ARCHIVED — Vol. 147, No. 17 — April 27, 2013

Regulations Amending the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Statutory authority

Marine Transportation Security Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

1. Executive summary

Issue: While Canada’s current marine security regulatory framework is robust, enhancements must be made over time in order to continuously improve and deliver a secure transportation system for Canadians in the face of rapidly evolving threats. In addition, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has called on the contracting states to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), to which Canada is a member, to harmonize their regulations with the new training requirements for vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities.

Description: The proposed amendments to the Marine Transportation Security Regulations (the Regulations) will introduce amendments that respond to Canada’s international obligations, further harmonize the Canadian regulatory regime with the U.S. regime, reduce financial and regulatory compliance burden, where possible, and address interpretation issues and regulatory gaps.

Cost-benefit statement: The benefits of the proposed amendments would include improved marine security, enhanced marine sector efficiency and flexibility, international harmonization, and improved regulatory clarity and consistency. If the proposed amendments prevent just one significant act of unlawful interference at a large Canadian port, they could result in benefits between $20 million and $57 billion.

The proposed amendments would result in costs to seafarers and vessel operators between $16.0 million and $19.3 million over 25 years, due to enhanced seafarer security training requirements, including $0.1 million in administrative costs. Other provisions are not expected to result in significant incremental costs. Transport Canada expects that the benefits of the proposed amendments would significantly exceed the costs.

Business and consumer impacts: The proposed amendments are not expected to result in significant impacts on business (including small business) or consumers. Costs for individual vessel operators would be proportionate to the size of their operations (smaller businesses, with fewer vessels and seafarers, would incur lower costs).

The proposed amendments may benefit the competitiveness of some Canadian firms, in particular tugs and barges operating on Canada’s west coast. Impacts on domestic and international trade are expected to be low but positive.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) would better align our regulatory approaches in order to eliminate duplication and impediments to trade without compromising marine security, where appropriate. The proposed amendments include two key provisions that will further harmonize the Canadian marine security regime with that of the United States: further aligning the Canadian list of certain dangerous cargoes (CDC) with that of the United States and introducing the flexibility to enter into an alternative security arrangement (ASA) with other countries, including the United States.

2. Background

Canada’s marine security regulatory framework establishes baseline requirements to safeguard the integrity and security and to preserve the efficiency of Canada’s marine transportation system against unlawful interference, terrorist attacks, or use as a means to attack Canada’s allies.

Marine security regulatory requirements apply to

  • the marine industry (e.g. ports, marine facilities, vessels);
  • persons carrying out marine activities (e.g. persons on vessels, security officials working in ports, marine facilities and vessels); and
  • passengers at marine facilities, ports and on board vessels.

Canada’s marine laws are greatly influenced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to which Canada is a member state. The lead federal department, Transport Canada (TC), works closely with the shipping industry and international partners to ensure that Canada’s marine transportation system remains one of the safest and most secure in the world. Moreover, TC develops and promotes risk-based marine security requirements through regulations and other instruments as appropriate to achieve acceptable levels of marine security.

In December 2002, in response to the events of September 11, 2001, the IMO adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) as well as amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) to significantly enhance the deterrence, prevention and detection of acts that threaten security in the marine transportation sector. The ISPS Code sets out a framework that gives member states a common way to measure risk, reduce threats and make vessels and marine facilities less vulnerable through well-defined security levels and procedures. All SOLAS-contracting states, including Canada, were required to adopt the ISPS Code on or before July 1, 2004. Canada implemented the Code through the Regulations, which came into force on July 1, 2004, established under the authority of section 5 of the Marine Transportation Security Act (MTSA).

3. Issue

Canada’s marine security regulatory instruments establish an essential framework for the federally regulated marine industry (ports, marine facilities, vessels) and persons carrying out activities related to marine transportation in order to prepare for, prevent and respond to security threats and risks. While TC’s current marine regulatory framework is robust, enhancements must be made over time in order to continuously improve and deliver a secure transportation system for Canadians.

Transport Canada and the marine community recognize that the Regulations require amendments from time to time given the growth of the TC Marine Security Program and the ever-changing security environment that the marine community faces both domestically and internationally. Due to the short time frame to adopt the ISPS Code, TC was hindered in developing and implementing the Regulations and the Program simultaneously by July 2004. The implementation time frame made it difficult to foresee some of the challenges these requirements would pose to the marine community. As a result, applying the Regulations for the last eight years has led to the identification of gaps and sources of misinterpretation due to both the structure and wording of the Regulations. A notable misinterpretation identified among all regions is whether a Canadian-flagged vessel is required to interface with a regulated marine facility while on a domestic voyage (see footnote 1) or the domestic portion of an international voyage.

In addition, the IMO, to which Canada is a member state, continues to establish new international standards and recommended practices for marine safety and security in consultation with all member states. Canada must ensure that it continues to respond to its international obligations and must remain aligned with its international partners, including the United States, in order to facilitate Canada’s trade competitiveness within the international shipping world. Canada is required to adopt recent changes that have been made to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW).

Furthermore, the Regulations need to be amended to further align the regulatory framework with additional security practices that are already being implemented by the majority of the regulated Canadian marine community, to reduce the financial and the regulatory burdens by providing additional flexibility for Canadian-flagged vessels regulated by the Regulations, to further harmonize, where possible, the Canadian regulatory regime with that of the United States, and to address regulatory gaps and sources of misinterpretation such as unclear wording and redundancies.

4. Objectives

The objective of the proposed amendments to the Regulations is to further strengthen and revitalize the marine transportation security framework which supports the Government’s overall strategy to promote a safe, secure and efficient transportation system that contributes to Canada’s economic development and security objectives.

The proposed amendments to the Regulations support the Government of Canada’s Red Tape Reduction Commission by reducing the financial and the regulatory burdens on industry, where possible. The proposed amendments also address areas that Canada could further harmonize with the U.S. marine security regulatory regime. This is a key element of the mandate of the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC).

To summarize, the proposed amendments focus on the following objectives to revitalize and renew the existing regulatory framework:

  • respond to Canada’s international obligations;
  • harmonize, where possible, the Canadian regulatory regime with that of the United States (RCC);
  • reduce financial and regulatory burdens; and
  • address interpretation issues and regulatory gaps.

5. Description

A description of the proposed amendments is set out according to the four above-mentioned objectives.

Respond to Canada’s international obligations

In order to meet their international obligations, all SOLAS contracting states, including Canada, must adopt the recent changes that have been made to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) for seafarers. The changes require that all seafarers, with or without security responsibilities, be properly educated and trained, adequately experienced, skilled and competent to perform their duties and be required to hold a certificate of proficiency by January 1, 2012.

The proposed amendments to the Regulations require that all vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities on Canadian-flagged SOLAS ships engaged on international voyages hold a certificate of proficiency issued by the Minister by January 1, 2012, and add a transitional provision that would allow vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities until January 1, 2014, to obtain a certificate of proficiency providing that they commenced sea service before January 1, 2012. Given the short implementation time frames associated with the new IMO requirements, a Marine Security Operations Bulletin (MSOB) was issued on March 22, 2012, to advise industry to comply with the newly proposed STCW requirements. TC has taken this approach in the past to meet other short implementation time frames set by the IMO to adopt mandatory requirements.

This transitional provision in the proposed amendment gives seafarers who have sea service prior to January 1, 2012, the opportunity to receive their certificates of proficiency without taking the required training if they can demonstrate knowledge and competence in performing their duties to their ship’s master. If so, the master would be required to sign a testimonial confirming that the conditions have been met before a certificate of proficiency can be issued by the Minister.

Individuals who commence sea service after January 2012 must successfully complete their training at an institution recognized by TC.

The proposed amendments also encompass other minor changes required by the IMO, such as

  • requiring vessel operators to mark the vessel with an IMO number;
  • requiring vessel operators to clearly identify each restricted area on the vessel; and
  • amending existing provisions, consistent with IMO recommendations to facilitate the coordination of shore leave for seafarers and to facilitate the coordination for access to vessels by seafarers’ welfare and labour organizations, including the International Transport Workers’ Federation representatives.
Harmonize the Canadian regulatory regime with that of the United States

Since the inception of the Regulations in 2004, TC has strived to align its regulatory regime, where possible, with the U.S. marine security regime to allow for the consistent application of requirements. The proposed amendments include two key provisions that will further harmonize the Canadian marine safety regulatory regime with that of the United States:

  1. Vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes (CDC)
    Currently, Canadian and U.S. marine security regulations capture certain-sized vessels if they are carrying CDCs. However, at present the U.S. list of CDCs is more expansive than the Canadian list of CDCs. As a result of this misalignment, since 2004 Canadian vessels crossing over to the United States are subject to greater inspection from U.S. inspectors. Further, this misalignment means that Canadian industry cannot compete fairly with its American counterparts. This situation creates an uneven playing field and an economic disadvantage for Canada’s west coast tug and barge industry. The proposed amendment includes a new schedule to the Regulations that contains an expanded list of Canadian CDCs that is aligned with the U.S. CDC list. Amending the Regulations to harmonize the CDC list with that of the United States will improve the Canadian industry’s competitiveness.
  2. Adding the flexibility to enter into alternative security arrangements (ASA)
    In 2004, the IMO adopted a provision in the ISPS Code that included the use of ASAs for all IMO member states. An ASA program allows SOLAS contracting states, which include Canada and the United States, to enter into arrangements to modify certain ISPS Code requirements in situations where they may be unreasonable or too cumbersome to apply. In 2004, the United States included a provision with respect to ASAs in its regulatory regime. However, due to the extremely tight deadline of implementing the Regulations in July 2004, ASAs were not included in the Canadian regulations. This regulatory amendment would address the existing gap and align Canada’s regime with that of the United States. For example, the ASA program would provide Canada the flexibility to enter into an arrangement with the United States to allow the two countries to agree to an amended security regime in a particular shared border area (e.g. a Great Lakes regime where the regulatory requirements of both countries are mutually recognized).
    During consultations on the proposed amendments to the Regulations, industry stakeholders expressed their support for both the ASA program and a list of CDCs harmonized with that of the United States, which would facilitate the reduction of duplicate requirements and improve the competitiveness of Canadian industry.
Reduce financial and regulatory compliance burdens (Red Tape Reduction initiative)

