vessel, except.... It was recognized that the domestic shipowners and the domestic officers had qualifications. They had been trading in the lakes since the early 1800s and had the proper knowledge to sail those waters safely, so the exception came that these people would qualify for an exemption.

That word was created, I guess, by the minister of the day to temporarily recognize the people who were sailing previous to the Pilotage Act in 1972. They were granted exemptions, but the act itself was designed to get rid of exemptions and introduce this idea of pilotage certificates for the domestic shipowners.

What that would entail is that the shipowners would have to avail themselves of an examination of knowledge to make sure that whoever was sailing in our restricted waters had the local knowledge and capabilities to sail safely.

The exemption itself was introduced as a temporary measure to exempt all Canadian ships--all domestic ships. Somehow this temporary measure has lived for over 30 years now. Minister Collenette has now asked our board to re-examine this exemption for Canadian and domestic ships to try to enhance it, so a little bit of the history we have over the last 30 years could be addressed in the enhanced exemption.

Mr. Andy Burton: Okay. Well, if we could just continue on that line a little bit, what percentage of vessels that travel the seaway today--Canadian vessels to start with--are exempted? Are all the vessels with Canadian masters exempted automatically or just some of them?

Mr. Robert Lemire: To the best of my knowledge, if there are 1,200 ships that come up to St-Lambert from the Great Lakes every year, I would say 40% of those are foreign ships, requiring pilots, and the other 60% are Canadian domestic ships that do not require pilots. Out of that 60%, I would say 5% will ask for a pilot. These are the Canadian tankers.

Mr. Andy Burton: They, themselves, will ask for pilots.

Mr. Robert Lemire: They will ask us and call us ahead of time.

Mr. Andy Burton: And the other ships? When you said 5% and 60%--

Mr. Robert Lemire: The other 55% are.

Mr. Andy Burton: Basically 55% would not have pilots on them.

Mr. Robert Lemire: Correct. What they would send the authority at the beginning of the year is an affidavit indicating their ship will be trading in that region and that their people have the proper qualifications to sail.

Mr. Andy Burton: Is there a problem for the, presumably, Canadian masters of those Canadian vessels to obtain those types of qualifications to allow them to pilot their own vessels?

º (1605)

Mr. Robert Lemire: I guess that's a question that could be asked to the Canadian fleet. From my understanding, a candidate would go to marine college and then apprentice for five to six years as third mate, second mate, first mate. They would probably learn the river and within a period of 10 years they would probably have the knowledge, if they're quality people, to sail their own vessel in that.

Mr. Andy Burton: But if the vessel doesn't have somebody with those qualifications, then they must have a pilot?

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's correct.

Mr. Andy Burton: I'm a little bit confused, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm hearing that the bulk of the vessels don't have pilots. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's right.

Mr. Andy Burton: That's not what we heard in the past, is it?

The Chair: It's not inconsistent with what we've heard.

Mr. Andy Burton: No. I'm a little bit confused.

The Chair: What is being said is not inconsistent with what--

Mr. Andy Burton: It is not inconsistent. Okay, maybe I missed something somewhere along the way.

Just to clarify it then, the bulk of the Canadian-owned vessels with Canadian masters don't require piloting.

Mr. Robert Lemire: In the Great Lakes basin.

Mr. Andy Burton: Not in the St. Lawrence, but in the Great Lakes.

Okay, I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Gaudet, do you have questions?

Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): If I understood correctly what you told my colleague, the captains of those ships are not required to have taken a course. Is that what you said, or are they required to go to college to be able to sail the Great Lakes?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Whether or not it is required, many of the older captains have had no university or college training; they have not taken any courses, but they have the experience of hundreds of trips.

Apprentices all go to the Rimouski or the Owen Sound school. They take formal sailing courses and other courses that will combine with their experience.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: In your statement, you mentioned safety. Some people are experienced and others are not. How can you know who has that experience and who doesn't?

Mr. Robert Lemire: The present exemption system does not show if a captain is experienced or not. Today, the company is only requested to tell us if the captain is qualified. The word of that company is the only evidence that the Authority has to say that the person has the required navigation skills.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Why should we change the system? In the U.S., for instance, it is much more expensive than here. What would be the point of changing the pilotage model here? The exemption has been included in the Act. When was it included and why?

M. Robert Lemire: You are talking about two different things: changing the system and the exemption.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Tell me first if the exemption is provided for in the Act. Then we will come back to the other question.

M. Robert Lemire: Presently, the word “exemption” does not appear in the Pilotage Act. It is found in the Rules. A temporary deregulation rule was passed in 1972.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Why was that rule passed in 1972? Is it because your organization had a shortage of pilots?

