Vol. 144, No. 18 — May 1, 2010

Regulations Amending the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff Regulations

Statutory authority

Pilotage Act

Sponsoring agency

Great Lakes Pilotage Authority

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issue

The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (the Authority) is responsible for administering, in the interests of safety, an efficient pilotage service within Canadian waters in the province of Quebec, south of the northern entrance of Saint-Lambert Lock and in and around the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba. The Pilotage Act requires that the Authority set tariffs at a level that permits it to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. In addition, the Treasury Board and the Office of the Auditor General in its Special Examination Report of April 2008 directed the Authority to take appropriate measures to become financially self-sufficient and to eliminate its deficit within the next five years.

During the latter months of 2008 and early 2009 there was a significant decline in shipping traffic levels due to the worldwide economic recession. This trend continued throughout 2009 and at the end of the navigational season, the overall decline in traffic was approximately 25%. The corresponding decline in revenues from the collection of pilotage charges has resulted in the Authority accumulating a cash deficit of $5.4 million at the close of the 2009 navigational season.

The Authority has attempted to address this issue through the introduction of a 15% temporary surcharge on all pilotage charges during the period from August 17, 2009, to December 31, 2010. Also, the Authority has taken steps to reduce operating costs by reducing the number of pilots through early retirement, deferring staff and management professional development courses and reducing travel and maintenance costs. However, the ongoing reduction in traffic levels has produced further losses in revenue and the Authority’s cash flows have been insufficient to reduce its present accumulated cash deficit of approximately $5.8 million and the Authority has had to extend its level of external borrowing.

If no action is taken, the Authority’s accumulated cash deficit is forecast to increase to $6.5 million by the close of the 2010 navigational season.

Objectives

The objective of the proposed amendments to the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff Regulations (the Regulations) is to allow the Authority to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the Authority realizes a positive cash flow by the end of 2010 that will fully cover the costs of pilotage services to its clients and provide sufficient funding to reduce its accumulated $5.8 million deficit while continuing to provide a safe and efficient pilotage service in accordance with the Pilotage Act.

Description

The Authority is proposing

• to amend the table immediately following subsection 3(2) of the Regulations to add Classes 5 and 6 ships for the Great Lakes region, implementing an increased pilotage charge for larger ships. Assuming current traffic levels, the Authority would expect that this reclassification would result in an additional revenue of approximately $345,000 per annum in future years;
• a 30% tariff increase in the Port of Churchill, Manitoba, that would be expected to generate additional revenue of approximately $30,000 annually;
• a 15% tariff increase for the Lake Ontario District that would be expected to generate additional revenue of approximately $155,000 annually; and
• a 1.5% overall tariff increase, excluding the Port of Churchill and the Lake Ontario District, that would be expected to generate additional revenue of $185,000 annually.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Retention of the existing tariff rates was a possible option. The Authority, however, rejected this status quo position since it has an accumulated cash deficit of $5.8 million and must take measures to ensure its financial self-sufficiency and reduce its deficit. During the last two years, in spite of the 15% temporary surcharge that is due to expire on December 31, 2010, the Authority has incurred increasing losses due to the worldwide economic recession and it has had to rely on external borrowing. In accordance with the Special Examination Report of April 2008, the Authority is required to be financially self-sufficient and eliminate its deficit within five years.

A second option is to reduce administrative and operating costs. While its revenues continued to fall during the past two years, the Authority maintained its administrative costs at the lowest possible level. Over 90% of the Authority’s expenses are related to pilot salaries and direct operating expenses and the remainder covers its administrative overheads.

The personnel at headquarters include nine administrative officers and staff and also eight full-time dispatchers. This staff is essential to administer and maintain an efficient pilotage service from Saint-Lambert Lock (Montréal) to Thunder Bay, including multiple ports within the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence region. Last year, as part of its cost-cutting measures to generate savings, the Authority reduced eight pilot positions by means of an early retirement incentive program for senior pilots. This represented a 15% reduction in pilot numbers and will provide savings of approximately $1.7 million annually. In addition, the Authority continues to defer development programs, staff/management professional development courses and also produce savings by reducing travel and maintenance costs. This year, management wage increases have been limited to 1.5%. These measures are expected to create savings of approximately $300,000 annually and will contribute substantially to keeping tariff increases as low as possible. The Authority believes that further reductions in pilot positions and administrative costs are not possible, and so this option is not a feasible way to return the Authority to financial self-sufficiency.