As part of TC’s ongoing commitment to reduce an unnecessary regulatory compliance burden for industry stakeholders without compromising marine security, TC is proposing to clarify through regulations that Canadian-flagged vessels may interface with non-regulated ports and facilities while on a domestic voyage. The application section of Part 2, subsection 201(2), of the Regulations would be amended to clarify that Part 2 does not apply to Canadian-flagged vessels operating on a domestic voyage or the domestic portion of an international voyage except when the vessel has an interface with a foreign-flagged vessel in Canadian waters. In addition, a vessel would be required to interface with a regulated marine facility at its last port of call in Canada before engaging on an international voyage and when returning to Canadian waters from an international voyage.

This clarification will ensure that those operators of the Canadian domestic fleet who engage on international and domestic voyages clearly have the choice, depending on their business needs, to interface with either regulated or non-regulated ports and facilities while on a domestic voyage or the domestic portion of an international voyage. As non-regulated ports and facilities generally have lower fees than regulated ones, the Canadian domestic fleet could see a reduction in its costs.

Address interpretation issues

The proposed amendments include restructuring or rewording of certain provisions and definitions of the Regulations that required clarification of their intent. This restructuring was undertaken after consultation with both Government and industry stakeholders to respond to their concerns that certain provisions and definitions are unclear and difficult to understand. For example, in the current Regulations, many of the definitions are located throughout the Regulations which made it cumbersome for stakeholders to locate. In the proposed amendments, the definitions are placed in the “Interpretation” section of the Regulations. Along with amendments to several existing definitions, several new definitions are proposed to further enhance clarity. Notable amendments to the definitions include international voyage, MARSEC levels, certain dangerous cargoes (CDC), CDC facility and marine security document.

These minor amendments make it easier for industry stakeholders to read and better understand the intent and their obligations within the Regulations.

Address regulatory gaps

A focal point of the proposed amendments to the Regulations is to address certain regulatory gaps that do not involve extensive program and policy development and to align the marine security regulatory framework with international requirements and/or security practices that industry stakeholders have already implemented. Notable amendments are presented below by the specific Part of the Regulations in which they are located.

Part 1 — General
  • Suspension and cancellation of marine security document
  • The proposed amendments introduce new suspension and cancellation provisions with respect to marine security documents, which include vessel certificates and statements of compliance, issued to marine facility operators and port administrations. The Regulations do not include provisions to cancel or suspend a marine security document, i.e. when an operator is not in compliance with its security plan or no longer satisfies the conditions under which the marine security document was issued. This would be consistent with other TC modes of transportation, such as the aviation sector, which have cancellation and suspension provisions with respect to security documents issued to operators.
  • Review and appeal mechanisms
  • The proposed amendments also include a provision to allow operators and port administrations a mechanism to request reconsideration of the Minister’s decision to cancel or suspend a marine security document.
  • The Minister shall notify the operator in writing of the suspension or cancellation and advise that they may file a request for a review by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC). The TATC is an independent, quasi-judicial body that was established in 2001 under the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act. This review and appeal process is consistent with the existing appeal process for the suspension and cancellation of a person’s certificate of proficiency in Part 8 of the Regulations.
Part 2 — Vessels
  • The proposed amendments to the Regulations would introduce or amend three pre-arrival information reporting (PAIR) data requirements that the master of a vessel shall report before entering Canadian waters. In addition to current data reporting requirements, before entering Canadian waters, the master of a SOLAS vessel would be required to report
    • (i) the IMO company identification number;
    • (ii) the next port of call in Canada; and
    • (iii) details of security threats, incidents and breaches at sea.
  • These additional reporting requirements are a result of lessons learned since the implementation of the Regulations in 2004. The new data requirements would further facilitate vessel identification at the Marine Security Operating Centres.
  • The Regulations include a new provision that caps the validity period of an interim ship security certificate to six months from issuance or until an inspection is carried out. This would allow vessels to continue to operate pending the inspection carried out under section 23 of the MTSA, which is required in order to have the security plan approved by the Minister.
  • The proposed amendments to the Regulations include new access control and prohibition provisions with respect to restricted areas on a vessel. While the current Regulations include access control provisions for marine facilities and ports, similar provisions do not exist for vessels. This would align the regulatory framework with additional security practices that are already implemented by the majority of the vessel community. It also demonstrates a level of consistency with respect to applying access control provisions for federally regulated marine security stakeholders.
  • Proposed amendments include a provision that requires vessel operators to clearly identify each restricted area on the vessel. This would align the regulatory framework with mandatory international requirements. This proposed amendment is further aligned with security practices that are already implemented by the majority of the vessel community.
  • Another new provision would require that the master of a Canadian-flagged vessel ensure that the vessel security officer and all personnel with or without security responsibilities carry on board their certificates of proficiency issued under Part 8 of the Regulations. This would be consistent with the mandatory STCW requirements for SOLAS contracting states.
Part 3 — Marine facilities and ports
  • The proposed amendments to the Regulations would introduce a new provision that requires occasional-use marine facilities (OUMF) to submit security procedures to the Minister for approval. The regulatory requirements of the security procedures are prescribed in the amended Regulations and include a provision that sets out the validation period of the approved security procedures not to exceed five years from the date approved. Current Regulations require OUMFs to implement security procedures and ensure that they are coordinated with the vessel interfacing with the marine facility. However, the procedures are not submitted to and approved by the Minister. This would formalize the approval process and further align the regulatory framework with additional security practices that are already implemented by the majority of the OUMF community.
  • The proposed amendments to the Regulations include a new provision to allow for an interim statement of compliance for marine facilities and ports, with a validity period of six months from issuance, or until an inspection is carried out. This would allow marine facilities and ports to continue to operate pending the inspection carried out under section 23 of the MTSA which is required in order to have the security plan approved by the Minister.
  • A new provision will require that port security committee meetings be held, at a minimum, on an annual basis. The current Regulations did not prescribe the frequency for port security committee meetings.
  • A new provision will require marine facilities, OUMFs and port administrations to clearly mark restricted areas with signs. This would further align the regulatory framework with additional security practices that are implemented by the majority of the marine facilities and port administration community.
Part 6 — Contravention of provisions designated as violations
  • The proposed amendments to Schedule 3 of the Regulations include minor housekeeping amendments and new monetary penalties as a result of new provisions such as the new IMO requirements. The range of penalties established for various violations is, to the extent possible, set out in a manner and amount consistent with the penalty levels under other legislation within the mandate of Transport Canada, particularly the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

6. Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

The considered options of the proposed amendments are set out according to the four mentioned objectives.

Respond to Canada’s international obligations
Option 1: Status quo / voluntary compliance

Maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable alternative nor is having the marine industry voluntarily comply with the new mandatory IMO requirements for all vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities to hold a certificate of proficiency by January 1, 2012. It would leave Canada outside the international legal framework for marine security and would have significant adverse effects on trade. Furthermore, failure to do so through a regulatory or other legally enforceable framework would be interpreted by other SOLAS contracting states, as a default on an international commitment to increase security in the marine sector. Such a perception could adversely affect Canada’s relations with major trading partners, in particular the United States, as well as attract threats to the North American continent and increase the possibility of a transportation security incident such as terrorism.

There are no advantages to this option.

Option 2: Mandatory certification of vessel personnel

The disadvantage of this option is that there will be some costs to, and impacts on, seafarers and operators. As these impacts are not expected to be significant, the analysis has determined that the benefits of this option far outweigh the costs.

The advantage of this option is that it would standardize the level of security training for vessel personnel, ensure Canada’s compliance with international agreements and provide vessel personnel with an internationally recognized document. Industry is generally supportive of the proposed amendments as it will ensure that Canada’s approach is consistent with that of its major trading partners. Costs to, and impacts on, seafarers, marine transportation operations and institutions are not expected to be significant. This option is considered the most effective to address this IMO mandatory requirement.

This holds true for other IMO mandatory requirements, such as requiring vessel operators to mark the vessel with their assigned IMO number and requiring vessel operators to clearly identify each restricted area on the vessel.

Harmonize the Canadian regulatory regime with that of the United States
Option 1: Status quo / voluntary compliance

Amending the CDC definition

Lack of action would not enhance security and would place the west coast tug and barge industry on an uneven playing field with its U.S. counterparts across the marine border, thereby impeding the flow of goods and people across the border. Voluntary compliance is not considered the most viable solution as it is bound to create gaps and inconsistencies in the application of marine security requirements across the marine border. In addition, it would be inconsistent with the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) initiative between Canada and the United States which strives to align regulatory approaches where possible, in order to eliminate duplication and impediments to trade without compromising marine security.