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: If I could go into English, I'll probably use fewer words. Is that all right, Mr. Gaudet?

º (1610)

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Sure. We have interpretation.

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: The exemptions were brought in as a recognition that Canadian domestic ship captains had the knowledge to sail the Great Lakes and to facilitate the exercise of issuing them pilotage certificates. The exemptions were brought in, in the regulation. They were never put in the Pilotage Act per se. Over the years, the captains of the domestic ships never came to the authority for a pilotage certificate, so the exemption lived on. There is a lot of history. I've been around since 1986, and to tell you that I know exactly what happened from 1972 to 1986, I'd be lying, so I suppose someone's going to have to research that one.

You mentioned something about changing the way pilotage works on the Great Lakes. I wasn't suggesting that we do. What I am trying to show the committee is that if we ever want to go, in Canada, on a commercial basis, we don't have to go too far to see how one operates. We just need to go about 60 miles south of here and see how the Americans are working their system. If we're all happy, and if the Government of Canada is happy that that's the system we want for this country, then at least you have a good example, instead of suggesting something that doesn't exist anywhere. The exemptions and a new system aren't tied together.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: But the American system is more expensive than the Canadian system, according to your notes.

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's correct.

The Chair: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, gentlemen, welcome back to the committee.

It was 1986 for Robert and 1988 for me. We've seen each other on a few occasions before this committee, along with my colleague, Joe Comuzzi, back in the cold, old days.

Mr. Robert Lemire: In Hamilton, yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I go back to your presentation, the section titled the “Pilotage Model” in your presentation, and the last bullet point says:

The GLPA has been directed by the Minister to “enhance the requirements for exempting vessels from compulsory pilotage on the Great Lakes pilotage region.”

When did the minister ask you to do that?

Mr. Robert Lemire: It was following the Canada Marine Act review of 1999; the CTA came up with 21 recommendations in 1999. One of our recommendations was to give to the minister an action plan of how we'd put these recommendations into play. At that time we sat down with the domestic fleet and tried to work out some of these recommendations. I think we bogged down somewhere around December 2000, at which time the minister sent the chairman of the board of the time, in April 2001, a letter saying, all right, you are not working quickly enough on those CTA recommendations of 1999; here's the direction and here's the specific request to get it done immediately. In April 2001 that came into play.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Did we ever see a copy of that letter to the transport committee, or can it be made available to us?

Mr. Robert Lemire: I don't see a problem with that.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, through you, we'd sure like to have a look at that letter.

Maybe you can help me out here, Robert. How do you define enhanced requirements for exempting vessels? How would you define that?

Mr. Robert Lemire: The present system we're working with is an easy one to explain. The authority will get a one-page document at the beginning of the year and it will say--I was going to use CSL, but I'll use something else--Algoma Central has five ships, 21 captains. They're all good everywhere.

That's all we have. That's all the Canadian public, or the Government of Canada, has as proof or as documentation that the people who are navigating our waters are qualified to do their pilotage or to do the river. That's what we have currently.

Mr. Stan Keyes: To do the Great Lakes.

Mr. Robert Lemire: To do the Great Lakes. That's what we have presently. My idea of an enhancement would certainly be to be able to question the company on any candidate at any time, to make sure he's done parts of the river that are more difficult, for instance, and to make sure that this person is medically fit, as our pilots are.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You keep saying “the river”. Do you mean the Great Lakes?

Mr. Robert Lemire: You see, unfortunately, we're indoors--

Mr. Stan Keyes: I don't want to confuse anybody with the St. Lawrence.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I'm sorry, I should say the Great Lakes. In Cornwall we're dab on the river, but then we need to go up to Kingston to get into the lakes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, that's all right.

Mr. Robert Lemire: If you're asking me what I would envision as an enhancement, it's certainly to be able to assure myself that whoever is sailing in the Great Lakes and the locks can show me the proof, and show me at any time, if I'm concerned they're not qualified...that somebody from the government, and that's the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, can be assured that they have proper training on and proper knowledge of the piece of equipment they're sailing with.

º (1615)

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's a reasonable request. If you're going to ask a master of a ship to take the ship through the Great Lakes system and the master says, “I can do that through the company”, the company is going to say, “We have a master who can handle that”, and the GLPA says they want proof.

I would hazard to guess that the owner of a ship worth $50 million is probably going to ensure that the master on that ship does have the qualifications to take it through those waters. That would make sense, wouldn't it? You want a justification that the master can do the job, but I would imagine that first justification is made to the company that owns the $50 million ship and wants to ensure that the master who's going to take that ship through those waters is going to be able to handle those waters. There's no question of that, I would imagine.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I would imagine.