The third and recommended option considered is to increase revenues by implementing an increase in pilotage charges for larger ships, introducing tariff increases for the Port of Churchill and the Lake Ontario District, and initiating an overall 1.5% tariff increase excluding the Port of Churchill and Lake Ontario District.

Benefits and costs

Benefits

During the development of these regulatory proposals, a cost-benefit analysis was conducted on behalf of the Authority addressing the four major proposed amendments to be introduced with the regulatory proposal.

The Authority is proposing to amend the table following subsection 3(2) of its Regulations to introduce Classes 5 and 6 within the Great Lakes region. These two classes would be incorporated within an extended Class 5 category that would cost the marine industry an additional $345,000 annually. This would take into account the larger ships that have been operating within this region within the past few years and that have been capped as Class 4 ships.

At the close of the 2009 navigational season, the Authority conducted a study and determined that 74 ships were included within Class 4. Assuming these 74 ships had been reclassified into Classes 4, 5 and 6, the Authority’s net income would have been increased by $513,533. Recognizing the financial impact that this reclassification would have upon the marine industry, the Authority decided to extend the limits of the pilotage units for Class 5 so that all of the largest ships that transited the Great Lakes in 2009 would have been included within this category, and none would have been classified as Class 6. It was calculated that this extended Class 5 initiative would have generated a net income of approximately $4,303,301, an annual increase in the Authority’s net income of approximately $345,000. For the purpose of the analysis, it is expected that this reclassification would lead to similar results over the next few years. Assuming that this new classification would come into force halfway during 2010 and considering the interest charges that would then be avoided, the annual increase is expected to save the Authority $2,444,052 over the next 10 years, when using an 8% discount rate. In addition to that, the Authority is expected to avoid a present value of $69,639 in interest charges over the same period. It is expected that these proposed amendments would have a negative impact upon stakeholders operating within the Great Lakes region since class size represents the major component in the overall assessment of pilotage charges.

During the 2009 navigational season, the Port of Churchill lost approximately $50,000. A 40% tariff increase would be required to offset this loss. Mindful of the size of this tariff increase and the need to avoid further financial support from other districts, the Authority is proposing a 30% tariff increase that would have generated additional revenue of approximately $30,000 had it been applied in 2009. Once again, over the next 10 years, this amendment would be expected to generate savings of $218,582, using an 8% discount rate, of which $6,056 are accounted for as avoided interest charges. This tariff increase would be expected to have a negative impact on the relatively few stakeholders whose ships use this port during the four-month navigational season.

The Lake Ontario District has experienced financial support from other districts for several years and in 2009 lost approximately $300,000. The Authority is proposing a 15% tariff increase for this District that would have generated approximately $155,000 had it been applied in 2009, translating into principal savings of $1,098,052 for the Authority over the next 10 years, plus $31,287 in interest savings, using an 8% discount rate. Although this tariff increase would have a financial impact on stakeholders, it should be noted that all stakeholders supported this regulatory amendment.

The Authority is proposing a 1.5% tariff increase overall, excluding the Port of Churchill and the Lake Ontario District, that would have generated approximately $185,000 per annum, had it been applied in 2009. This annual incremental revenue will generate, according to the cost-benefit analysis, principal savings of $1,310,579, plus $37,343 in avoided interest charges, using an 8% discount rate. This overall tariff increase would be expected to have a negative impact on most stakeholders.

If the proposed amendments had been in place for the 2009 pilotage season, the GLPA would have generated additional revenues of approximately $715,000 or $80,000 each month taking into account the nine-month navigational season.

It is anticipated that this additional revenue would provide the Authority with a positive cash flow in 2010. Over the next 10 years, these proposed amendments would save the Authority over $5,065,209 in present value. In addition to this, the interest charges avoided as a result of this regulatory amendment would be $144,325.

The revenue generated by these four proposed amendments would be beneficial in that it would enhance the Authority’s ability to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis that is both fair and reasonable, while repaying its deficit in accordance with the Special Examination Report of April 2008. These proposed amendments would also be beneficial in that the Authority could continue to provide a safe and efficient pilotage service in accordance with the requirements of the Pilotage Act.

Costs

For an average-sized ship transiting the Seaway between Montréal and Thunder Bay, the current pilotage charge is $43,000 for a one-way trip. Should these four proposed amendments be approved, the pilotage charge would be $43,300 for a one-way trip, or about $2 a ton. For a round trip, the above charges are doubled.