There are no advantages to this option. Given the financial implication and the increased inspections on the tug and barge industry by the United States, a non-regulatory option would not be the most effective instrument of choice to address this issue.

Alternative security arrangements

Not including ASAs in the Regulations disadvantages Canada with respect to the flexibility to enter into and implement ASAs with the United States and other SOLAS contracting states to modify certain regulatory requirements in situations where they may be unreasonable or too cumbersome. Furthermore, in 2004, IMO adopted a provision in the ISPS Code that included the use of ASAs for all SOLAS contracting states.

There are no advantages to this option. It does not align with Canada’s ongoing commitment to harmonize its marine security requirements where possible with those of the United States.

Option 2: Amend the Regulations to further harmonize them with those of the United States with respect to amending the CDC definition and including ASAs

The advantage of this option is that it further strengthens Canada’s ongoing commitment with the United States to enhance border security via the marine mode. In addition, this option is consistent with previous amendments made to the Regulations to harmonize them with those of the United States in the interest of marine security and the flow of goods and people. Furthermore, both of these proposed amendments to the Regulations were identified through the joint Canada and United States RCC initiative, whose goal is to better align the regulatory approaches of both countries, in order to eliminate duplication of regulatory program efforts and impediments to trade, where appropriate.

During consultations, industry stakeholders widely supported TC’s proposed action to amend the Regulations with respect to aligning with the U.S. list of CDCs and including the flexibility to enter into ASAs with the United States and other countries. This option is considered to be the most viable method to enhance marine security and to further facilitate the flow of goods and people between the shared marine border with the United States.

Reducing the financial and the regulatory compliance burdens (Red Tape Reduction initiative)
Allow Canadian-flagged vessels to interface with unregulated marine facilities

The action taken is a result of industry stakeholders approaching TC to request flexibility regarding the requirement of Canadian-flagged vessels interfacing with a regulated marine facility while on a domestic voyage.

The “application” subsection of Part 2, subsection 201(2), of the Regulations is proposed to be amended to clarify that Part 2 does not apply to Canadian-flagged vessels while operating on a domestic voyage or the domestic portion of an international voyage.

Option 1: Voluntary compliance

This option was considered. However, it was deemed that it would create gaps and inconsistencies in the application of Canada’s marine security regime with respect to domestic vessels on a domestic voyage. Furthermore, this option is inconsistent with TC’s commitment to ensure that the Regulations are clear, concise and understood by government officials, industry stakeholders and the general public.

Option 2: Clarify through regulations the requirements for Canada’s domestic fleet on domestic voyages

The disadvantage of this option is that it requires Canadian-flagged vessel operators to include procedures in their security plan to mitigate security risks when interfacing with a non-regulated marine facility when operating on the domestic portion of an international voyage. However, during consultations, vessel operators supported including an additional security procedure in their security plan given the benefits associated with the flexibility to interface with a non-regulated marine facility.

The advantage of this option is that it clarifies Canada’s marine security regime, which is centered on securing vessels, ports and marine facilities involved in international voyages. This option is expected to have no negative impact on the security of Canadians as it would be aligned with Canada’s risk-based approach to securing its marine transportation system. Furthermore, those vessels that form Canada’s domestic fleet who choose to exercise this flexibility, based on business needs, would see a reduction in their financial and regulatory compliance burden which would far outweigh the cost, if any, to include a procedure in their security plan. This is consistent with the mandate of the Government of Canada’s Red Tape Reduction Commission, which is to reduce the financial and regulatory compliance burden to industry.

This option is considered to be the most viable method as it ensures that the Regulations are internally more consistent and make it easier for industry stakeholders to better understand the intent and their obligations under the Regulations.

Address interpretation issues

There are no viable alternatives regarding the proposed amendments to the Regulations that clarify the intent of certain provisions and definitions. These amendments are intended to ensure that the Regulations are internally more consistent and make it easier for industry stakeholders to read and better understand the intent and their obligations within the Regulations. During stakeholder consultations, industry raised the issue of improving the clarity of various provisions and definitions in the Regulations, which will address operational problems generated by the Regulations that came into force on July 1, 2004.

Address regulatory gaps

The options represent all regulatory gaps in a general fashion as presented in the “Description” section.

Option 1: Status quo / voluntary compliance

The advantages of the status quo option are that it would minimize operational impacts and regulatory compliance requirements with vessels, marine facilities and ports and would imply minimal additional costs, if any, to industry.

The disadvantages are that it would not address operational problems generated by the Regulations that came into force on July 1, 2004. For that reason, it would not enhance the security of Canada’s marine transportation system. This option is not considered to be the most viable method to enhance marine security nor is relying on industry’s voluntary compliance to bridge the identified regulatory gaps. Voluntary compliance would create inconsistencies given the complexity of the marine industry, in particular, foreign-flagged vessels entering Canadian waters that are regulated under the Regulations.

Option 2: Address regulatory gaps by amending the Regulations

The disadvantage of this option is that it further regulates industry which may lead to additional costs in order to comply.

The advantage of this option is that it further aligns the regulatory framework with additional security practices that are already implemented by the majority of industry stakeholders. Some of the regulatory gaps addressed in the proposed amendments were put forward by industry stakeholders.

This option is considered the most viable as it demonstrates a strong commitment by TC to continue to enhance and re-invigorate the marine security legal framework. In addition, it is considered the most effective instrument with respect to enforcement of foreign-flagged vessels that enter Canadian waters.

7. Benefits and costs

Transport Canada has conducted an analysis of benefits and costs to assess the impacts of the proposed amendments on stakeholders, including seafarers, vessel operators, marine facilities, marine security training providers, and TC. The Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) report is available on request.

Benefits

The proposed amendments would result in a range of benefits to stakeholders, including

  • improved marine security;
  • enhanced efficiency and flexibility;
  • international harmonization; and
  • improved regulatory clarity and consistency.
Improved marine security

The security benefits of the proposed amendments are primarily a function of the risk and impact of acts and attempted acts of unlawful interference with marine transportation under baseline conditions and following implementation of the proposed amendments. However, as with the analysis of other security regulations, it is not possible to quantify or monetize these benefits given that both the risk and impact (baseline and regulated) are subjective and uncertain.

Canada’s marine security system is already robust. The proposed amendments would update and fine-tune elements of the existing system in light of evolving threats, and international and domestic best practices. Security improvements would result primarily from

  • Seafarer training, awareness and orientation: The proposed requirement that all seafarers, with or without security responsibilities on Canadian-flagged vessels engaged on international voyages, receive security training, would result in a seafarer community that is more alert to security risks, and better prepared in the event of a security incident.
  • Suspension and cancellation of marine security documents: The proposed suspension and cancellation provisions would ensure that, in the event that an operator is not in compliance with its security plan or no longer satisfies the conditions under which a security document was issued, the relevant marine security documents could be suspended or cancelled. In situations where an operator is non-compliant, there may be security risks that could be mitigated with these provisions, although these situations are expected to arise infrequently.
  • Pre-arrival information reporting: The proposed additions to pre-arrival information reporting data requirements would facilitate vessel identification at Marine Security Operating Centres, and ensure that TC is aware of any security incidents that may have occurred before or after entering Canadian waters (important indicators of risk).

The proposed access control and prohibition provisions, and restricted area identification provisions requiring security procedures from occasional-use marine facilities (OUMFs), would improve marine security. However, given that baseline conformity is already high, the incremental impact on marine security may be low.

A terrorist attack at a Canadian port could result in significant negative impacts such as loss of life, property damage and reduced international trade flows. Security gaps in the Canadian marine sector could also result in vulnerabilities throughout Canada. In order to assess the marine security benefits of the proposed amendments, and in the absence of Canada-specific impact studies, studies of the benefits of preventing terrorist attacks on a U.S. port were adjusted to reflect the order of magnitude of impacts in the Canadian context (see Table 1). These estimates show that the benefits of preventing just one imminent attack could be significant, and range between $20 million and $57 billion.

Table 1: The benefits of preventing a terrorist attack at a Canadian port, literature review

Author

Attack

Impact estimate (original)

Benefit of preventing a similar scenario in Canada (see footnote 2)

Rosoff and Winterfeldt, 2007

Dirty bomb in LA/Long Beach ports

$130 million to $100 billion, depending on length of shutdown (assumes zero lives lost) [assume 2007 USD]

$20 million to $57 billion

Gordon et al.

LA/Long Beach ports

From $1.1 billion to $34 billion (assume 2000 USD)

$141 million to $19 billion

Enhanced efficiency and flexibility

The proposed amendments would improve the efficiency and flexibility of the Regulations.

