[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, October 21, 1996
.1532 
[English]
The Chairman: Let's get under way.
This is the most recent in a series of meetings on Bill C-44, the marine legislation. I'm going to move fairly briskly today because the committee has to be on a plane for Quebec City a little later this afternoon.
We have two groups of witnesses before us. The first ones are from the Canadian Shipowners Association. With us are Mr. Norman Hall and Captain Rejean Lanteigne.
You've been here before, so you guys know the routine. If you could keep your remarks to around ten minutes, we'll then get into some questions.
Mr. T. Norman Hall (President, Canadian Shipowners Association): Thank you,Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members of the committee. I congratulate you on your appointment as chair, Mr. Chairman, and wish you every success.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Hall: I will not read from the papers that I have presented to you, because we have made some speaking notes. I am mindful of the time, and I will do my best to stay within that timeframe.
The background on the CSA is there on page one of the paper, for those of you who are new to this committee. Maybe the ones who are not new to the committee knew what I was going to say and that's why they're not here. The message doesn't change that much from year to year. In any event,I will not get into the background of the CSA, except to say that we've been here a long time. There are twelve companies and over a hundred ships involved in the CSA fleet.
We're here today to express some of the concerns we have about certain aspects of Bill C-44, the Canada Marine Act. In particular, we want to make comments on part I, which deals with ports, and on part VII, which deals with pilotage. The legislation, as far as we are concerned, is a little too restrictive on ports, and from what I've seen, it doesn't do a darned thing for any changes to pilotage. And we'll also very briefly touch on part III, which deals with the seaway.
So on part I, we think the provisions on ports are generally inconsistent with the objectives laid out in clause 3 of the bill, which are the national marine policy objectives. Secondly, it does not live up to past recommendations of this committee as laid out in the report made in May 1995. And we feel the provisions of part I have the potential to create a lot of controversy in the port community, and certainly among the users in the country.
.1535
The first area of coverage is governance. This committee had recommended that the federal government retain oversight over the appointment of boards of directors to the new authorities. It also recommended the majority of directors be appointed in consultation with the users. The act does not spell out how this process is to occur. We therefore have a problem here in trying to figure out just what happens if you want to make a recommendation for someone to be a member of that board. Is it automatic that the minister will accept it if you give a list of names, or does it go through some other process?
Secondly, we are a bit concerned with the definition of ``user'' as contained on page 4 of the bill. It seems to be pretty broad. I don't know who the heck is left who could be qualified as a director of this organization. If anybody who has a commercial use of the port is eliminated, that could be lawyers, suppliers, truckers, or it could be almost anybody dealing with the operation of ships. So that certainly has to be clarified.
On commercial activities, we think the government is now setting up a wall between the financial responsibility of running ports and the control of those ports. The ports will not be given the tools to meet their responsibilities. Under subclause 27(3), the port authorities are not entitled to use the property under the authority as collateral for obtaining capital from private lending institutions. It also contradicts the national marine policy objective to provide marine infrastructure and services in a commercial manner. Subclause 24(7) also prohibits ports from incorporating wholly owned subsidiaries.
We feel the ports should be given the means to live up to their financial responsibilities. They should not be overly hampered by federal regulations. At the moment, in reading the bill it looks as though there are going to be federal regulators, and the federal cabinet still retains regulatory control.
Lastly on the point of governance, we fear that clauses 41 and 43, which pertain to fees, may betray confidential commercial arrangements between the port and the users of the port. We are very concerned about that. There are confidential contracts made on the railways, as far as I know. There are confidential contracts often made between customers and shipowners. I would imagine there is also the possibility of doing the same with ports. From past experience with our own members,I know that with the consolidation of the fleet, we've had to eliminate a number of the papers that we used to put out on financial background because of the possibility of breaching that confidentiality.
So that's about it on ports. We think there are too many restrictions placed on the commercial and regulatory activities of the ports, and this has the potential to directly interfere with the business of carriers. Most striking is the dissonance between the objectives contained in the opening statement of the bill - i.e., clause 3 - and the deficient set of tools given to port authorities to achieve those objectives.
On part III, the part dealing with the St. Lawrence Seaway, we don't have many comments. We think the objectives are consistent with the SCOT report and the then-minister's speeches of June and December. It is far more permissive and less intrusive than what the government is proposing for the ports. So we generally support the approach being taken with respect to the commercialization of the seaway.
As for part VII, pilotage, I'll give a quick overview. The scope of the changes contained in the bill are a major disappointment. There is no substance here whatsoever, there's just a bunch of tinkering. There is more concern with whether or not the chairman is full-time or part-time than there is with getting to the business at hand. This is a $10-million-a-year cost to the Canadian domestic industry, and all I see is a repeat of what has been going on for the last couple of years. In other words, it's status quo.
You will not be able to modernize the pilotage system by what is being recommended in the bill. If the government continues to abdicate its responsibility on national standards, there are still existing abuses in the certification process for Canadian masters and officers. We will therefore touch briefly on the alternate dispute resolution mechanism, or ADRs.
Very quickly, the last report from this committee provided some major changes on what was going to happen to the Pilotage Act. It was suggested that the act be repealed, that authorities be dissolved and replaced by a secretariat, and that everything then be commercialized. It called for immediate review of compulsory areas and for certain provisions for a final offer selection mechanism to settle disputes.