There are presently fewer than 20 companies operating foreign-flag ships within the Great Lakes that employ Authority pilots. For a foreign-flag ship transiting these waters, its pilotage costs represent approximately 3.5% of its total operating costs. With the increase in pilotage costs attributed to these four proposed amendments, it is estimated that its total pilotage costs will then become approximately 4% of the ship’s total operating costs.

For the purpose of the cost-benefit analysis, it was estimated that the marine transportation industry representatives affected by this proposed amendment would incur incremental pilotage charges equivalent to a present value of $5,209,534 over the next 10 years. Overall, the cost-benefit analysis reveals that these proposed amendments would result in a net present benefit of $144,325 for Canadian stakeholders. However, there is a possibility that the marine transportation industry may not be the ultimate bearer of the cost increases, as a portion of these costs may be passed on to both Canadian and foreign firms using marine transportation services.

In certain districts within the Authority’s jurisdiction, pilotage is shared equally between Canadian and U.S. pilots on a rotational basis. The Authority and its U.S. counterpart regularly exchange information concerning pilotage rates. In 2010, the U.S. pilotage authority intends to increase its tariff rates by an overall 5%. When this occurs, the U.S. rates would be similar to those in Canada, based on parity of the dollar. When the four proposed amendments come into effect, however, the Authority’s rates would be temporarily higher until U.S. Rulemaking initiates the implementation of Classes 5 and 6 ships within its rules. Although this would provide the U.S. pilotage authority with a temporary financial competitive advantage, the impact on international competitiveness is negated by operational principles since pilotage services are shared equally between both countries on a rotational basis.

Treatment of risk and uncertainty

The conclusions of the cost-benefit analysis are subject to cautious interpretation, as reasonable assumptions had to be made in order to depict the Authority’s financial future over the next 10 years. The analysis makes the assumption that the yearly number of assignments undertaken by the Authority is to grow according to the forecasted growth rates for the 2010–2012 period (5%) and to remain constant after 2012. Further, an assumption was made that the Authority will be able to manage its accumulated deficit in the same fashion it was able to manage it over the last five years. Accordingly, the interest rates used in order to assess avoided interest charges are based on an average of the 2005–2009 rates observable. Finally, it is also assumed, only for the purpose of this analysis, that the temporary 15% surcharge currently applicable for the Authority’s pilotage charges, due to expire on December 31, 2010, will not be extended.

Aggregated costs and benefits, as well as a list of potential qualitative impacts for these proposed amendments can be found in the following cost-benefit statement.

Costs, benefits and distribution		2010	2011	2020	Total (Present Value)	Annual Average
A. QUANTIFIED IMPACTS IN $
Benefit — Avoided principal payment	Great Lakes Pilotage Authority	375,375	620,411	325,878	5,065,209	506,521
Benefit — Avoided interest charges	Great Lakes Pilotage Authority	2,111	5,443	19,215	144,325	14,432
Costs	Maritime transportation industry	(375,375)	(620,411)	(325,878)	(5,065,209)	(506,521)
Net benefits					144,325	14,432
B. QUANTIFIED IMPACTS IN NON-$ — RISK ASSESSMENT, e.g. mortality, morbidity
Positive impacts	N/A
Negative impacts	N/A
C. QUALITATIVE IMPACTS
Canadian population — Safe, efficient and timely pilotage services in districts operated by GLPA in the future.
Canadian importers and exporters — Since the elasticity of the demand curve for maritime transportation is likely to be low according to the existing literature, there is a possibility that the incremental costs borne by the shipping industry may be passed on to Canadian importers in the case of incoming cargo. Additionally, Canadian exporters may face a marginally decreased demand for their goods due to the possible raise of transportation costs, in the case of outgoing cargo.

Rationale

In addressing its current accumulated deficit of approximately $5.8 million, an increase of $2.2 million since the implementation of the 15% temporary surcharge in mid-August 2009, the Authority evaluated various options that it could take to regain its financial self-sufficiency and reduce its deficit.

Retention of a status quo position was a possible option but was promptly rejected since the Authority’s deficit would continue to increase without substantial regulatory initiatives to increase its revenues and ensure its financial self-sufficiency.

Alternatively, consideration was given to a further review of the Authority’s administration and operating costs. With respect to its administration costs, the Authority has already taken action to reduce these costs to their lowest possible level and no further savings can be made. Regarding its operating costs, any further reductions in its pilot numbers could cause expensive delays to stakeholders’ ships both now and in the future should traffic levels increase, and there is a paucity of experienced pilots requiring the Authority to hire and train new apprentice pilots. In addition, any savings generated by eliminating further pilot positions would not have a significant impact on reducing the Authority’s current accumulated deficit. The Authority consequently rejected this option since it does not provide the means of returning it to financial self-sufficiency.