  • Interface with non-regulated Canadian ports and facilities: Improved clarity with respect to Canadian-flagged SOLAS and non-SOLAS vessels interfacing with non-regulated marine facilities is expected to result in an increase in the number of such interfaces, improved efficiency and savings for vessel operators.
  • Flexibility for alternative security arrangements (ASAs): An ASA program would allow the Government of Canada to enter into arrangements to modify certain ISPS Code requirements in situations where they may be unreasonable or too cumbersome to apply. For example, the proposed amendments would provide the flexibility to apply an amended security regime in a shared border area such as the Great Lakes (e.g. a Great Lakes regime where the regulatory requirements of both countries are mutually recognized). Such a regime could result in efficiencies and savings for stakeholders operating in applicable shared border areas.
  • Certain dangerous cargoes (CDCs): The U.S. list of CDCs is more expansive than the Canadian list. As a result, Canadian vessels entering the United States are subject to greater inspection and administrative burdens from U.S. inspectors than their U.S.-based competitors. The resulting misalignment has been particularly disadvantageous for Canada’s west coast tug and barge stakeholders. The proposed amendments would further align Canada’s CDC list with the U.S. list, with potential competitiveness benefits to stakeholders, including operators of the estimated 380 barge-towing tugs and 1 215 barges in British Columbia.
  • Interim ship security certificate validity period: The proposed six-month cap to the validity period of an interim ship security certificate would provide greater flexibility to vessel operators, allowing them to operate pending completion of a TC inspection.
  • Marine facility and port interim statements of compliance: Similarly, the proposed six-month validity period for marine facility and port interim statements of compliance would provide greater flexibility to these stakeholders, allowing them to operate pending completion of a TC inspection.
International harmonization and Canada–United States regulatory cooperation

The proposed amendments would further harmonize Canada’s marine security regulations with international practices, delivering greater consistency in the marine security system, and ensuring that Canada meets its international obligations. Specific provisions promoting international harmonization and Canada–United States regulatory cooperation include

  • International harmonization: Seafarer training, awareness and orientation, vessel marking, access for seafarer welfare and labour organizations; and
  • Canada–United States regulatory cooperation: Alternative security arrangements and certain dangerous cargoes.
Improved regulatory clarity and consistency

The proposed amendments would benefit stakeholders via improved clarity and consistency in existing practices, with negligible impacts on stakeholders.

  • Port security committee meetings: The proposed requirement for annual port committee meetings is consistent with the current practice at Canadian ports and would not introduce any incremental burden to stakeholders.
  • Restricted area signage: The proposed requirement for marine facilities, OUMFs and port administrations to clearly mark restricted areas with signs would align the Regulations with existing security practices in place at most marine facilities and ports, with negligible costs. Similarly, vessel operators are required to identify each restricted area on a vessel.
  • Documentation — certificates of proficiency: The proposed requirement for vessel security officers and all personnel with and without security responsibilities to carry on board their certificates of proficiency would facilitate Transport Canada inspection activities, with negligible costs to stakeholders.
  • Contravention of provisions designated as violations: The proposed amendments would include minor housekeeping changes to ensure greater consistency between the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Regulations.
  • Structure and clarity: Overall, the structure of the Regulations would be improved to promote a fuller understanding of the Regulations and facilitate the identification and understanding of individual provisions by all stakeholders.

Costs

The proposed amendments would result in some incremental costs to stakeholders, primarily due to enhanced security training provisions for seafarers with or without security responsibilities.

Costs to industry

The proposed amendments would require seafarers to acquire training and/or demonstrate knowledge and competence in performing their duties. Specific input assumptions underlying this estimation are provided in Table 2.

For the purposes of the analysis, TC assumes that in calendar year 2013, existing seafarers with security responsibilities (who are not grandfathered (see footnote 3) — assumption 7 in Table 2) would take the required training, such that in 2014 and every year thereafter, only new seafarers with security responsibilities would be required to take the training. TC assumes that most seafarers would be able to receive training at a local training facility, although some would be required to travel (assumptions 11 and 12).

Similarly, it is assumed that in calendar year 2013, those existing seafarers without security responsibilities (who are not grandfathered — assumption 8) would attend awareness sessions, such that in 2014 and every year thereafter, only new seafarers without security responsibilities would be required to attend awareness sessions. Some travel costs may be incurred (assumptions 11 and 12).

Transport Canada assumes that new and existing seafarers with or without security responsibilities would attend orientation sessions in 2013 and thereafter.

Table 2: Security training, awareness and orientation input assumptions

Variable

Value

Source

1

Total seafarers in 2011

13 570

Section 3.2

2

Annual growth rate of seafarer population

0.68%

Section 3.2

3

Share of seafarers with security responsibilities

33.3%

TC subject-matter experts

4

Share of seafarers without security responsibilities

66.7%

TC subject-matter experts

5

Annual turnover, all seafarers

12.24%

Section 3.2

6

Average hourly wage per seafarer

$25.63 to $54.63

Section 3.2

7

2011 seafarers with security responsibilities grandfathered

50% to 75%

TC subject-matter experts

8

2011 seafarers without security responsibilities grandfathered

50% to 75%

TC subject-matter experts

9

Seafarers with security responsibilities — cost per training session

$400 to $600

TC subject-matter experts

10

Seafarers without security responsibilities — cost per awareness session

$250 to $400

TC subject-matter experts

11

Share of seafarers required to travel for training

30% to 50%

TC subject-matter experts

12

Average cost of travel

$100 to $200

Estimate of one-day hospitality

13

Duration of training session

7.5 hours

TC subject-matter experts

14

Duration of awareness session

4.5 hours

TC subject-matter experts

15

Duration of orientation session

0.5 to 1 hour

TC subject-matter experts

Using these assumptions, TC estimates that the present value of costs to seafarers and their employers of the training, awareness and orientation provisions of the proposed amendments would be $17.5 million over 25 years. (see footnote 4) As illustrated in Table 2, TC subject-matter experts identified uncertainty and/or variability with respect to estimates of a number of key input variables (e.g. seafarer wage rate, grandfathering rate). Taking this uncertainty and/or variability into account, TC estimates that there is a 90% likelihood that the total cost would be between $15.9 million and $19.2 million.

It is important to note that these costs include both “out-of-pocket” costs (e.g. training course fees and travel costs) and opportunity costs (e.g. the value of seafarer time). “Out-of-pocket” costs are estimated to be $11.2 million over 25 years, with opportunity costs estimated to be $6.3 million. To the extent that seafarers can receive training, awareness and/or orientation sessions without working overtime (e.g. during “down time”), the impact of these opportunity costs may be reduced. Security training costs estimated on a “per seafarer” basis are provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Training, awareness and orientation costs per seafarer

 

Training

Awareness

Orientation

Total

Seafarers with security
responsibilities

Requiring training

Not requiring training (grandfathered)

$801 (see footnote 5)


0

0

0

$30

$30

$831

$30

Seafarers without security
responsibilities

Requiring training

Not requiring training (grandfathered)

$0


0

$506 (see

footnote 6)

0

$30


$30

$536


$30

Travel and hospitality (if needed)

$150

$150

$0

 

The proposed amendments would provide an opportunity for seafarers in service prior to January 1, 2012, to receive their certificates of proficiency without taking the aforementioned training if they can demonstrate to their ship’s master knowledge and competence in performing their duties. To do so, the master would be required to download, print and sign a form confirming that these conditions have been met (taking 10 to 30 minutes per seafarer). Overall, TC estimates that this would result in administrative costs of $0.1 million, incurred in 2013, with an annualized cost over the period of analysis of less than $10,000. Additional administrative costs, e.g. for pre-arrival information reporting, would be negligible.

Costs of other proposed regulatory provisions are expected to be negligible, as they are designed to

  • (a) Align the Regulations with international requirements that have already been implemented by existing facilities or vessels, with no incremental cost expected for these stakeholders:
    • a. Vessel marking; and
    • b. Seafarer shore leave.
  • (b) Clarify the Regulations without imposing any additional burden on regulatees:
    • a. Interface with non-regulated Canadian ports and facilities;
    • b. Contravention of provisions designated as violations; and
    • c. Improvement to overall regulatory structure and clarity.
  • (c) Provide additional flexibility to regulatees with benefits that are expected to exceed any associated cost:
    • a. Alternative security arrangements;
    • b. Interim ship security certificate validity period;
    • c. Marine facility and port interim statements of compliance.
  • (d) Promote greater Canada–United States regulatory alignment, with benefits that are expected to exceed any associated cost:
    • a. Certain dangerous cargoes; and
    • b. Alternative security arrangements.
  • (e) Strengthen regulatory oversight without imposing any additional burden on compliant regulatees:
    • a. Suspension and cancellation of marine security documents;
    • b. Review and appeal process for suspension and cancellation of marine security documents;
    • c. Pre-arrival information reporting; and
    • d. Documentation: Certificates of proficiency to be carried on board.
  • (f) Bring the Regulations in line with existing security practices at ports, facilities and on vessels, with negligible incremental costs:
    • a. Access control provisions;
    • b. Restricted area identification (vessels);
    • c. Security procedures for occasional-use marine facilities;
    • d. Port security committee meetings; and
    • e. Restricted area signage (marine facilities, OUMFs and ports).
Costs to Government

The proposed amendments would not result in significant incremental costs to TC, other government departments or agencies.

Costs to Canadians

The proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on prices, nor any other significant impact on Canadians.

Cost-benefit statement

Costs, Benefits and Distribution

2013

2014

2037

Total (Present Value)

Annualized

A. Quantified impacts (in dollars)

Benefits

Canadians

The benefits of the proposed amendments are expected to significantly exceed the break-even level of $17.6 million. Estimates from the literature indicate that, if the proposed amendments prevent just one significant act of unlawful interference at a Canadian port, they could result in benefits between $20 million and $57 billion.

Costs

Vessel operators (seafarer training, awareness and orientation costs)

$5,107,762

$1,242,540

$1,453,396

$17,534,493

$1,642,610

Administrative cost: certificates for grandfathered seafarers

$106,199

$0

$0

$98,332

$9,212

Total costs

$5,213,961

$1,242,540

$1,453,396

$17,632,825

$1,651,821

Net benefits

Greater than $0

B. Qualitative impacts

Benefits

  • Improved marine security
  • Enhanced efficiency and flexibility
  • Improved international and Canada–United States regulatory harmonization (including meeting international obligations)
  • Improved regulatory clarity and consistency

Costs

The proposed amendments are not expected to result in significant costs to stakeholders beyond the training costs quantified and monetized above.