In no way am I is suggesting that we go all that way. I think it was probably written with the idea of getting some attention, and it certainly worked. But the proposed amendments that we see now for reforms don't amount to very much at all.
.1540
The bill stipulates that the minister shall consult with users and the authorities on issues such as certification and compulsory areas. And all this is to be concluded by 1998. We don't understand this whatsoever. There have been countless regional task forces, a national task force, deliberations of this committee on more than one occasion, all of which have led nowhere. To our minds, this is just another stalling tactic.
Compulsory pilotage for domestic ships: Our masters and officers have years of experience going up and down the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. We do our own navigation on the Great Lakes, and our record is second to none. The pilots on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River learn their trade and earn their qualifications while serving on our ships. The Canadian flag fleet is facing serious challenges as railways, which are now deregulated, are aggressively competing for Great Lakes and seaway bulk traffic. You can see what's going on with the abandonment of lines in the east and concentration on major bulk lines in the west.
On the other hand, both through Transport Canada as well as Fisheries and Oceans, the government is looking to transfer the costs of various services to the marine sector. I'm referring to navigational aids, ice-breaking, dredging, oil spill response, to name a few, and all of these are not small numbers. As I mentioned before, pilotage is costing us $10 million a year for a service we don't think we need or want, and we're now looking somewhere down the line at paying upwards of$60 million for navigational aids and ice-breaking and heaven only knows what for dredging and oil spill response. We're ready to pay our fair share of services, but we're not ready to pay imposed costs.
National standards: We hoped that the marine act would have set national standards on compulsory pilotage in all regions across the country. As it stands, the proposed act delegates this responsibility to the authorities. To change the situation, paragraph 20(1)(g) of the bill should be amended to take away from these authorities the power to make regulations on compulsory pilotage areas, ships or classes of ships subject to compulsory pilotage and pilotage certificates. For example, we have a situation out on the west coast where the inside tankers there or barges can load up to 10,000 tonnes of petroleum products without having to take a pilot, but in the St. Lawrence River if you have 500 tonnes you have to have a pilot. So there needs to be some sort of national approach.
This power really should be given to the minister or to the Governor in Council. It is a federal responsibility to set national standards.
Certification: We're not looking for any short-cuts around safety or protection of the environment. We've stated that time and time again. It would not do us one bit of good to be involved in any situation where we might breach safety and environmental protection. Nor are we seeking a blanket exemption from pilotage, as Minister Anderson suggested when he appeared before you recently. We're not looking for that whatsoever. Our goal is the modernization of a certification process for our masters and our officers.
The examination should be devised and conducted by independent examiners, and marine simulators should form a key component of the training and validation process. We would like to see an amendment that modernizes the pilot certification process for masters and officers of Canadian ships who meet the basic requirements of experience, local water knowledge and competency on the bridge. To do so, we believe that we have to change subsection 22(1) of the Pilotage Act, which refers to equivalency. The way the act reads now, equivalency means that if you go for a certificate, you have to meet the same requirements as a person going to be a licensed pilot.
That does not apply to Canadian ships that are basically trading the same routes day in and day out and the same type of ship. There are something like 70-odd ships that are 730 feet long by 75 feet wide. So we're not running around trying to get on passenger ships and 150,000-tonne tankers or anything else. It's just to look after our own fleet. So we really have to get that word ``equivalency'' out of subsection 22(1) of the act. That's what is preventing the Laurentian Pilotage Authority from really going ahead and accommodating what we are looking for in the way of getting certificates for our masters.
Now, where do we put our money where our mouth is? We are investing in navigation technology. In fact, two-thirds of our fleet now has the very latest state-of-the-art electronic charting, DGPS, global positioning systems, and by next year the whole fleet will be so equipped.
.1545
We are also working with the Rimouski school, the Quebec Marine Institute, to develop a marine simulator program for the proper training of our people and to get away from the current training and certification process to become a certified master. Simulators have long been used to train aircraft pilots whose planes travel at much faster speeds than our ships. Incidentally, those pilots are not allowed on the flight deck of an aircraft until they successfully complete such a program. We're ready to invest in this training program with the Quebec Maritime Institute, using state-of-the-art simulating equipment, and we've worked and had discussions with other people outside Canada who are very familiar with and have a lot of experience with simulator training.
We've signed a letter of intent with the Rimouski school to set up a training and certification program on simulation. All we need is comfort from the government that this approach is acceptable and reflected in this bill. What is needed is an amendment, as I said earlier, to subsection 22(1) of the Pilotage Act.
ADRs, the alternative dispute resolution mechanism, should be included in the bill as well, and a final offer selection mechanism inserted in the legislation that could be used by the minister in cases where the contractual bargaining process between the authority and any pilotage authority fails. For example, while we are looking for certification for our captains, foreign ships that obviously do not possess local water knowledge must use pilots in Canadian waters.
In summary, Bill C-44 is a good start, but if it is to achieve the goal set forth in clause 3 dealing with national marine policy it needs a lot more work.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hall. Mr. Cummins.
Mr. Cummins (Delta): I have a question. I'm quite taken with your argument on the point you made about the differences that exist between transporting fuels on the west coast with a tug and barge and on the east coast. I think that certainly is a point well taken.