It readily became apparent that the only option open to the Authority was that of increasing its revenues, namely by implementing these proposed amendments formulated to ensure its ability to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. This became the third and selected option.

Taking into account the selected option, it is estimated that these four tariff increases should generate revenue of approximately $715,000 in 2010, equivalent to a benefit of $375,375 when discounted at a rate of 8% over the next 10 years. This additional revenue would provide the Authority with a positive cash flow at the close of 2010 and provide additional funding to assist in reducing its deficit.

Based on the cost-benefit analysis, these proposed amendments would increase the Authority’s revenues by over $5,065,209 over the next 10 years in terms of present value, discounted at a rate of 8%. Additionally, the Authority would save $144,325 due to avoided interest charges. The shipping industry would pay incremental pilotage charges equivalent to a present value of $5,209,534 over the next 10 years. Overall, these proposed amendments, from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, would result in a net present value of $144,325 for Canadian stakeholders over 10 years.

Considering these figures, it is apparent the benefits that the Authority would derive from the proposed amendments would be paid for by the Authority’s stakeholders, the marine industry. The costs borne by the marine industry, however, ensure that its ships would continue to receive a safe, efficient and timely pilotage service that would protect the public, environmental and social concerns, both now and in future years. It is possible that the incremental costs borne by the marine industry may be passed on to Canadian importers or foreign exporters in the form of increased freight rates.

With respect to international cooperation and coordination, it should be noted that the Authority regularly exchanges information concerning pilotage rates and other matters with its U.S. pilotage counterpart since pilotage is shared on an equal basis in certain districts within the Authority’s jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the cost-benefit analysis clearly demonstrates that the selected option results in a net benefit to Canadians. This proposed amendment incorporating these four tariff increases is consistent with the directive from the Treasury Board and the Auditor General as contained in its Special Examination Report of April 2008. This requires the Authority to take appropriate measures to become financially self-sufficient and eliminate its deficit within the next five years.

The Authority is of the opinion that the inclusion of this extended Class 5 within its regulations is economically necessary, long overdue and consistent with the directive from the Treasury Board and the Auditor General of Canada as outlined in its Special Examination Report of April 2008.

Strategic environmental analysis

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals of 1999 and the Transport Canada Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment, a strategic environmental assessment of these amendments was conducted in the form of a preliminary scan. The strategic environmental assessment concluded that the proposed amendments are not likely to have important environmental effects.

Consultation

The Authority’s major stakeholder is the Shipping Federation of Canada (the Federation), which represents the owners/operators of foreign-flag ships that operate within the Great Lakes system and are required to utilize the services of Authority pilots while transiting these waters. These foreign-flag ships represent 95% of the Authority’s business and the remaining 5% pertains to the Canadian domestic fleet represented by the Canadian Shipowners’ Association (the Association). The Association represents approximately 70 Canadian-flag ships and most of these ships do not utilize the services of Authority pilots. Approximately 10 ships within the domestic fleet, however, are Canadian tankers that employ the services of a pilot when transiting certain districts within the Authority’s jurisdiction or when the ship/cargo charterers require the ship to utilize the services of a pilot.

The Authority met with representatives from the Federation on January 7 and February 4, 2010, with the Association on January 8, 2010, and with the various port authorities and key stakeholders on January 15, 2010, to discuss current and future traffic levels within the Great Lakes and to present its current financial position. The Authority indicated that during the past two years, traffic levels have been seriously affected, averaging 25%–30% less than normal, due to the worldwide economic recession. This has had a significant impact on the Authority’s financial position and it has had to closely examine all reasonable means of eliminating its present $5.8 million accumulated deficit. To address its concerns, the Authority consequently introduced the following four proposed amendments:

(1) It is proposed that two additional classes of ships, Classes 5 and 6, be introduced. Such an amendment would allow the Authority’s tariff structure to become more closely aligned with other Canadian pilotage authorities. This change has been discussed since 1980, but has not been formally proposed until this time since the Federation has been opposed to the measure. In an effort to accommodate the Federation, the Authority modified its original proposal so that virtually all of the largest ships that currently transit the Great Lakes would be included in an extended Class 5 (rather than some of them being classified as Class 6). However, since members of the Federation have consistently rejected the introduction of Classes 5 and 6, both at its meetings and during discussions with the Authority, it is anticipated that the Federation will oppose this proposed amendment.