8. “One-for-One” Rule

Transport Canada has considered the potential impacts of all provisions of the proposed amendments on administrative burden, and has monetized that burden for the purposes of the Government of Canada’s “One-for-One” Rule.

In order to provide the flexibility of grandfathering existing seafarers and the associated cost savings, and enable the enforcement of training provisions of the Regulations, the proposed amendments would require vessel masters to download and complete certification forms for grandfathered seafarers. TC estimates that 6 398 certification forms would be completed in 2013, an exercise which would require 20 minutes of vessel master time per form, with an average hourly loaded wage of $49.80.

Other provisions — pre-arrival information reporting and submission of security procedures by OUMFs — are expected to have a negligible impact on administrative burden. As indicated in the table, TC estimates that the proposed amendments would introduce $9,244 in annualized administrative burden.

Administrative Burden

Description

Total Administrative Cost (Present Value)

Annualized Cost

Certificates for grandfathered seafarers

Vessel master time to download and complete a form for certification of grandfathered seafarers.

$98,332

$9,212

Pre-arrival information reporting

Vessel master time to submit three additional information items, 20 seconds per submission.

$347

$32

Submission of security procedures by OUMFs

OUMFs already submit procedures to TC for review.

$0

$0

Total

$98,679

$9,244

9. Consultation

Consultations with industry stakeholders, other government departments, and departmental colleagues have taken place across the country since 2009, which produced an extensive volume of proposed amendments. In late 2010, after reviewing this vast amount of input, TC decided to proceed with the proposed amendments in phases to allow for a more manageable approach within a reasonable time frame. This regulatory package constitutes Phase 1, which focuses on priorities, such as IMO requirements, harmonizing, where possible, with the U.S. regulatory regime and addressing interpretation issues and regulatory gaps that do not require substantial policy or program development. Those recommended amendments that demand further in-depth policy and program development will be considered for further regulatory work.

Key participants in the consultation process included vessel operators, marine facility operators, port administrators, industry associations and labour groups. Stakeholder groups have been consulted throughout the development of the proposed amendments to the Regulations through various mechanisms, including face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, direct mail consultations and industry surveys to gauge costs associated with the proposed amendments and levels of conformity of security practices already being done by industry. As an official forum, TC has informed, engaged and consulted key participants at the biannual national Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) meetings, with the November 2011 meeting being the final consultation session on the proposed amendments to the Regulations. A regulatory update on key amendments was further provided at the spring 2012 CMAC meeting.

During consultations on the proposed amendments to the Regulations, Canadian industry made it clear that any change that would lower costs, minimize administrative burden and improve its ability to conduct business would be welcome. TC recognizes the challenges and limitations that the Regulations can impose on industry, and ensured that industry were fully engaged in the proposed amendments to the Regulations. As a result, stakeholder feedback and recommendations contributed to many new and amended provisions, such as introducing the flexibility to enter into ASAs with other contracting states, harmonizing the list of CDCs with the United States, clarifying through the Regulations that Canadian-flagged vessels may interface with non-regulated ports and facilities while on a domestic voyage and allowing for an interim statement of compliance for a ship or marine facility security certificate pending a TC inspection.

Transport Canada consulted with industry stakeholders regarding the additional administrative costs associated with the vessel masters completing certification forms for grandfathered seafarers. Stakeholders acknowledged the additional administrative cost as the cost of doing business and to remain competitive internationally. Without this flexibility, the alternative would require all seafarers regardless of sea service time to take the in-class training, which would result in higher training costs for vessel operators.

Stakeholders further requested that TC develop guidance material to assist the marine industry in understanding its regulatory responsibilities on some of the proposed amendments to the Regulations, in particular, the new IMO training requirements and the amendment to clarify that Canadian-flagged vessels may interface with non-regulated ports and facilities while on a domestic voyage or the domestic portion of an international voyage.

10. Regulatory cooperation

In February 2011, Canada and the United States announced the creation of a joint regulatory cooperation council (RCC) to better align our regulatory approaches. The main goal of the RCC is to make it easier for Canadian and American firms to do business on both sides of the border without compromising safety or security.

The RCC established a Canada-United States joint working group that serves as the principal binational forum for Canadian and American discussion and cooperation. The working group addressed issues related to the safety and security of vessels in order to eliminate the duplication of regulatory program efforts and impediments to trade, where appropriate. The proposed amendments to the Regulations include two regulatory cooperation activities:

  • aligning the Canadian list of certain dangerous cargos (CDC) with that of the United States; and
  • adding the flexibility in the Regulations to enter into alternative security arrangements (ASA) with the United States and other countries.

11. Rationale

The proposed amendments to the Regulation have been undertaken after consultations with stakeholders to further align the regulatory framework with the ever-changing security environment that the marine community faces domestically and internationally. As security threats and security innovations are constantly evolving, it is important that the marine security regulatory environment be nimble to encourage continuous improvement and to counter those threats. Therefore, the proposed amendments are addressing many regulatory gaps and are aligning with security practices that have been implemented by the majority of the marine security community. Given that baseline conformity is already high, the incremental impact on marine security is considered to be negligible.

Rationale for adopting new IMO requirements

Canada, as a member state of the IMO, is expected to conform to the new international standards. Taking this action further harmonizes Canada’s international obligations and competitiveness, and ensures that Canada does not lose credibility internationally. Furthermore, conformity would result in a seafarer community that is more alert to security risks, and better prepared in the event of a security incident. The costs to seafarers and/or vessel operators would be $17.5 million over 25 years, with the vessel operators experiencing the majority of the cost for enhancing seafarer security training requirements. The vessel community accepts the changes as part of doing business with Canada’s international partners.

Rationale for further harmonizing the Canadian marine security regulatory regime with that of the United States

With the creation of the regulatory cooperation council (RCC), Canada and the United States have taken the next step in working together to better align their marine security regulatory approaches. The two proposed amendments with respect to adding the flexibility to enter into ASAs with other IMO member states and aligning the list of Canadian CDCs with the U.S. CDC list was inspired by this Canada-United States joint initiative. Taking this regulatory action will result in increased efficiencies, eliminate the duplication of regulatory program efforts and eliminate impediments to trade without compromising marine security across the U.S. and Canadian marine border. The proposed amendments may benefit the competitiveness of some Canadian firms, in particular tugs and barges operating on Canada’s West Coast, which are impacted by the misalignment of the CDC lists. Impacts on domestic and international trade are expected to be low but positive.

Rationale for allowing Canadian-flagged vessels to interface with non-regulated marine facilities

The proposed amendment to clarify that Canadian-flagged vessels may interface with non-regulated marine facilities is a direct result of stakeholder input and the Government’s Red Tape Reduction Commission initiative. Moreover, the proposed amendment clarifies Canada’s marine security regime, which is centred on securing vessels, ports and marine facilities involved in international voyages. It is expected that the proposed amendment will have no negative impact on the security of Canadians as it would be aligned with Canada’s risk-based approach to securing its marine transportation system.

Taking this action is expected to result in an increase in the number of such interfaces, improving efficiency, reducing regulatory burden by giving vessel operators the flexibility to choose to interface with either a regulated or non-regulated marine facility based on their business needs, and providing potential cost savings for vessel operators.

Overall, the proposed amendments would result in a range of benefits to stakeholders, including improved clarity and consistency, international harmonization, and enhanced efficiency and flexibility, which support a well-functioning marine security system. TC expects that the value of these benefits would significantly exceed the costs ($17.5 million) over 25 years, and that the annualized costs ($1.7 million) would not impose a significant burden on an industry with an average annual GDP from 2002 to 2011 of $1.1 billion. (see footnote 7) If the proposed amendments prevent just one significant act of unlawful interference at a large Canadian port, they could result in benefits ranging between $20 million and $57 billion.

The proposed amendments support the Government’s overall strategy to promote a safe, secure and efficient transportation system that contributes to Canada’s economic development and security objectives. Excluding the costs associated with the seafarer security training requirements, the provisions are not expected to result in significant incremental costs.

12. Implementation and enforcement

Transport Canada provides rigorous oversight and enforcement of the Marine Transportation Security Act and its related legislative instruments through a national network of marine security inspectors.

During implementation, Transport Canada will use a graduated compliance and enforcement approach with respect to the proposed amendments to the Regulations. TC is planning to issue guidance material and operational bulletins to industry stakeholders to ensure a well-coordinated and efficient implementation of, in particular, the new IMO training requirements for seafarers and the amendment regarding Canadian-flagged vessels interfacing with a non-regulated marine facility when operating on the domestic portion of an international voyage. Furthermore, TC regional inspectors have been involved in developing the amendments to the Regulations and will receive training to update their TC marine security inspector credentials with respect to the proposed amendments to the Regulations.

New IMO requirements

On August 26, 2011, the IMO confirmed with all member states that the new STCW amendments to the STCW Code regarding the training and certification standards for vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities would come into force on January 1, 2012.

Given the short implementation time frames associated with the new IMO requirements, TC issued a Marine Security Operations Bulletin (MSOB) to advise industry to comply with the newly proposed STCW requirements by January 1, 2012. In addition, the MSOB provides industry with implementation procedures regarding the new IMO requirements, including the transitional provisions under which vessel personnel who had sea services before January 1, 2012, have until January 1, 2014, to obtain their certificate of proficiency.