Mr. Stan Keyes: And the proof of that is.... In your own presentation you said that because safety is a critical part of the GLPA mandate, the safety record of both the pilots and the Canadian officers who are mastering these ships through these waters has improved significantly over the last several years.

Mr. Robert Lemire: It has.

Mr. Stan Keyes: So we have a system in place that has a master on a ship who has justified to the company that owns the ship worth $50 million that they can do the job. If the GLPA wants to enhance that even further and say, we want proof too that the master can do it, I suppose a double check wouldn't be harmful, but I certainly don't want to see...because I'm not entirely clear what more enhanced the requirements for exempting vessels means. If it's just to show on a piece of paper that the master can handle the job, that's not a problem, but if enhancing the requirements for exempting vessels means that the pilotage authority, through the Government of Canada, suddenly has the right to put that captain or master through this whole new barrage of testing and certification, and only the pilots' association can certify the master who's going to work the $50 million vessel, then we're getting into some problems. So I certainly would want to know what those qualifications would be before you get anything from me.

I've heard some of these arguments before, Robert; a couple of the lines you have put forward most certainly we've heard before. Piloting a ship on the Great Lakes and comparing it to the Exxon Valdez on the west coast of Canada is a bit of a stretch really. Quite frankly, the oil companies do in fact employ the pilots; they do come on there, because they want that additional level of safety. So that's going on. So you're not going to compare the Exxon Valdez with a grain carrier who's shipping wheat down through the Great Lakes system. The environmental damage, of course, wouldn't be as great, but the master on that vessel...and the company that owns the vessel and the cargo and is responsible for the lives of the crew on that ship is certainly going to ensure that the master could handle the work of taking that vessel through the Great Lakes.

So to say, for example, as you said, you hope it's not an attempt to cut costs at the expense of safety, no, you couldn't convince me for a second that the individuals who own the ships are attempting to cut costs and that those costs being cut by saving themselves a pilot on the Great Lakes is going to be somehow done at the expense of safety. I can't believe for a second that a company would do that.

It's interesting how the debate has changed a lot over the last 12, 13, 14 years on pilotage, and I think what the pilots have done, given the opportunity to recognize the skills of a master--and of course we haven't even talked about the technology aboard these ships--is a sign that the pilots are saying, “We'll be there. You need us there, we'll be there. But we don't need the government to instruct the owners of these ships who can do the job.”

º (1620)

Mr. Robert Lemire: Do I get to answer that question?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Please do.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I made a couple of notes on your comments. You said something like, “In your wildest imagination, would you think they would ever do that”, and “It's $50 million”. We're in your wildest imagination. We'll send you two TSB reports for the last five years where it has happened. In one case you have a tanker--

Mr. Stan Keyes: Canadian?

Mr. Robert Lemire: --a Canadian tanker, across the river in Detroit, in American waters, with two people who weren't scheduled to be on the ship. But the ship had to move in a hurry, so they flew them in there, and these people--you talk about technology--could not read the ECDIS charts that were on that vessel.

We're talking about wild imagination. Who's out there to make sure that doesn't happen again?

I think the scary part is, when we did our risk analysis, everyone agreed that one of these Exxon Valdez or Prestige incidents can happen in the next 40 years. I didn't do that well in stats at university, but I know through the laws of probabilities that 1 in 40 years could be tomorrow, and then it can happen the next day, right after that. I think I'd like to be retired when that happens.

Just two years ago--and, again, we'll send you the official TSB reports on that--we had a company taking delivery of a new tanker in Canada with jet fuel. The vessel was in and around the American Narrows and not too sure where he was going. It had a near miss with one of the salty ships. Nothing ever ended up in the newspaper because for one reason or another there was no collision there.

These are the types of things we're trying to avoid. You're certainly right. With the studies we've made on the Canadian domestic captains in the Great Lakes, following our work on this enhancement--and we've worked closely with the CSA on this--we came up with a number that for 80% to 85% of the people they already have, there would be no question about their qualifications and their knowledge. It's the other 15%.

There are some people who haven't trained in the Great Lakes. They've trained in the Maritimes. There are not too many locks in the Maritimes. Mind you, there are tides, and we don't have tides in the Great Lakes.

It's just that final check and balance this authority has been mandated to do that the board has taken as its responsibility. That's what we're working with in this enhancement. The probabilities are 1 in 40 years. That's in black and white now, and we have a hard time turning the page on that one.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have one request of the witness, Mr. Chairman.