You do mention in your brief the fact that your vessels are equipped with the latest technology and so on for navigation. How well maintained is that? Do you require that this equipment be operational? I'm sure you know that on many foreign-registered vessels - I know from talking to pilots on the west coast - quite often that equipment isn't maintained to standard and quite often is not functional. Within your industry, do you require that these technologies are operating in all of your vessels?
Mr. Hall: Yes, Mr. Cummins. Actually, the technology that is being installed on our ships is quite new. The driving force behind this is the cost-recovery proposals from Fisheries and Oceans, which is coast guard, where we're being asked to pay for some of those services. What we're trying to do is find out how we can reduce those services. Navigational aids is something like a $280 million bill a year. What the coast guard was looking for, and they formed this marine advisory board to advise them, was to determine what they wanted in the way of services, the levels of services the marine industry needs. It was a case of doing something here to ensure that we knock down the costs and therefore the potential of cost recovery in the years ahead.
The CSA fleet had meetings of the board of directors and then meetings of operating people and came up with this plan of now switching to state of the art. It's out there, certain areas of it are still being developed. It's like the computer business: every month there's a new system that comes out. But as I said, we have equipped two-thirds of the ships over the last two years with this DGPS, directional global positioning system, and electronic charts. We are in the process now of getting away from paper charts and we've got the hydrographic service producing electronic charts. So that's what we're looking at. We're not looking out the window at a church steeple any more, hopefully, in time. We've got all that in place.
.1550
The last leg of the stool is what is known as AIS, automated information systems, a computer system. The first two tell you precisely where you are, what's going on, and more or less what's around you. This third thing tells you where all of the other targets are, where the other ships in the vicinity are. That could be done by a computer hook-up with a shore base and would eliminate a very costly VTS - vessel traffic system - operated by the coast guard, which is about $40 million a year. We think it's absolutely useless. If we go with this high tech, we'll be there.
Then, as I say, we want to tie it in with a training system for marine captains, which will also be state of the art. They will get an actual understanding of what's going on around them on the simulator program. It will reflect tidal conditions and weather conditions - you name it - day and night, summer and winter. All of that is going to be reflected in the software being developed right now.
We have talked with the marine school in Quebec. We've also been talking with MSI out of Long Island - Marine Safety International - part of a bigger body that does an awful lot of simulator training for air in the States. They also have big contracts with the oil tanker industry in the States. Ever since the Exxon Valdez, they have all been taking this training program through MSI.
So it's there, it's new, and, as I say, the driving force behind it is to ensure that we gradually get rid of a lot of the navigation aids.
Captain Lanteigne chaired a committee of captains. We locked eight captains in a hotel room in St. Catharines, Ontario, and said ``Okay, you have to look at this and tell us what you need and what you don't need, bearing in mind safety and environment, and for the time being let's assume you don't have all of the latest equipment. You still have radars and all of these other things.'' And no management was involved. We wanted them to tell us. Their report suggested that in the Great Lakes and seaway area we could get rid of roughly 55% of the navigational aids.
This same exercise was carried out for the St. Lawrence River with Captain Lanteigne and some representatives from the shipping federation who represent foreign ships. More or less the same numbers came out for the St. Lawrence River. Our counterparts on the east coast have been doing the same studies in the Maritimes. Our west coast counterparts have been doing the same. In fact, the west coast came out with a reduction even greater than what we're proposing.
So it can be done. It's there. All we have to do is concentrate and get the technology in place to finish it off.
Mr. Cummins: When this stuff malfunctions, then, are you maintaining back-up systems -
Mr. Hall: Yes.
Mr. Cummins: - and are you requiring the system to be operational when ships leave port?
Mr. Hall: Mr. Cummins, what we have to clarify here is that this is the domestic fleet we're talking about, not the foreign fleet.
Mr. Cummins: I realize that.
Mr. Hall: And there isn't the same incentive for the foreign flag fleet to do all of this. There's no question that it's a bit of a problem. And what we have worked out - and we've been talking to the pilots about it - is a portable system, like a laptop, that the pilot would bring on board the foreign ship with him while she's coming up through Canadian waters, say, going up to the Great Lakes and out again. We're looking at that because you can't have part of the fleet with one set of equipment and another without it. It's not going to work.
The foreign ships are a different matter. I agree with you that there are some rogue shipowners out there. There's no question about that. And I don't dispute what you've heard about the west coast. We have the same thing on the east coast. You try to control it as best you can, but it depends on international rules.
Captain Réjean Lanteigne (Manager, Marine Operations, Canadian Shipowners Association): With your permission, if I could complement Mr. Hall's answers, the suppliers of both pieces of equipment and of eventually the third piece of equipment are either Canadian or American suppliers. For the electronic charts, the main world manufacturer and probably the best equipment supplier in the world is a company from the west coast, Offshore Systems International. We've been buying a lot of OSI equipment in recent years.
To avoid the potential problem you raised, a lot of these ships are now installing dual systems, back-up systems, because we have been faced with at least one case where the master refused to sail port because his electronic chart system was not operating properly. So the company decided to install a whole new series of back-up systems on the whole fleet.
Bear in mind that these ships trade essentially between Seven Islands and the head of the Great Lakes. They are always within a stone's throw of a port where they can get spare parts. This equipment is North American equipment. It's either Canadian or North American, built and supplied. So it's relatively easy to get it fixed, get it repaired, and get the ship off. It's almost always available to get it fixed in the case of a problem like this.