Enforcement and compliance

Transport Canada’s goal is to create a fair and equitable compliance and enforcement environment that allows industry to take corrective actions first. Resorting to alternative enforcement actions in the absence of any such actions is not the preferred solution, but will be used, if necessary. TC also conducts education and awareness activities with stakeholders in order to encourage comprehension of the Regulations and ensure individual responsibilities are understood, thereby promoting voluntary compliance.

The enforcement of these amendments will be done through the compliance and enforcement regime set out in the Marine Transportation Security Act (MTSA) and Regulations. Sanctions for non-compliance will be administered under section 32 of the MTSA and Part 6 of the Regulations. When compliance is not achieved on a voluntary basis or where there are flagrant violations, enforcement action may be taken in the form of administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) or the suspension or the cancellation of a marine security document.

In addition, security inspectors will be informed of their new duties through Transport Canada’s proposed Inspection and Enforcement Manual, setting out Transport Canada’s enforcement policy and procedures and how best to respond to non-compliant behaviour.

The compliance and enforcement of the proposed amendments to the Regulations will not require additional resources and monitoring to ensure compliance, as security inspectors will monitor compliance as part of the current inspection and oversight regime.

13. Performance measurement and evaluation

Transport Canada recognizes that the results of security regulations are difficult to measure because they pertain mainly to detection and prevention. However, improvements in security performance should be evident with the implementation of the IMO security training requirements that requires vessel personnel with/without security responsibility to hold a certificate of proficiency. It would result in a seafarer community that is more alert to security risks, and better prepared in the event of a security incident.

Additionally, TC will be looking to the marine community to provide further information on whether the proposed amendments to the Regulations have made noticeable improvements to security in their facilities.

With respect to vessel operators implementing the new IMO seafarer training requirements, the expected outcomes after implementation and beyond are

  • vessel personnel have increased capacity and capability to address security threats, risk and incidents; and
  • Canadian-flagged vessels operate in a manner that is consistent with international marine security practices and standards.

Furthermore, TC plans to conduct periodic surveys aimed at a sampling of the Canadian-flagged fleet and regulated Canadian ports and marine facilities to measure the performance on Canadian-flagged vessels interfacing with unregulated facilities during a domestic voyage or the domestic portion of an international voyage.

In general, TC intends to use evidence-based analysis, through monitoring and tracking of enforcement results, to identify if the intended results of the Regulations are being achieved.

14. Contact

Dave Campbell
Acting Chief
Regulatory Development
Marine Security
Regulatory Affairs
Marine Safety and Security
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower B, 14th floor
112 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613-998-9670
Fax: 613-990-4856
Email: dave.campbell@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote a) of the Marine Transportation Security Act (see footnote b), proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Marine Transportation Security Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must be in writing and cite the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Dave Campbell, A/Chief, Regulatory Development, Marine Security Regulatory Affairs, Marine Safety and Security, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower B, 14th Floor, 112 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (tel.: 613-998-9670; fax: 613-990-4856; email: dave.campbell@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, April 18, 2013

JURICA ČAPKUN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MARINE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. The heading before section 1 of the French version of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations (see footnote 8) is replaced by the following:

DÉFINITIONS ET INTERPRÉTATION

2. (1) The definitions “certain dangerous cargoes” and “security clearance” in section 1 of the Regulations are repealed.

(2) The definition “breach of security” in section 1 of the English version of the Regulations is repealed.

(3) The definitions “CDC facility”, “ferry”, “interface”, “MARSEC level 1”, “MARSEC level 2”, “MARSEC level 3”, “occasional-use marine facility”, “port administration”, “security incident”, “security threat” and “towing vessel” in section 1 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

“CDC facility” means a marine facility where any of the following operations are carried out:

  • (a) the manufacture or storage of certain dangerous cargoes intended to be transferred to a vessel to which Part 2 applies;
  • (b) the storage of certain dangerous cargoes transferred from a vessel to which Part 2 applies; or
  • (c) the transfer of certain dangerous cargoes to or from a vessel to which Part 2 applies. (installation CCD)

“ferry” means a vessel that is used exclusively for the carriage of passengers, vehicles, or passengers in vehicles and that operates on a fixed schedule between two or more points. (traversier)

“interface” means the interaction that occurs between a vessel and a marine facility, or between a vessel and another vessel, throughout the time that the vessel is alongside the marine facility or throughout the vessel-to-vessel activity, and includes the activities affected by the movement of persons and their goods, by the movement of cargo or by the provision of services to and from the vessel. (interface)

“MARSEC level 1” means the level for which minimum security requirements are required to be implemented in accordance with the approved security plan or approved security procedures. (niveau MARSEC 1)

“MARSEC level 2” means the level for which additional security requirements are required to be implemented as a result of heightened risk in accordance with the approved security plan or approved security procedures. (niveau MARSEC 2)

“MARSEC level 3” means the level for which additional security requirements are required to be implemented as a result of a security threat that is probable or imminent, whether or not the specific target is identified, in accordance with the approved security plan or approved security procedures. (niveau MARSEC 3)

“occasional-use marine facility” means a marine facility that, in a calendar year, has 10 or fewer interfaces with vessels to which Part 2 applies. (installation maritime à usage occasionnel)

“port administration” means

  • (a) the operator of a marine facility that is a port authority established under section 8 of the Canada Marine Act;
  • (b) the operator of a marine facility that is a harbour commission established under subsection 5(1) of the Harbour Commissions Act;
  • (c) an employee of the Department of Transport who is designated by the Minister as the security officer for a port as defined in paragraph (c) of the definition “port”; or
  • (d) in the absence of a port administration described in any of paragraphs (a) to (c), the operator of a marine facility who is identified in an agreement referred to in paragraph (d) of the definition “port” to act as the port administration of the port. (organisme portuaire)

“security incident” means an event in which the security of a vessel, marine facility or port has been compromised. (incident de sûreté)

“security threat” means any suspicious act or circumstance that could compromise the security of a vessel, marine facility, port or interface. (menace contre la sûreté)

“towing vessel” means a vessel that tows another vessel astern or alongside or that pushes another vessel ahead. (bâtiment remorqueur)

(4) The definition “infraction à la sûreté” in section 1 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

« infraction à la sûreté » Violation du présent règlement, de mesures de sûreté établies en vertu du paragraphe 7(1) de la Loi, de règles de sûreté établies en vertu des paragraphes 10(2) ou (3) de la Loi, ou de procédures de sûreté qui sont prévues à un plan de sûreté approuvé ou qui sont approuvées en vertu du paragraphe 360(1), qui n’entraîne pas d’incident de sûreté. (security breach)

(5) Section 1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“approved training course” means a course that has been approved under section 803 and that is given by a recognized institution. (cours de formation approuvé)

“CDC residue” means

  • (a) in respect of CDCs having the UN number UN1942, UN2067, UN2426 or UN3375 that are carried in a large means of containment and are intended for sale, residue that remains on board after the CDCs are unloaded, that does not exceed 450 kg in total quantity, and each of whose accumulations has a volume that does not exceed 0.05 m3;
  • (b) in respect of liquids and liquefied gases that are carried in a large means of containment, residue that remains in the cargo unloading system after the liquids and liquefied gases are unloaded and that is not accessible using normal transfer procedures, with the exception of the residue of liquefied gases having the UN number UN1005, UN1017, UN1035, UN1040, UN1062, UN1079, UN1086 and UN1971. (résidu de CCD)

“certain dangerous cargoes” or “CDCs” means the dangerous goods that are set out in Schedule 4 and that are listed in Schedule 1 to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations or in Part 3 of the IMDG Code. (certaines cargaisons dangereuses ou CCD)

“IMDG Code” means the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, published by the International Maritime Organization, as amended from time to time. (Code IMDG)

“international voyage” means a voyage

  • (a) undertaken between a marine facility in Canada and a place outside Canada, or between places outside Canada, by a vessel that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag; or
  • (b) undertaken in Canadian waters by a vessel that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state. (voyage international)

“large means of containment” has the meaning assigned by section 1.4 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations. (grand contenant)

“marine security document” means any certificate, document or letter issued by the Minister under these Regulations. (document de sûreté maritime)

“MARSEC level” means the level of security requirements that is set by the Minister to reflect the threat environment for vessels, marine facilities and ports. (niveau MARSEC)

“non-SOLAS ship” means a vessel that is not a SOLAS ship, that is engaged on an international voyage, and that

  • (a) is more than 100 gross tonnage but is not a towing vessel;
  • (b) is carrying more than 12 passengers; or
  • (c) is a towing vessel engaged in towing astern or alongside, or pushing ahead, a barge that is carrying certain dangerous cargoes. (navire non ressortissant à SOLAS)

“operator” means, in respect of a vessel,

  • (a) the actual owner, if the vessel is not registered, or the registered owner, if the vessel is registered;
  • (b) a person having a beneficial interest in the vessel, including an interest arising under contract and any other equitable interest, other than an interest by way of a mortgage;
  • (c) a lessee or charterer of the vessel who is responsible for its navigation; or
  • (d) if the vessel is a barge referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition “non-SOLAS ship”, the master or any other person who has command or charge of the vessel that is towing or pushing the barge. (exploitant)