You say you can give us two examples and send us the TSB reports on those examples of incidents on the Great Lakes. Can you tell me how many examples there are of incidents on the Great Lakes involving pilots?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Last year, I believe we had something like 30 incidents.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Involving pilots?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Involving pilots.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can you send us the TSBs on those as well?

Mr. Robert Lemire: We don't tell TSB to make an official report on any grounding. That's their mandate. Out of 30 incidents, I believe 26 or 27 were mechanical failures. I don't think TSB gets out there and does a study on it, but we can certainly ask them if they've made a formal study on those incidents. There was a collision in the South Shore Canal. I know they're working on one now.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Do you know the number--and let's just pick the last couple of years--of incidents involving masters who are on those Canadian ships plying the Great Lakes and those involving pilots who are on those Canadian ships plying the Great Lakes?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Yes, we have those numbers.

Mr. Stan Keyes: As a ballpark figure, what are they like?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Proportionately, I think the rates are about the same. At times--

Mr. Stan Keyes: So even with pilots on the ships there were still incidents?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Yes, incidents--understanding that there's nothing you're going to do whenever you lose a steering gear. You can probably have God on the bridge and still have a steering gear problem. We classify those incidents per type, if you want to call them that, human error and stuff like that, and we have those numbers.

º (1625)

Mr. Stan Keyes: I think it would be important to know the difference between a steering gear problem and an incident where a pilot made the wrong call. That would be a good comparison for us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Robert Lemire: Yes, those numbers are out there.

The Chair: Mr. Comuzzi.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen. I think this is not the first time we've met.

Would you explain to me--and if you said this before I came in, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, and stop me--the difference between the Great Lakes pilots and the Laurentian pilots, other than that some guys do the Great Lakes and the other guys do the river?

Mr. Robert Lemire: One of the major differences--and maybe I'm answering some of Mr. Keyes' comments from a while ago--is that 100% of our pilots are employee pilots. They're governed under collective agreements that are renegotiated every three or four years.

Another big difference is we deal with the Americans in 70% of our waters. In the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, all of their pilots, except the eight pilots in the port of Montreal, are contractors. They're corporate entities who negotiate service agreements with the authority. So they don't have the status of employees; they're entrepreneurs.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: They don't deal with the U.S.?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Not at all.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: So the Laurentian pilots are independent contractors.

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: What's the difference in pay?

Mr. Robert Lemire: I know that number, because after the last Canada Marine Act review of 2001 we were asked the same questions. In 2001, a T4 for our pilots would have been something like $120,000.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: For your pilots.

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's in 2001. In 2002 it was probably $115,000. The salary went down.

Remember that my pilot has a pension tagged to that. So the total cost for my pilot is about $150,000 a year in the Great Lakes region. For Laurentian, that is a question I can't answer. I suspect it's somewhere around there.

I'll tell you what it is for the American pilots, if you want.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Yes, sure.

Mr. Robert Lemire: It's $175,000 U.S.

Mr. Stan Keyes: For how many hours of work?

Mr. Robert Lemire: For 1,200 hours of work a year.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: And how many hours do the Laurentian pilots work, do you think?

Mr. Robert Lemire: They're all about the same. That's the industry standard. It's the same with our Great Lakes guys. We'll work the 1,200 hours in about nine or ten months.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: And how many pilots do you have?

Mr. Robert Lemire: We have about 65 or 66 pilots.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: And your board of directors is made up of and elected by the pilots themselves?

Mr. Robert Lemire: No. The board is appointed by order in council. I could be corrected on this, but I understand the minister...I don't know the mechanism of how they get appointed, but I think each group--the pilots are one group--will send to the minister a list of who they want appointed, and he'll appoint two out of there. As well, the CSA and the shipping federation each have one of their own representatives appointed.

So we'll have two pilots, two industry reps, and two public interest reps. I'm not certain how the minister appoints the two private reps.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Is that the same way for the Laurentian group?

Mr. Robert Lemire: I understand it's for the four authorities in Canada.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: How many pilots would be in the Laurentian group?

Mr. Robert Lemire: I'll guess at 200.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: You do the same work.

Mr. Robert Lemire: The largest ships we have, in gross registered tonnage, are about 25,000 to 26,000 tonnes, and they have vessels now that are over 150,000 tonnes. Our vessels are limited by the size of the locks in the Great Lakes; theirs are not.

º (1630)

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: So your pilotage looks after everything from the entry to the locks to the end of Lake Superior and back?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Correct.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: And they look after everything up to the locks?

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's correct.

Yes, I guess we do the same work.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: But the vessels that come from Montreal, which you will then take over...let me just go through this process.