.1555
The Chairman: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall, I apologize for missing the earlier part of your presentation.
I wanted to follow up on the point about simulation equipment. Is simulation equipment for marine navigation actually a technology that's in use in different parts of the world? Second, would the software be developed to simulate conditions in a real, live situation in Canadian waters, very specific geographic areas?
Mr. Hall: I'll ask Captain Lanteigne to respond to that. I know it's being used in other areas and I know it's real time they're talking about.
Capt. Lanteigne: It's being extensively used in Europe to train and retrain pilots, notably in the port of Rotterdam and in a special place in France called Lac Prevel, where pilots from Canada go to be trained. It's also extensively used to train pilots for the Suez Canal, and to retrain them every second or third year and re-evaluate their competence.
We're using real-time simulator training to train our officers and masters to perform their own navigation on the Great Lakes; from Montreal to the head of the Great Lakes. We have been doing so quite successfully using a U.S. facility in Rhode Island, owned and operated by Marine Safety International, for quite a number of years, every winter, at significant cost. What we're proposing to do here is to do the same thing for the St. Lawrence River, using a Quebec-based facility.
So yes, sir, it's being used all over the place.
Mr. Cullen: It's programmed to simulate the exact locations -
Capt. Lanteigne: Real-time, and including programming emergency conditions such as loss or failure of the steering gear, loss or failure of navigation equipment, ice, fog, waves, current, tide.... Amen.
Mr. Cullen: Good. Merci.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
I'll take you back to page 4 of your report. This question about confidentiality is an interesting one. It's not one I've heard a lot of presentation on thus far. Are you concerned about the disclosure of the fee itself that's being charged by the port for a given kind of service, or about the potential disclosure of the information that's received by the organization in the negotiations to arrive at a fee?
Mr. Hall: It's competition; that's all I'm concerned with. There are published rates and there are negotiated rates. This goes on in every sector of the economy. I would think if I were a shipowner and I had worked out a deal with a certain port, let's say based on volume - I'll bring in a million tonnes if you give me a rate that's a little better than what your published rate is - if that sort of information gets out, it gets into the whole business of working out confidential contracts and trying to help each other to make the thing work. Certainly the railways are playing that game, and I suspect the trucking industry is as well.
The Chairman: Oh, no.
Mr. Hall: No? Okay.
The Chairman: Not the trucking industry. Do you know seven of the largest trucking firms in the country are headquartered in my riding?
Mr. Hall: No, I didn't know. I'll leave that one.
The Chairman: That's a very interesting point, and I can say it's not one I've seen a lot of presentation on.
Have you had discussions with any of the ports or the harbour commissions on that particular point?
Mr. Hall: I have not personally.
Réjean, you've been talking to some of the ports on some of this, have you not?
Capt. Lanteigne: Yes, I've talked to quite a number of port men on all the issues they saw in the bill as being of concern to them and where they could impact on the shipowners and the carriers, and this was one of the issues a number of them raised in discussion. They said some of the contractual agreements they have with carriers and with a number of shippers will now be open to publication and could make difficulties for some of us in their confidentiality aspects.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate the time and I appreciate the attention to the brief.
.1600
Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that this might be a presentation by the police. From the Canadian Police Association we have Neal Jessop and Scott Newark.
Mr. Jessop, you're familiar with the procedures here. Please limit your remarks to about10 minutes.
Mr. Neal Jessop (President, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today are Ian Whittington, who you've seen before and know from previous submissions, and Scott Newark, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association in Ottawa.
My name is Neal Jessop. This is my fifth year as president of the Canadian Police Association. I'm also a detective sergeant with the city police in Windsor, Ontario. I'm president of an organization with 40,000 members. Mr. Whittington and his brothers and sisters make up, I guess at this point, less than 100 of that 40,000. This is a small portion of our membership with a very big issue for all our members who have great concern over this particular bill.
As you know, the ports police have a long and fine tradition of protecting the ports. We have supported the government, for example, in a bill called Bill C-68. Bill C-68 is the firearms bill currently being challenged in the Alberta Court of Appeal and it will receive our support there.
This is a significant bill for us because what is apparently taking place by attrition is an erosion of the police presence in the Canadian ports. The Canadian ports, as you know, import a lot of goods. These include guns, drugs, illegal immigrants and any other contraband. These officers seize and take part in the seizing of these goods. They also take part in the prosecuting of those who import these goods.
We've had extensive conversations about this particular issue. As you know, our officers have received numerous dates of closure and cessation of services over the last two or three years. As a result we've had numerous conversations with Minister Young, who was the Minister of Transport, and Minister Anderson, who is currently the Minister of Transport.
This is a significant issue for us. I can tell you quite frankly that unless the federal policing presence is maintained and increased at the ports, it will be an indication to me and my members that the Government of Canada does not support an important law enforcement issue. We have a significant membership. We believe this is a worthy cause and we will do our very best to assist you in maintaining this federal police presence.
.1605
As you know, what has taken place, for example, with the Canadian National police and the Canadian Pacific police is that they've been largely reduced to security forces. They've been reduced in numbers. When they're reduced in numbers, their ability to enforce the law is reduced. It is quite widely known in police circles that eventually the CN and CP will eliminate their corporate responsibilities to protect the public in those policing areas. We view this, if it is going to move that way in the ports, as doing the same thing.