“port” means

  • (a) a port as defined in section 5 of the Canada Marine Act;
  • (b) a harbour for which a harbour commission is established under subsection 5(1) of the Harbour Commissions Act;
  • (c) a public port designated under regulations made under section 65 of the Canada Marine Act in which a marine facility that interfaces with a vessel to which Part 2 applies is situated; or
  • (d) a group of marine facilities, in close proximity to each other, whose operators agree with each other to be subject to sections 362 to 375. (port)

“recognized institution” means a training institution that is designated as a recognized institution by the Minister under section 803.1 and that administers, in accordance with the requirements and established practices of the domestic and international marine industry, approved training courses for the purpose of providing the training necessary to obtain a certificate of proficiency issued under Part 8. (établissement reconnu)

“SOLAS ship” means a vessel that

  • (a) is 500 gross tonnage or more or is carrying more than 12 passengers; and
  • (b) is engaged on an international voyage other than a voyage solely on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River as far seaward as a straight line drawn from Cap-des-Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island, and from Anticosti Island to the north shore of the St. Lawrence River along the meridian of longitude 63° W. (navire ressortissant à SOLAS)

“STCW Code” means the Seafarers’ Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code, published by the International Maritime Organization, as amended from time to time. (Code STCW)

“STCW Convention” means the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, published by the International Maritime Organization, as amended from time to time. (Convention STCW)

“transportation security clearance” means a security clearance granted by the Minister under section 509. (habilitation de sécurité en matière de transport)

“vessel personnel with security responsibilities” means crew members, other than the vessel security officer or the company security officer, who have security responsibilities under the vessel’s security plan. (personnel du bâtiment ayant des responsabilités en matière de sûreté)

“vessel personnel without security responsibilities” means crew members, other than the vessel security officer or the company security officer, who do not have security responsibilities under the vessel’s security plan. (personnel du bâtiment n’ayant pas des responsabilités en matière de sûreté)

(6) Section 1 of the English version of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“security breach” means a violation of these Regulations, of a security measure formulated under subsection 7(1) of the Act, of a security rule formulated under subsection 10(2) or (3) of the Act, or of a security procedure set out in an approved security plan or approved under subsection 360(1), that does not result in a security incident. (infraction à la sûreté)

(7) Section 1 of the Regulations is renumbered as subsection 1(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) For the purpose of interpreting the ISPS Code, “company” shall be read to mean “operator”.

(3) For the purposes of the definition “international voyage” in subsection (1), a vessel that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag

  • (a) begins its international voyage at the beginning of its last interface with a marine facility in Canada before it engages on the voyage; and
  • (b) ends its international voyage at the end of its first interface with a marine facility in Canada when it returns from the voyage.

(4) For the purposes of the definition “certain dangerous cargoes” or “CDCs” in subsection (1), a reference to a UN number in Schedule 4 is a reference to the goods that are listed in Schedule 1 to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations or in Part 3 of the IMDG Code.

3. The reference “[2 to 10 reserved]” after section 1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

2. For greater certainty, nothing in these Regulations derogates from any right otherwise provided to a representative of seafarers’ welfare and labour organizations to access a vessel or a marine facility, unless there is an immediate threat to the safety and security of the vessel or marine facility.

[3 to 10 reserved]

4. Section 11 of the Regulations and the headings before it are replaced by the following:

PART 1

GENERAL
MARSEC LEVEL, OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AND PRESCRIBED GROUNDS

11. The operator of a vessel to which Part 2 applies and the operator of a marine facility or a port administration to which Part 3 applies shall maintain MARSEC level 1 at all times unless a higher MARSEC level is required by the Minister.

5. The portion of section 12 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

12. The operator of a vessel that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag and to which Part 2 applies, and the operator of a marine facility to which Part 3 applies, other than the operator of a marine facility that is referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “port administration” in subsection 1(1) or the security officer referred to in paragraph (c) of that definition, shall ensure that, where there is a significant demand from at least 5 per cent of the travelling public for services in either official language within the meaning of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations,

6. The reference “[14 to 199 reserved]” after section 13 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF MARINE SECURITY DOCUMENTS

14. (1) The Minister shall suspend or cancel a marine security document issued to the operator of a vessel or marine facility, or to a port administration, if the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the operator or port administration

  • (a) has obtained the document by any fraudulent or improper means or by the misrepresentation of any material fact;
  • (b) has altered, rendered illegible or lost the document;
  • (c) is not in compliance with its approved security plan or, in the case of an occasional-use marine facility, its security procedures approved under subsection 360(1);
  • (d) no longer satisfies the conditions under which the document was issued; or
  • (e) conducts its activities in a way that constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to marine transportation security.

(2) The Minister shall notify the operator or the port administration of the suspension or cancellation by notice served in accordance with section 701. The notice shall include

  • (a) the grounds for the suspension or cancellation and the date on which the suspension or cancellation takes effect; and
  • (b) the address at which, and the date — being 30 days after the day on which the notice is served — on or before which, the operator or port administration may file a request to the Tribunal for a review of the suspension or cancellation.

(3) The suspension or cancellation takes effect

  • (a) no later than 30 days after the day on which the notice is served, if the ground for the suspension or cancellation is one of the grounds set out in paragraphs (1)(a) to (d); or
  • (b) at the time the notice is served, if the ground for the suspension or cancellation is the ground set out in paragraph (1)(e).

(4) If a marine security document is suspended or cancelled, the operator or port administration to which it was issued shall return it immediately to the Minister.

REVIEWS AND APPEALS

15. The Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of reviews and appeals under sections 16 to 19.

16. (1) The operator of a vessel or marine facility, or a port administration, may file with the Tribunal a written request for a review of a suspension or cancellation referred to in subsection 14(1) on or before the date specified in the notice of suspension or cancellation or within any further time that the Tribunal allows on application.

(2) A request for a review does not operate as a stay of the suspension or cancellation.

17. (1) On receipt of a request filed under section 16, the Tribunal shall appoint a time and place for the review and shall notify the Minister and the operator of the vessel or marine facility, or the port administration, of the time and place in writing.

(2) The assigned member of the Tribunal shall confirm the suspension or cancellation or refer the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration.

18. (1) Within 30 days after the day on which a determination is made under subsection 17(2), the operator of the vessel or marine facility, or the port administration, may appeal it to the Tribunal.

(2) A party who does not appear at a review hearing is not entitled to appeal a determination unless they establish that there was sufficient reason to justify their absence.

(3) The appeal panel of the Tribunal assigned to hear the appeal shall dismiss it or refer the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration.

19. If a matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration under subsection 17(2) or 18(3), the suspension or cancellation remains in effect until the reconsideration is concluded. However, the member who made the determination or the appeal panel, after considering any representations made by the parties, may grant a stay of the suspension or cancellation until the reconsideration is concluded if the member or panel determines that granting a stay would not constitute a threat to marine transportation security.

[20 to 199 reserved]

7. Section 200 of the Regulations and the heading “INTERPRETATION” before it are repealed.

8. Subsection 201(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) This Part does not apply to

  • (a) a pleasure craft, a fishing vessel, a vessel that is owned or operated by a government and used only on government non-commercial service, a vessel without a crew that is in dry dock, dismantled or laid-up, or a vessel that is subject to a security arrangement concluded between the Government of Canada and a contracting government in application of Regulation 11 of Chapter XI-2 of SOLAS; or
  • (b) a vessel that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag and that is engaged on a voyage between marine facilities in Canada, except when the vessel has an interface with a SOLAS ship or non-SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state not subject to a security arrangement referred to in paragraph (a).

(3) For the purposes of subsections 211(6) and 213(4), “Administration” means

  • (a) in respect of a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag, the Minister; and
  • (b) in respect of a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state, the contracting government of that state.

9. Subsection 202(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) A certificate issued under subsection (1) or (2) is valid while the vessel security plan is valid.

(5) An interim certificate issued under subsection (3) is valid until the expiry of six months after the day on which it is issued or until a certificate is issued under subsection (1) or (2), whichever comes first.

10. (1) Subsections 203(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

203. (1) The operator of a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag shall ensure that the requirements of sections 204 to 268 are met.

(2) The operator of a non-SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag shall ensure that the requirements of sections 204 to 221 and 228 to 268 are met.

(2) Paragraph 203(3)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) section 204, paragraph 205(1)(e), subparagraph 205(1)(f)(ii), paragraphs 205(1)(h) and (i), subsections 206(1) to (4), paragraph 206(5)(b), subsection 211(1), paragraphs 211(3)(b), 212(h) to (h.2) and 213(1)(b), subsections 213(3) and (4), paragraph 214(1)(b), subsection 214(3) and sections 219, 221, 228 and 260 to 268; and

(3) Paragraph 203(4)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) section 204, paragraph 205(1)(e), section 206, subsections 211(1) and (2), 213(5) and 214(4) and sections 219, 221, 228 and 260 to 268; and

11. (1) Paragraph 204(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) the original of the certificate described in subsection (2);

(2) Subsection 204(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (d), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after paragraph (e):

  • (f) if the vessel is a SOLAS ship, the original of every certificate of proficiency required by this Part for the vessel security officer and for vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities.

(3) Paragraph 204(2)(d) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (d) in the case of a non-SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state, a ship security compliance document, or an interim ship security compliance document, issued or approved by the contracting government of that state.

(4) Subsection 204(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) The vessel security officer on a SOLAS ship and a member of the vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship shall, if they hold a certificate of proficiency, ensure that their certificate is carried on board.