(2) A 30% tariff increase for the Port of Churchill, Manitoba, is proposed. The Federation, the Association and all other port operators are fully supportive of this increase. However, the Port of Churchill may not concur with this support based on principle or its competitiveness with other ports.

(3) The Lake Ontario District has received financial support from other districts for several years and in 2009 lost approximately $300,000. The proposed amendment to implement a 15% tariff charge is expected to generate $155,000 per annum and it is also anticipated that the proposed amendment to reclassify Class 5 and 6 ships transiting this District will augment further revenue. The Federation, the Association and all port operators and stakeholders support this proposed amendment.

(4) The 1.5% overall tariff increase, excluding the Port of Churchill and the Lake Ontario District, is expected to generate $185,000 annually and it is anticipated that all of the Authority’s stakeholders will support this proposed amendment.

At the Authority’s Board meeting on March 3, 2010, the Board members reviewed the Authority’s present financial situation and the need to implement these proposed amendments in order to maintain the long-term efficiency of the Great Lakes system and achieve financial self-sufficiency. The Board remains mindful of the Authority’s need to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis and to eliminate its deficit as contained in the directive by the Treasury Board and the Auditor General of Canada as outlined in its Special Examination Report of April 2008.

Based on the active participation and input throughout the consultative process with the Federation and the Association and the ongoing opposition by the Federation to the introduction of an extended Class 5 category within the Great Lakes, the Authority is of the opinion that this proposed amendment will not be fully supported. The Authority, however, expects that the remaining three proposed amendments will be supported.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

Section 45 of the Act provides an enforcement mechanism for these Regulations in that a Pilotage Authority can inform a customs officer at any port in Canada to withhold clearance from any ship for which pilotage charges are outstanding and unpaid. Section 48 of the Act stipulates that every person who fails to comply with the Act or regulations is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. These existing mechanisms are expected to be sufficient for the implementation and enforcement of the proposed amendments.

Contact

Mr. R. F. Lemire
Chief Executive Officer
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
P.O. Box 95
Cornwall, Ontario
K6H 5R9
Telephone: 613-933-2991
Fax: 613-932-3793

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 34(1) (see footnote a) of the Pilotage Act (see footnote b), that the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, pursuant to subsection 33(1) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff Regulations.

Interested persons who have reason to believe that any charge in the proposed Regulations is prejudicial to the public interest, including the public interest that is consistent with the national transportation policy set out in section 5 (see footnote c) of the Canada Transportation Act (see footnote d), may file a notice of objection setting out the grounds for the objection with the Canadian Transportation Agency within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. The notice of objection must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the Canadian Transportation Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N9.

Cornwall, April 22, 2010

ROBERT F. LEMIRE
Chief Executive Officer
Great Lake Pilotage Authority

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE TARIFF REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) Items 5 and 6 of the table to subsection 3(2) of the Great Lakes Pilotage Tariff Regulations (see footnote 1) are replaced by the following:

Item	Column 1 Location	Column 2 Pilotage Unit	Column 3 Weighting Factor
5.	Anywhere	More than 219 but not more than 269	1. 60
6.	Anywhere other than the Port of Churchill	More than 269	1. 75

(2) The portion of item 7 of the table to subsection 3(2) of the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 2 Pilotage Unit
7.	More than 269 but not more than 279

2. (1) Subsections 1(1) to (4) of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the basic charge for a passage, other than a movage, through International District No. 1 or any part of it and its contiguous waters is $16.64 for each kilometre ($27.69 for each statute mile), plus $369 for each lock transited.

(2) The minimum and maximum basic charges for a through trip through International District No. 1 and its contiguous waters are $809 and $3,550, respectively.

(3) The basic charge for a movage in International District No. 1 and its contiguous waters is $1,218.

(4) If a ship, during its passage through the Welland Canal, docks or undocks for any reason other than instructions given by The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the basic charge is $49 for each kilometre ($80.45 for each statute mile), plus $300 for each lock transited, with a minimum charge of $1001.