Publicly, we will not be at a loss for words if this happens. We view it as extremely important. Currently every indication to us is the ports will use attrition to get rid of our members. Of course, we know there is no hiring policy in any of the ports' corporate police areas.
It is a very difficult issue for us because, as you know, we have supported the government on a number of worthy and in our view correct law enforcement issues. The government has received our support, our suggestions and in many cases our suggested amendments to the acts because we choose to participate in those things if they're productive and have them accepted by the government.
The way this appears to be going now is in complete contradiction to most or all the law enforcement initiatives this government has brought forward. This is not to say we're completely happy with everything the government has done in law enforcement issues and in legislative issues, but in most cases the government has received our support.
On page 18 of our brief, under the first so-called introduction, you will see what we have recommended as amendments to C-44. We offer the following as starting points for consideration. If you go over to page 22, you'll see our recommendations on how we believe the issue should proceed from this point on.
Before I conclude and turn it over to Ian, I would like to tell you I don't think people realize how important this issue is to us and how important we view the interests of the public in policing issues at the ports. We are not about to accept a private security force on behalf of ports authorities that does not have full policing service and full police powers and does not have public input. We will not accept a private security force driving around checking locked doors and unlocked doors without the authority of full police officers in those ports. We will make an issue of it if some people feel this is the direction the Canadian public and Canadian police officers think this should go.
We were not consulted initially when these reports were made. This is unfortunate. We've made our views known to numerous ministers, particularly Mr. Rock and Mr. Gray, who have responsibility for justice and policing issues in this country.
The last thing I would like to tell you is that as a result of all of these efforts I have come to know a lot of the officers who are doing this job. I am very proud and very pleased to represent them. I do not intend, as president of the Canadian Police Association, to let them fade into the sunset like old generals do. They will receive representation from us and they will receive as much public attention as we can give them if they're not permitted to do their jobs and if they're not permitted to expand their services to the point where they can do their jobs properly.
.1610
The Chairman: Mr. Whittington.
Mr. Ian Whittington (Canadian Police Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I can speak for the detachment I come from. I've lived and worked in Vancouver and in the port of Vancouver for the last 22 years. To say I know the waterfront is, to say the least, a very large misnomer. I know the people, the places, the good guys, the bad guys, to a very large extent. However, our numbers have been decimated over the years - and I do mean decimated - from a high of 43, at one point, to where now we're down to 27, and we cannot do an effective or efficient job with the numbers we do have because we have been controlled through budgetary process.
It has been established that we are a public police agency. We should be regulated as such, not by virtue of where we are on the bottom line.
What goes through Canada's ports means too much to me. I can say that from having worked there and knowing the people who work in there.
When I first started, 22 years ago, it was not an uncommon occurrence to get into a physical confrontation with longshoremen. If you'll recall, in Vancouver the president of the Canadian region of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union said you would be making a very grave mistake to do away with this agency. That's the support we have. The people who work on the waterfront and who used to be our nemesis are the likes of our best allies.
The police community, not only in the province of British Columbia, has been very overt, especially the Attorney General, in saying this is flawed and incorrect, but the public at large have repeatedly said this is wrong. I challenge each and every one of you to take it into consideration, please.
If you're going to do away with the Ports Canada police, then so be it. As I told Mr. Rock and Mr. Gray many months ago, I totally concur with the devolution of the Canada Ports Corporation, as a bureaucratic nightmare that causes nothing but another chain in the bureaucratic level. However, when it comes to policing, it's a federal responsibility. There should be dedicated port police not just in Vancouver but in all federal ports across this country.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Scott Newark (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Sir, I don't want to take any time away from the questions, but I noticed a reference was made to the brief and a section in it. I believe you have copies of the original submissions we gave to Mr. Anderson. They're supplemented by the brief we brought in. It looks exactly the same but the date's changed on it. Section 3 in there contains the specific analysis of Bill C-44. Those are the sections you want to have reference to in relation to that.
I also want to introduce Kent Ralston, who is from the ports police in Halifax. We'll do our best collectively to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cummins: I must say we do support your request. From our point of view this is not a political issue, it's a policing issue.
With that in mind, Mr. Whittington, I wonder if you, for the benefit of the committee, would tell us something of the difficulties that would be encountered with multiple jurisdictions managing the Vancouver waterfront. I think something simple such as tracking a water taxi or a lighter that would leave a vessel anchored in English Bay.... It has about fourteen places it could go. Who is going to track that sort of stuff? Could you give us a bit of an overview of the kinds of difficulties you would see if the government proceeds with its current plan, where responsibility for policing the Vancouver port is going to be divvied up among fourteen or sixteen different jurisdictions?
.1615
Mr. Whittington: Yes, Mr. Cummins.
Vancouver is definitely a multi-jurisdictional location. As Mr. Cummins said, there are fourteen separate municipalities that we do police with ten separate police agencies. Some of those are RCMP agencies or detachments within those municipalities, but those detachments are as different as night and day to each other even though they wear the same uniform.
In terms of the analogy that Mr. Cummins put forth, a vessel can virtually go through any one of ten jurisdictions that are all Ports Canada jurisdictions; however, when it comes to municipal policing, there is only one municipal agency - the Vancouver police - which has one boat. Their numbers have been chopped to four people, which means they can only put one member out on a small, rigid-hull inflatable at any given time. They do not have the resources; they do not have the people.