I have a ship coming from Africa and it turns left at the St. Lawrence River. It's a ship that can go through the St. Lawrence Seaway system, so it would be about 26,000 tonnes. It would need a Laurentian pilot up to the Seaway, and then it would need a Great Lakes pilot for the balance of the trip.

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Now, if I have a ship leaving the Great Lakes and going through your system, the seaway system, and then he wants to go down to Baie-Comeau--this is an experienced, Canadian-flagged ship--you don't require him to have any pilot on this ship?

Mr. Robert Lemire: As long as we have an exemption document for the vessel, yes, that's correct.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: So that's the 55% you're talking about.

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's right.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: But the minute he gets beyond the locks into the St. Lawrence, that same pilot is required to have a Laurentian authority pilot on the ship. Am I correct?

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's right.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: There's no option there?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Not unless the captain of that vessel went to the authority and requested a pilotage certificate, which he would be examined on.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Yes, but that's hard to get.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I don't know.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: It's almost impossible to get. You protect your own.

So the problem we're having, Mr. Chairman, is that on Canadian vessels, that captain is okay to go through the most difficult part of the passage, and then when he gets into the St. Lawrence River, with lots of space, he's required to have a pilot.

Tell me what you guys are doing. Explain that to me.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I guess the Laurentian Pilotage Authority would be the people to ask.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Yes, we're going to ask them, but you explain it to me. You're all pilots. Your pilots can work, eventually, if they get their ticket, for Laurentian if Laurentian will hire them. Is that correct? The qualifications are the same.

Mr. Robert Lemire: There needs to be a lot of sea time in that area, so--

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: But they're not going into the sea; they're going into the St. Lawrence River.

Mr. Robert Lemire: No, sea time is our work time.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: What do you mean “sea time”?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Our pilots would not qualify to become pilots in the Laurentian area.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Why?

Mr. Robert Lemire: They have not sailed in that area, so they do not have the local knowledge of the Laurentian area. They can avail themselves of that knowledge by going to work with.... I don't know. I can't explain why the structure is the way it is. I know our exemption system has worked in the Great Lakes. We need a bit of tweaking, as I think some people are saying. The CSA has worked with us on that, and I think we'll eventually get there.

As far as mandatory pilots for domestic ships in the St. Lawrence River are concerned, I can't comment. I've been here a long time, but I guess I haven't been here long enough.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: But I'm asking, Mr. Lemire, for some good, old-fashioned common sense that you learned at your mother's knee.

Does it make sense to you that a captain can take a 750-foot tanker--I think that's a 26-foot draft--go across Lake Superior, traverse around the St. Mary's River, through that horrendous area in there, put it into the Poe Canal lock, lock it up, put it into the St. Mary's River, and down through Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, up and down Niagara--we were in Niagara Falls last week. I mean, that's pretty tough stuff if you're a captain. All of a sudden the same captain gets out of that lock system and he's into the St. Lawrence River. It's huge; it's almost a lake. I know there are certain currents. But somebody says, “You need a pilot. You're not smart enough to get this ship to Baie-Comeau.”

I'm not exaggerating. I'm talking about what you learned on your mother's knee.

º (1635)

Mr. Robert Lemire: Yes, at my mother's knee. My mom would say, go show them how smart you are, son, and take the ship to Baie-Comeau. And I guess that's where the arguments are.

I'm not privy to the history of why there haven't been more certificates issued. The law is the law, and unless the law is changed, then Laurentian has to abide by it. But certainly that captain would probably be able to do it. If they can sail in the Great Lakes, they can certainly sail anywhere. But I guess the law doesn't allow them to do that.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Is it the law, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't allow it? What law?

The Chair: It's the regulations under the Pilotage Act.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: It's not a law then; it's a regulation.

Well, we should change that, shouldn't we?

Mr. Robert Lemire: If you want to change it for the Laurentian, that certainly would be out of my control.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: What we have said here doesn't make much sense. You should always change a law that doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Andy Burton: We have a lot of work to do then.

The Chair: Let's go to the U.S.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Before we move on, could I ask one supplemental?

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can I just rephrase the question?

If pilots who do the job with masters recognize that the masters are qualified to do the job on the very treacherous, difficult waters of the Great Lakes system, would you suppose that this kind of an exemption opportunity would be workable on the St. Lawrence system, if the masters were to be credited as they are on the Great Lakes system, in your professional opinion?

Mr. Robert Lemire: It worked on the Great Lakes. We talk about knowledge. If they have the knowledge, there's no reason why they should not be able to sail their own ships. Yes, it would work.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thanks, Robert.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: On that very question, I don't know of anybody who's captaining ships that go up and down and that don't have to go--I don't think there's a stop sign that says, you're this far, now you're not capable of going any further.