(2) The portion of items 1 to 15 of the table to subsection 1(5) of Schedule I to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 2 Basic Charge ($)
1.
(a)	1,845
(b)	1,845
2.	1,973
3.	1,164
4.	3,431
5.	1,973
6.	1,428
7.	3,977
8.	2,561
9.	1,973
10.	1,164
11.	2,581
12.	2,581
13.	2,004
14.	1,164
15.	1,428

(3) The portion of items 1 to 4 of the table to subsection 1(6) of Schedule I to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 2 Basic Charge ($)
1.	2,634
2.	2,206
3.	991
4.	991

3. (1) The portion of items 1 and 2 of the table to subsection 2(1) of Schedule I to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 2 Basic Charge ($)
1.   (a)	880
(b)	759
(c)	530
2.   (a)	838
(b)	584
(c)	507

(2) Subsection 2(3) of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) The basic charge for pilotage services consisting of a lockage and a movage between Buffalo and any point on the Niagara River below the Black Rock Lock is $1,492.

4. Subsections 3(1) and (2) of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

3. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if, for the convenience of a ship, a pilot is detained after the end of the pilot’s assignment or during an interruption of the passage of the ship through designated waters or contiguous waters, an additional basic charge of $71 is payable for each hour or part of an hour that the pilot is detained.

(2) The maximum basic charge payable under subsection (1) for any 24-hour period is $1,705.

5. Section 4 of Schedule I to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if the departure or movage of a ship to which a pilot has been assigned is delayed for the convenience of the ship for more than one hour after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, a basic charge of $71 is payable for each hour or part of an hour, including the first hour, of that delay.

(2) The maximum basic charge payable under subsection (1) for any 24-hour period is $1,705.

6. Subsections 5(1) to (3) of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

5. (1) If a request for pilotage services is cancelled after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, the basic charge is $1,471.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), if a request for pilotage services is cancelled more than one hour after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, in addition to the basic charge set out in subsection (1), a basic charge of $71 is payable for each hour or part of an hour, including the first hour, between the time the pilot reports for duty and the time of cancellation.

(3) The maximum basic charge payable under subsection (2) for any 24-hour period is $1,705.

7. Subsections 7(1) and (2) of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

7. (1) If a pilot is unable to board a ship at the normal boarding point and, to board it, must travel beyond the area for which the pilot’s services are requested, a basic charge of $423 is payable for each 24-hour period or part of a 24-hour period during which the pilot is away from the normal boarding point.

(2) If a pilot is carried on a ship beyond the area for which the pilot’s services are requested, a basic charge of $423 is payable for each 24-hour period or part of a 24-hour period before the pilot is returned to the place where the pilot normally would have disembarked.

8. The portion of items 1 to 4 of the table to section 1 of Schedule II to the Regulations in columns 2 and 3 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 2 Basic Charge ($)	Column 3 Minimum Basic Charge ($)
1.	3,929	N/A
2.	18.04 for each kilometre (30.02 for each statute mile), plus 501 for each lock transited	1011
3.	704	N/A
4.	1,513	N/A

9. Subsections 4(1) and (2) of Schedule II to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

4. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), if, for the convenience of a ship, a pilot is detained after the end of the pilot’s assignment or during an interruption of the passage of the ship through the Cornwall District, an additional basic charge of $132 is payable for each hour or part of an hour that the pilot is detained.

(2) The maximum basic charge payable under subsection (1) for any 24-hour period is $3,167.

10. Section 5 of Schedule II to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if the departure or movage of a ship to which a pilot has been assigned is delayed for the convenience of the ship for more than one hour after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, a basic charge of $132 is payable for each hour or part of an hour of that delay, including the first hour.

(2) The maximum basic charge payable under subsection (1) for any 24-hour period is $3,167.

11. Subsections 6(1) to (3) of Schedule II to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

6. (1) If a request for pilotage services is cancelled after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, the basic charge is $1,498.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), if a request for pilotage services is cancelled more than one hour after the pilot reports for duty at the designated boarding point, in addition to the basic charge set out in subsection (1), a basic charge of $132 is payable for each hour or part of an hour, including the first hour, between the time the pilot reports for duty and the time of the cancellation.

(3) The maximum basic charge payable under subsection (2) for any 24-hour period is $3,167.

12. The portion of items 1 and 2 of the table to section 1 of Schedule III to the Regulations in column 2 is replaced by the following:

Item	Column 2 Basic Charge ($)
1.	1,434
2.	1,002

COMING INTO FORCE

13. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[18-1-o]

Footnote a
S.C. 1998, c. 10, s. 150

Footnote b
R.S., c. P-14

Footnote c
S.C. 2007, c. 19, s. 2

Footnote d
S.C. 1996, c. 10

Footnote 1
SOR/84-253, SOR/96-409

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).