Chief Canuel of Vancouver said that he cannot and will not do it without funding. Just to police the city of Vancouver's waterfront, Chief Canuel has said they will need no less than 40 uniformed officers, and that's not including intelligence people, detectives, etc. Just for the city of Vancouver, that would definitely put you in excess of 50 people for one municipality. And as I said, we have27 for all 14 that we're in right now.
If I may, just further to that, municipal jurisdiction covers limited areas. For example, Burrard Inlet is between the city of Vancouver and the city and districts of North Vancouver on the other side of the inlet, which don't meet in the centre. The municipal jurisdiction leaves a one-kilometre strip down the centre, let alone outside of English Bay, around to the Surrey and White Rock area, where the commanding officer of Surrey and White Rock detachment said that they definitely do not have the people. They don't have the resources because there is one RCMP boat tasked to not only to cover our jurisdiction, but Howe Sound through to Squamish and right down through the San Juans to the border. That's one vessel.
Mr. Cummins: I know the municipality that I live in is certainly opposed to taking over the responsibility for policing at the Roberts Bank facility, which is expanding rapidly. I don't know whether you want to comment on that expansion at Roberts Bank and the difficulties that it might entail or not, but I think it's also worth noting.
I was talking with a Vancouver pilot recently, and he was telling me a story. He said that he was to pilot a cruise ship up through the inside passage. He was in a hurry and he parked his car on harbour property in Vancouver. He returned about six days later, only to realize that he had left the doors unlocked and the sunroof open. He said there was nothing disturbed in his car, it was as he had left it. He said that if he had parked it on the other side of the railroad tracks, in the area policed by the Vancouver city police, he would have been lucky if the car was still there. I think that says something about the level of policing at the port of Vancouver these days.
Given that, was there anything you wanted to comment on, such as the difficulties that you may see through this expansion at the Roberts Bank?
The Chairman: Anything other than the expansion of the jurisdiction of the city of Vancouver.
Mr. Whittington: You quite lost me.
Thank you, Mr. Cummins. I'm also a resident and taxpayer in Delta, and I don't relish the thought of having to pay for municipal policing to take up a federal responsibility in my neighbourhood. The expansion into Deltaport is virtually going to - if I can loosely quote the Vancouver Port Corporation - double the number of containers that will go through the Vancouver port. By municipal policing standards, they will not even be able to put in a drive-through police car, because they don't have any. There are two cars that work the Ladner area, which that will encompass. There are two cars that work Tsawwassen. Both of these jurisdictions are residential jurisdictions, away from the Deltaport. It takes at least ten minutes to drive to this location, let alone react to anything.
As for aggressive patrolling, which we do proactively on a regular basis and which is totally contrary to any municipality because they don't have the luxury - and it is a luxury - it has been extremely beneficial because we're able to prevent crime. Municipal police are only able to react to crime, and that's not even withstanding anything that goes through the containers.
.1620
Unless you have dedicated people who know the paperwork that's required - and that's if you're even able to catch somebody to prosecute - who know how the paperwork on the waterfront shuffles.... No city policeman will be able to do that.
One thing we are definitely losing sight of is the benefit of hindsight. Municipal police used to police the waterfronts, and as a result of what they were unable to do the Liberal government in 1968 commissioned the Cassidy report, which brought our department into being...again.
The Chairman: Those damn Liberals.
Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana (London East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, we appreciate the work and the dedication that your force does on behalf of the Canadian people in protecting Canadian sovereignty in a number of ways.
Let me ask you some questions. How many police officers are in your organization?
Mr. Whittington: Do you mean across the country?
Mr. Fontana: Yes.
Mr. Whittington: At this point in time I think we have 107, including commissioned ranks.
Mr. Fontana: And where are they deployed?
Mr. Whittington: They're deployed in the six federal ports of Vancouver; Quebec City and Montreal; Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia; and St. John's, Newfoundland.
Mr. Fontana: As you know, there are a number of other ports in this country that are harbour commissions that probably have exactly the same challenges as those you've indicated at Vancouver and the other federal ports; namely, Hamilton and Windsor.... They've been able to do without Canadian ports police. Don't you think they have exactly the same challenges as the port of Vancouver, the port of Halifax or the port of Quebec? Obviously they have policing functions going on in those ports, but they've been able to do them without a federal police force in place.
I'm just trying to understand. I can understand that Vancouver and the larger ports are different, but you've just described.... We have a whole bunch of ports that have the same problems every other port does, yet they're able to do policing with municipal police forces and/or police forces they've managed to hire. I want to get an understanding of what you see that is different between harbour commissions that have the same problems as other ports and your police function vis-à-vis the police people who are at those harbour commissions.
Mr. Newark: I've been asked to start. First of all, the distinction in relation to the different kinds of ports is contained in your government's bill, in Bill C-44, where you make the distinctions in relation to the different nature of the ports.
Mr. Fontana: No. I'm talking about the existing situation. Forget about what we have planned.
Presently there are a number of harbour commissions that function and do all of the good work that the other big federal ports do. I want to know what you think the differences are between the police forces that they have now protecting Canadian sovereignty and the jobs that your people do at those six federal ports.
Mr. Newark: There are two things. It's different right now too. The status difference is being maintained. In this bill it actually describes - presumably - the significance of the national ports and why they would become Canadian port authorities. Secondly -
Mr. Fontana: It all has to do with volume -
Mr. Newark: Yes. Exactly. That's what I was going to say.