What I'm saying is the whole business of the St. Lawrence Seaway system is this. You pick up ore in Quebec, Labrador, and those places, bring the ore up to Hamilton and other places, maybe on Lake Michigan, and then you empty that and wash out your vessel. Then you go up and pick up grain, maybe in Superior or Duluth or Thunder Bay, and then you come back down. I don't think there's an elevator that would take that kind of.... You have to be down to Montreal, Quebec City, Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles. That's where you dump your grain so that you can put it on an ocean vessel.

What we're doing is we're saying to that captain, you're okay up to this point, but boy, from here on in the tongues of fire didn't sit on your head.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I guess the entire issue is wrapped around this thought. At the end of the day, if the Government of Canada and the people of Canada are comfortable that the industry self-certifies, if we're all comfortable with that, well then, that's fine, it can be done. But I think history will prove that when industry self-certifies or self-polices, some things fall through the cracks. I guess that's probably why the Pilotage Act was put in place in 1972.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Mr. Lemire, I have no problems with what you folks are doing. I want you to understand that. I have problems with what happens after they leave your jurisdiction. I don't think that's fair.

We have an industry, Mr. Chairman--the airline industry--where if we don't fix it soon, I have to tell you, Mr. Lemire and Mr. Ménard, your pilots are going to be out of work and the other pilots are going to be.... It's best for us to fix the system while we still have a chance, rather than wait until we get everybody in.

Those all my questions, Mr. Chairman.

It's best that we fix the system.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I agree with you.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: You agree.

º (1640)

The Chair: Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: I think I'll pass right now, Mr. Chairman. They've actually covered a lot of the issues.

The Chair: Monsieur Gaudet.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: I would like to go back to those incidents which you mentioned in your answer to Mr. Keyes. You say that there were about 30 incidents last year. What kind of incidents? Could we have the report on those incidents? Did they involve your pilots? We would need to know what kinds of incidents they were.

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: Mr. Chair, this is an unrehearsed question. If you want, we have our annual report here that has the incidents for the last four years. We can pass them out to you and we'll be on the same page. They're in French and English. Did you want to...?

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Mr. Keyes' question struck me and I would like to come back on that. Today, $50 million is not a lot for an ecological disaster; it is a drop in the ocean. Even if the ship is worth $50 million, most of the time, on the following day, it is worth nothing and the company has taken another name. After that, you get into endless litigations.

I would like to have your opinion on that amount of $50 million for a ship. You explained the situation earlier, but not enough. Fifty million dollars is a lot of money, but for an ecological disaster it may not be enough. I would like to know what you think about that.

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: I agree with you. With the Exxon Valdez, they're up in the $4 million to $5 million range, and I think they're....

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: There was not just the Exxon Valdez. There are other smaller boats which ran into all kinds of things.

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: To answer your question, Monsieur Gaudet, on page 16 in English--and if you flip it around it's on page 14 in French--we've included in our annual reports the types of marine occurrences that we've experienced in the last four years.

I lied. I said 30, but it was 18 last year, Mr. Keyes.

You can see most of them are contact with lock walls. We're dealing with 15 locks, so we're always in there, and that's where we seem to hit a lot.

Ship arrestor--that would mean that the ship did not stop in time and would break the arrestor.

A grounding--well, that's self-explanatory. We found out up in the upper lakes, with the low waters last year and this year, that there were a number of groundings where the ship would touch the bank.

And finally the collision--that's not a mystery. There was a major collision with a salty involving one of the Canadian ships in the South Shore Canal in September of this year, I understand. That's still under investigation by the Transportation Safety Board. That one I really can't comment on.

But you can see the trend is pretty clear. We're averaging almost 100% accident-free assignments. Really nothing comes out when we look at those numbers as far as what types of incidents we have. That, Monsieur Gaudet, gives you the types of incidents we do have.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Who was piloting the vessel at the time, the master or the pilot?

Mr. Robert Lemire: In the Great Lakes the pilot has the con of the vessel at all times. It would be the pilot who is conning it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: The pilot was on the con when these occurrences occurred.

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's correct. That's on 18 casualities on 10,000 assignments.

The Chair: Monsieur Gaudet.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: The collision in 2002 could have been serious.

º (1645)

Mr. Robert Lemire: Yes, very serious.

Mr. Roger Gaudet: If I am not mistaken, it was a collision involving a Canadian ship and a foreign ship. It could have been very serious. That is why I say that pilotage is important. I would like your opinion on that.