Mr. Fontana: Yes, but most of those.... I shouldn't say it, because I hope you've taken an opportunity.... I've heard you say.... At least Mr. Whittington indicates that he agrees with the dissolution of the Canada Ports Corporation. And I want to talk to him. But the fact is that some of these ports want to become Canadian port authorities, so at the end of the day those harbour commissions may very well have the same status as the ports of Vancouver, Halifax, and Quebec.
Mr. Newark: It seems, at least in our discussions, that there are a lot of other things in Bill C-44 the maritime industry wants, irrespective of policing concerns, and that's probably true whether you're designated right now to be a CPA or you're one of the secondary ports. I don't doubt that.
I think you answered it. It's the volume. It's the nature of work. Presumably the same distinction that government makes is the same kind of thing the industry -
Mr. Fontana: The nature of work.... I'm talking -
Mr. Newark: When you have fourteen different potential municipal jurisdictions, it causes a bit of a problem in overlap if you have to contract it municipally.
Second, what seems to be more fundamental is that we are finally starting to make some progress federally in this country in avoiding fragmentation of services or fragmentation of information in law enforcement. Our first contact with that came in relation to immigration enforcement and the circumstances that occur at our national points of entry at borders.
.1625
You may know, for example, that the people in the toll booths are actually Department of National Revenue customs officers. The people beside them in the white shirts - who actually aren't beside them, they're inside the building about 50 feet away - are in the immigration department. Their computer systems don't talk to each other, or at least they didn't about 18 months ago when we first started to look at some of the things that came out of the deficiencies in immigration enforcement.
One of the recommendations we made that government is starting to act on is that you get a better quality of enforcement - frankly cheaper as well - when you have a consolidated or more cohesive law enforcement service involved. That's highlighted probably nowhere better - we mention it in the brief - than in Mr. Justice Campbell's report about the Bernardo case, and what can potentially happen when you start to fragment policing services.
Given the nature of what is involved in the kind of policing at the national ports, it makes sense to us that we should go in any direction that avoids fragmentation of police services because the lesson is reasonably clear about the lack of positive results when you fragment services.
Mr. Fontana: The fact remains that you are presently located at six federal ports. At the end of the day, we have a lot more ports than that and they are now being policed by other than the Canadian ports police. So I want to have an understanding of how different your service is from those that are being performed by other police forces in other port jurisdictions.
The other thing I want you to answer, if you could, is if we are going to get rid of the Canada Ports Corporation - and Mr. Whittington has just agreed with the dissolution of that corporation - it is your employer. If we are now devolving to ports authorities, be they national, local or regional, there won't be one central employer for your police forces.
We're not talking about who your employer should be, because you could make a very good case that your people should continue to be hired at the Vancouver port itself, and you should enter into a contract with the Vancouver port, for example, or with the Quebec port, because we are talking about autonomous bodies and not a central group that you want disbanded also. So who will be your employer if we get rid of the Canada Ports Corporation?
Mr. Jessop: Mr. Fontana, I told you I came from Windsor. This is not the first time people have heard me say this. I've been there for 28 years and I'm still what they call a street cop. As a result,I deal with all the border problems, because, quite frankly, we are the only municipal police service that works three shifts, seven days a week.
We have a boat, such as it is, and we do water patrols. Our saying at the street level in the police service in Windsor - where we don't have a dedicated port authority, where the national police force is unable to provide adequate protection, and where customs officers are unarmed and immigration officers are not present in the booth with customs officers - is that instead of us, customs officers and immigration officers, perhaps it would be more effective if we had a bunch of friendly bears at the ports handing out maple syrup to people who cross the border. One of the reasons is that we now have a casino in Windsor, where 12,000 people a day, 95% of whom are American -
Mr. Fontana: I'm not sure I get your point. What is it?
Mr. Jessop: The point is we're not doing any border law enforcement.
Mr. Fontana: So there's no law enforcement -
Mr. Jessop: We're reacting to what happens after they make it past the border. That's quite frankly it. If anybody can find anything in all of the speeches I've made in relation to border enforcement, they'll see that our views on border enforcement between Canada and the United States and other foreign countries are non-existent, which is why we have pressed for changes under the Immigration Act and for foreign prosecutions and whatever else you might guess.
Item number two, in relation to your question, the matter is simply met in relation to federally constituted police forces like these officers. As you know, in many municipal jurisdictions, for example, police commissions are established. The commissions themselves are weighted in relation to the contributions that are made among provincial, municipal and federal authorities. Therefore that should remove the financial component from law enforcement.
.1630
This is not done any differently, for example, on a national scale from how it's done on a municipal scale in relation to city police commissions or provincial police commissions. In effect you keep the law enforcement situation in the control of the federal government, you let the port authority have the amount of influence it should have and you let the province and the municipality do the same thing. But the budget itself and the financial resources are not controlled, and it's not privatized to the point where the police service can be eliminated.
This is not a difficult process. This is done all over the rest of the country where water, for example, is not involved. The bill could be rewritten in a matter of two or three hours to accommodate that.
Mr. Newark: And in fact it is in the draft amendments. You were asking how we do it. An amendment to clause 96 is contained in our brief.
The bill right now creates in effect an enforcement office that, as I look at it, gets to protect the interest of the commercial maritime industry. We're suggesting to you that the government should be looking after the public interest in enforcement, not simply the commercial maritime interests.
Your question directly hits on the point, sir. Fundamentally we're suggesting that the notion of a private police force is wrong, that inherent in that are the kinds of flaws that are not going to be consistent with public safety and public interest.
The vehicle to do it is contained in the brief. I'm not a draftsman, but I think it's a pretty simple process. By amendment of clause 96, the employer, instead of being a local port corporation that can decide it wants a new painting on the wall instead of a police officer, would be the federal Crown.
That would also give Mr. Anderson the opportunity to do what he has vowed repeatedly to us and to Canadians to do, which is a proper survey of what policing requirements are at the national ports across the country.
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): I appreciate your concerns, but I just want to follow a bit on what Joe Fontana was saying.
Bill C-44 will privatize these ports. Police work is generated from those operating these ports.I think that's a given. The whole question is now who should pay for the police work generated from the private operation of these ports. I take it from what you are saying that you don't think anyone except the federal government should pay. There's no other way of doing it.
I haven't read your recommendation that you just referred to. Maybe that will answer it for me. But that was going to be my question. How do you think these privately operated ports should be policed, by whom and who should be paying for it?
Mr. Newark: It is contained in the brief, sir.
The idea is essentially that you would continue the Ports Canada Police as they are right now. The amendment is actually in there. You would continue the enforcement officers as clause 96 called them, and they could still be called the Ports Canada Police. The employer would be the federal crown, but as to the cost of it, our recommendation is it should be done exactly the same way it is right now.
It is a public responsibility. I suppose the commercial phrase would be ``cost of doing business'', pretty much the way it is right now.
We suggest you could do it by way of an amendment to clause 6 of the bill on the letters patent, where in effect you could say you're going to consult with the commercial port operators, who are going to have a greater control of the operational assets.
There's huge public investment and huge public interest in what gets past the ports, because of course, as I'm sure you know, what gets past the port doesn't magically stop at the city limits of that port. That is a public interest issue.
We will discuss with you what we think the appropriate costs should be, and then here, quite literally, is a bill from the federal crown in relation to what the cost of doing business is for law enforcement.
In the interim, the benefit of these amendments we're talking about is they would give everybody the time to do what seems to be acknowledged as necessary, which is to go and take a look at the multiplicity of agencies we have right now at national ports and probably in a few other places - and this is what I believe Mr. Whittington is referring to - and see why we have so many duplicate services, such as customs enforcement, immigration enforcement, RCMP, ports police and coast guard. We could get a better handle on how to deliver a better operational service.
The problem is that Bill C-44, it seems to us, has this time line and a life of its own on a whole host of other issues, but you have a problem, because the employer is the Canada Ports Corporation, and it's going to be eliminated by this bill. That leaves a vacuum, which, with respect, is a very dangerous vacuum. The minister himself has acknowledged that it should not simply be eliminated.
That's why we made the suggestion that an amendment to clause 96 could in effect preserve the status quo, with the federal Crown as the employer until such time as we reach the ultimate decision about what should be done.
.1635
Mr. Jessop: Mr. Jordan, we view the Canada Ports Corporation as any other responsible corporate citizen. If you operate a business in Canada on a section of land, sea or whatever and if you hold title to that and have all the benefits of that, then you do the same thing General Motors does: you pay your fair share to provide for a public police service. We don't have the General Motors police service; we have the police service that is provided around General Motors wherever they are.
You'll never hear from us that the port authority should walk away from paying for all of the things that any other corporate citizen pays for.
Mr. Jordan: Except the police work that's generated out of port operation is a little more easily identified.
Mr. Jessop: It may be more easily identified by boundary, but it's certainly not any easier to do through its geographic consequences, so to speak.
Mr. Jordan: No, I agree with you there.
What we're trying to do is endeavour to find out what it costs to operate these ports and split out the cost of operating them. Policing them is a cost, and we're trying to split out how that cost should be shared.
Mr. Newark: The point that remains fundamental, though, is there is a public interest in the policing that takes place at those national ports. Contrary to some of the material we'd read originally coming out of individual port corporations -
The one I'd read was ``Gee, we could really get our costs down if we could only acquire control over the policing''. Well, quite apart from the fact that I think all of you as legislators should be extremely wary of commercial interests saying they'd like to control policing in something as significant as our national ports - and there's no doubt they could - there are the consequences for the rest of us in this country, given what ports are in this country.
Frankly, probably whether they're national ports or not, the issue remains the same, including the public dollars that have been spent on the infrastructure and what comes into and goes out of those ports. All of us have an interest in that.
What we're really trying to signal here more than anything else is this cannot be abdicated in any sense of decentralization. The public interest is simply too high. Secondly, the single best way to do it is to have that location-dedicated police force, frankly for precisely the reason I think you were getting at: it's a unique physical location. The interchange of information that goes back and forth because of what comes in and out of the country is such that it requires something that's location-dedicated, not simply a host of municipal agencies.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
I'd like to thank you. This is an issue that has been flagged for us. Mr. Whittington was indicating some of these issues to us when we were in Vancouver. As the son of a policeman, I've been following it rather carefully and have some interest in it myself, so I will read your brief very carefully.
I want to thank you for taking the time to be here today.
For the information of members, that concludes today's meeting. We'll see you on the plane at six o'clock.
The meeting is adjourned.