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: There's no secret in all of this. Your pilots will have incidents. They've had them. They will continue to have incidents. The odds are that a ship will not have one, or will be a lot better, if your pilot is on--that's an extra person up there with expert knowledge, local knowledge.

One of the issues I wanted to mention a while ago was the oil carriers. Not all oil carriers and tankers in the Great Lakes take pilots. Most of them do; some of them don't. In our enhancement, that is certainly one thing we will look at.

The Chair: Go ahead, Stan. I think you had a question.

Mr. Stan Keyes: These figures on page 16 that you just gave us show 18 incidents. I'm very encouraged that we've dropped from 26 to 18. That shows the present system is working.

I guess what I'd like to see is the comparison between this and how many of these occurrences--collision, fire, groundings, strike, ship arrest, ice damage--happened when there wasn't a pilot on board.

Mr. Robert Lemire: We have those numbers, and I'll send them to the clerk tomorrow, as soon as I get to the office.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can you ballpark it for me? Is it as many? Is it fewer? Is it more?

Mr. Robert Lemire: It's probably similar. It certainly wouldn't be more, and it wouldn't be less. I would venture to guess similar, right now.

Mr. Stan Keyes: So it would be 18 also, without pilots?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I would really appreciate those.

Mr. Robert Lemire: I don't imagine it's much more or much less. I'll give that to you first thing in the morning.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Mr. Chairman, I forgot to ask this one.

As you leave your jurisdiction and go into the other jurisdiction, I'm advised that if the water temperature is down below a certain point you need two pilots.

Mr. Robert Lemire: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: What's the temperature? Is it 34 degrees?

Mr. Robert Lemire: I believe it's one degree Celsius, but these are Laurentian Pilotage Authority rules.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Okay. Now we need two pilots, at double the cost.

This is a hypothetical question. Can I ask a hypothetical one? If we're going to change the law, why wouldn't you folks take over the pilotage of all the ships that have to go to the end of the inland waterway on Canadian ships--the way you're handling it now? If you take over that jurisdiction, you have the expertise, you have the pilots, you have everything. Why wouldn't you take over all the ships that are operating in the St. Lawrence Seaway, at Baie Comeau, Sept Îles, Montreal, Quebec City? Can you handle that?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Yes, operationally we can do it. We can do it tomorrow. We have the same dispatching system they have. We speak the same language, most of the time.

I guess the question is, if we were to do that you would eliminate 5% of their operating expenses of $40 million or $30 million, but are we going to go through all of this to save operational costs of about $2 million? There's going to be a buy-back period for that, because there would be leases to be bought out and whatnot. I'm just wondering, financially is it worthwhile? I don't think it is. It's a question we looked at with the Canada Marine Act review last year.

Operationally, sure, it could be done, as well as in the Atlantic area, all in one swoop. But there are certain things in the Laurentian area for which we really have no idea what's going on right now, because we don't operate there. The same is true for their not knowing how we operate in the Great Lakes, specifically in dealing with the Americans. There would be a learning curve. As for the Maritimes, we'd be looking at four provinces down there.

Yes, it could be done, but for what saving? And what would be the cost to the industry in lost service, in lost expertise? There is a cost to that. I haven't figured that one out, but I know these were set up individually because we have the locks, we deal with Americans, we have employees--it's a good fit. For the Laurentian area, there is a different set of circumstances.

Certainly you could marry everyone up and have a go at it, if you want to use those terms. You'd then have a system that is almost 3,000 miles long, and it becomes very complicated, but it could be done.

º (1650)

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: I'm only looking at eliminating administrative costs and extra costs. We're in an industry that's hurting badly. Why wouldn't we make it that any boat that came into the St. Lawrence River that could go through the seaway would be your responsibility?

Mr. Robert Lemire: I'll go for that. I'm not sure my board would support me on it, but sure, it could be done.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: But does it simplify it? Any ship that comes in that is larger than the 26-foot draft--maybe it would go on tonnage; it would be 26-plus feet of draft--is only going to go as far as Quebec or Montreal. They're not going to come in; they can't come in. For anything that comes in that's capable of going up the seaway, you'd have jurisdiction, so you would have the majority of the work. I don't know how many of those other ships come in, but they would be subject to the mandatory rules that Laurentian has. Would you be happy with that?

Mr. Robert Lemire: Sure.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: And it could be workable. It almost cuts down one pilotage authority, doesn't it?

Mr. Robert Lemire: But again, what you're cutting down is the $2 million to $3 million of expenditures you're eliminating. That's all you're going to touch, because your direct cost of providing the service is in the 90% to 95% range; you're just eliminating that 5% of your operating cost.

Yes, it's a saving, but would the shipowners be willing to go that route? I guess you could ask them the question. You wouldn't have the same service level to begin with; there'd be some growing pains. But it could be done.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: I think there are more savings than that. It's the same as combining the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system with the United States and putting it under one jurisdiction. There are substantial savings in that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Gaudet.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Mr. Lemire, you keep telling us that things are different for the St. Lawrence River. Why are things different in the St. Lawrence River and in the Great Lakes? Is it because of the width of the channel at Île d'Orléans and in Quebec City? Is that the explanation?

[English]

Mr. Robert Lemire: Navigationally speaking, in the Great Lakes you're restricted to 26 feet of depth and ships that are 730 feet long and 80 feet wide. There is a restriction there. There are, as I said, 15 locks. There are two or three canal systems in the Great Lakes. In the Laurentian area, I understand, there is tidal effect right up to Three Rivers. We don't have that in the Great Lakes. We have no tidal effect.

I am not a mariner--I'm a CA--so when it comes to those technicalities I'm not that sure. But I know there is a difference when you're handling ships. The types of vessels are larger in the Laurentian area as well, as I indicated. Possibly the traffic patterns are different in the Laurentian area where you're meeting bigger ships in restricted areas. As a starting point, that's one of the major differences.

The other difference as well is that piloting in the Laurentian area is done by entrepreneurs. They have their own contracts; they have their own set of rules that stand outside the Pilotage Act. In the Great Lakes you have the Pilotage Act and employee pilots who work under the act. I'm not sure of the interplay there, but there is a difference.

In the Great Lakes we work in English and French. We work in Canadian and American.... In the Laurentian area, I understand, it's solely in French. But again, I'm speaking for the Laurentian area right now and I'm qualifying it. There is a big difference.

For pilot boating in the Laurentian area, you're boarding ships. At les Escoumins, I understand, the seas can be up to three or four metres, whereas on the Great Lakes you're boarding a ship on a pilot boat near Niagara Falls where it's a flat lake. There are those technicalities. We do not deal with the difficult boardings of pilot boats. As a starter, that's one of the big differences.

As well, they operate twelve months a year, and we operate nine and a half or ten months a year.

º (1655)

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Chairman, could we ask the pilots of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, who work on the St. Lawrence Seaway, to appear before our Committee? Would that be possible? We would have some questions for them.

[English]

The Chair: We will hear from them....

The clerk advises me that we have asked them and they have declined.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Who has declined?

The Chair: The Laurentian Pilotage Authority has declined to appear before the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Gaudet: For what reason? Did they tell you why they declined?

The Chair: They were not available, but we will be looking at another venue with that group.

[English]

Mr. Burton. I'm sorry.

Mr. Andy Burton: I have just a quick question on your last comment on the seasonality of the canal. What effect would there be on pilotage concerns if the season could be lengthened in some way, whether through a bubbling system or whatever? Would that raise concerns with pilotage or safety issues?

Mr. Robert Lemire: No, we've entered discussions with the seaway on that topic and we've indicated to the seaway that we don't see a problem with sailing 12 months in the Great Lakes under ice conditions. We know it's done elsewhere in the world. There's technology to navigate in the ice, our pilots are experienced in ice, and we certainly would welcome it if it ever happens.

I guess we're saying we'll welcome that day.

Mr. Andy Burton: So actual ice-breaking in the lakes themselves wouldn't be a big concern to the pilots, or navigating...?

Mr. Robert Lemire: The seaway will have problems with their locks in keeping the waterways open, and with having Hydro maintain their flows. But as far as navigating in the ice is concerned, most of the ships that come up here, or a number of them, are ice-classed. The larger ones with the 80-foot beam are an issue, but not a big enough issue not to be able to solve it.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Keyes or Mr. Comuzzi, do you have any other questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Gaudet, do you have any other questions?

[English]

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: It seems, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the statement, they're making $160,000, plus all the benefits.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's if you divide your 65 pilots into the salaries of $10,358,000.

Mr. Robert Lemire: In there you have buyouts, and the numbers that are given are year-end numbers for pilots. I know specifically last year we eliminated three or four positions--maybe five positions--so the numbers probably don't work out on the division, but I can assure you their T4s are what they are, and--

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, we believe you. I've seen a couple of them.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Lemire, Mr. Ménard, we thank you for being here today. I apologize for the late start, and we thank you for assisting us here today.

Mr. Robert Lemire: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway and members. If there are any further questions about pilotage in the Great Lakes, I welcome receiving them at the office, maybe through the chair, and we'll answer whatever we can.

The Chair: Thank you. We stand adjourned.