12. Section 205 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

205. (1) The operator of a vessel shall

  • (a) establish an administrative and organizational structure for the security of the vessel;
  • (b) provide every person who has responsibilities under this Part with the support needed to fulfil his or her responsibilities;
  • (c) designate in writing a company security officer and a vessel security officer, by name or by position, other than the position for which the designation is being made;
  • (d) implement and maintain the vessel security plan, including any corrective action referred to in paragraph 209(h), and, where applicable, the marine facility security plan or the port security plan;
  • (e) provide the master with the following information:
    • (i) the names of the parties responsible for appointing shipboard personnel, such as vessel management companies, crewing agents, contractors and concessionaires,
    • (ii) the names of the parties responsible for deciding the employment of the vessel, and
    • (iii) if the vessel is under a charter-party, the names of contact persons for the charter-party;
  • (f) in the case of a SOLAS ship, ensure that the vessel security officer and vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities have the ability to maintain their effectiveness while performing their duties in accordance with the requirements set out in,
    • (i) in the case of a ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag, the safe manning document issued under section 202 of the Marine Personnel Regulations, or
    • (ii) in the case of a ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state, the safe manning document issued by the contracting government of that state;
  • (g) in the case of a vessel that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag, ensure that a vessel security plan is established;
  • (h) ensure that the vessel security officer and vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities meet the training requirements set out in sections A-VI/5 and A-VI/6 of the STCW Code; and
  • (i) clearly identify each restricted area on the vessel.

(2) The operator of a SOLAS ship shall permanently mark the ship with the International Maritime Organization Ship Identification Number in accordance with Regulation 3 of Chapter XI-1 of SOLAS.

13. Section 206 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):

(5) The master shall ensure that the vessel security officer and vessel personnel with or without security responsibilities carry on board

  • (a) in the case of a SOLAS ship entitled to fly the Canadian flag, their certificates of proficiency issued under Part 8; and
  • (b) in the case of a SOLAS ship entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state, their certificates of proficiency issued by the contracting government of that state.

14. (1) The portion of subsection 211(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) Subject to subsection (6), a SOLAS ship’s vessel security officer shall hold

(2) Subsections 211(4) and (5) of the Regulations are repealed.

(3) Subsection 211(7) of the Regulations is repealed.

15. Section 212 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (h):

  • (h.1) ensure that all persons employed or engaged on board a vessel, including contractors, receive security orientation that is appropriate to their duties and the time they have spent on board the vessel, in order to be able to
    • (i) report a security incident,
    • (ii) know the procedures to follow when there is a security threat, and
    • (iii) take part in security-related emergency and contingency procedures;
  • (h.2) ensure that vessel personnel with security responsibilities receive, before carrying out any of those responsibilities, security orientation that is appropriate to their duties;

16. Section 213 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

213. (1) A member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship shall hold

  • (a) in the case of a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag, a certificate of proficiency as a member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities issued under Part 8; or
  • (b) in the case of a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state, a certificate of proficiency as a member of the ship personnel with security responsibilities issued by the contracting government of that state.

(2) Before January 1, 2014, a member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag who commenced sea service before January 1, 2012 is not required to hold a certificate of proficiency as a member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities if the member demonstrates, by training or job experience, that he or she has knowledge and competence in the areas set out in subsection (5).

(3) Before January 1, 2014, a member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state is not required to hold a certificate of proficiency as a member of the ship personnel with security responsibilities if the member demonstrates, by training or job experience, that he or she has knowledge and competence in the areas set out in section 13.3 of Part B of the ISPS Code.

(4) In circumstances of exceptional necessity, if a member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities is temporarily unavailable to fulfil his or her security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship, the Administration may permit a member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities but with a knowledge of the vessel security plan to fulfil those responsibilities until the ship arrives at the next port of call or for a period not exceeding 30 days.

(5) A member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities on a non-SOLAS ship shall have, by training or job experience, knowledge and competence that are relevant to the industry in which the ship operates in any of the following areas that relate to the member’s responsibilities:

  • (a) current security threats and patterns;
  • (b) the recognition and detection of weapons, explosives and incendiaries, and other dangerous substances and devices;
  • (c) the recognition of the characteristics and behavioural patterns of persons who are likely to threaten security;
  • (d) techniques that might be used to violate security procedures or to circumvent security procedures, equipment or systems;
  • (e) crowd management and control techniques;
  • (f) security-related communications;
  • (g) emergency preparedness and response and contingency planning;
  • (h) the operation, testing, calibration and maintenance of security equipment and systems;
  • (i) inspection and monitoring techniques;
  • (j) methods of performing physical searches of persons and goods, including personal effects, baggage, ships’ stores and cargo;
  • (k) the relevant provisions of the vessel security plan; and
  • (l) the meanings and the requirements of the different MARSEC levels.

17. Section 214 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

214. (1) A member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship shall hold

  • (a) in the case of a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag, a certificate of proficiency as a member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities issued under Part 8; or
  • (b) in the case of a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state, a certificate of proficiency as a member of the ship personnel without security responsibilities issued by the contracting government of that state.

(2) Before January 1, 2014, a member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag who commenced sea service before January 1, 2012 is not required to hold a certificate of proficiency as a member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities if the member demonstrates, by training or job experience, that he or she has knowledge and competence in the areas set out in subsection (4).

(3) Before January 1, 2014, a member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities on a SOLAS ship that is entitled to fly the flag of a foreign state is not required to hold a certificate of proficiency as a member of the ship personnel without security responsibilities if the member demonstrates, by training or job experience, that he or she has knowledge and competence in the areas set out in section 13.4 of Part B of the ISPS Code.

(4) A member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities on a non-SOLAS ship, and a contractor engaged on the ship, shall receive security orientation that is appropriate to their duties and the amount of time that they have spent on board the ship. The security orientation shall address the following:

  • (a) the meanings of the different MARSEC levels, the procedures at each level and the emergency procedures and contingency plans;
  • (b) the recognition and detection of weapons, explosives and incendiaries, and other dangerous substances and devices;
  • (c) the recognition of the characteristics and behavioural patterns of persons who are likely to threaten security; and
  • (d) techniques that might be used to violate security procedures or to circumvent security procedures, equipment or systems.

18. (1) Subsection 216(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

216. (1) A security drill may be conducted with other drills, if appropriate, but shall be conducted at least once every three months, except in the case of a vessel that is entitled to fly the Canadian flag and that is not engaged on an international voyage or is not in service at the time that a drill is to be conducted, in which case the drill shall be conducted within one week after the beginning of an international voyage or the return to service.

(2) Subsection 216(3) of the Regulations is repealed.

(3) Subsection 216(5) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) A documented response to a security incident that was recorded under paragraph 218(1)(c) is considered equivalent to a security drill.

19. (1) Paragraph 217(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) shall test the requirements of the vessel security plan that are relevant to the objectives of each exercise, and shall involve the active participation of personnel on board the vessel as appropriate to the exercise;

(2) Paragraph 217(1)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (d) shall test, at a minimum, elements of coordination, resource availability, response, and communication and notification procedures.

(3) Section 217 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) The implementation of security procedures at MARSEC level 2 or MARSEC level 3 is considered equivalent to a security exercise.

20. Subsection 218(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d):

  • (d.1) a record of the date on which and the time at which the vessel becomes subject to this Part and of the date on which and the time at which it ceases to be subject to this Part;

21. Paragraph 219(2)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) if the MARSEC level in effect at a marine facility with which the vessel is about to interface is raised to a level higher than the level in effect on the vessel, ensure that the vessel complies, without undue delay before interfacing with the facility, with all the procedures established in the vessel security plan for compliance with that higher MARSEC level;

22. (1) Paragraphs 221(2)(g) to (i) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (g) the number of its International Ship Security Certificate or interim International Ship Security Certificate, of its Canadian Vessel Security Certificate or interim Canadian Vessel Security Certificate, or of its ship security compliance document or interim ship security compliance document;
  • (h) its International Maritime Organization ship identification number, if it is a SOLAS ship;
  • (h.1) as applicable, the International Maritime Organization Unique Company Identification Number of its company and the International Maritime Organization Unique Registered Owner Identification Number of its owner, as defined in Regulation 3-1 of Chapter XI-1 of SOLAS;
  • (i) the date of issuance, date of expiry and name of the issuing body of its International Ship Security Certificate or interim International Ship Security Certificate, of its Canadian Vessel Security Certificate or interim Canadian Vessel Security Certificate, or of its ship security compliance document or interim ship security compliance document;

(2) Paragraphs 221(2)(m) and (n) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (m) details of any security breach, security incident or security threat involving the vessel during the last ten calls at marine facilities and during the time spent at sea between those calls;

(3) Paragraph 221(2)(r) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (r) the date on which the information is reported and the latitude and longitude of the vessel at the time that it is reported;

(4) Paragraph 221(2)(s) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (s) the vessel’s course and speed;

(5) Paragraph 221(2)(t) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (t) its first port of call in Canada, with the estimated time of arrival at that port of call, and, if applicable, its final destination, with the estimated time of arrival at that destination;

(6) Subsection 221(2) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (w), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (x) and by adding the following after paragraph (x):

  • (y) the following contact information:
    • (i) the name of the master,
    • (ii) an email address, if applicable, and
    • (iii) a satellite or cellular telephone number, if applicable.

(7) Subsection 221(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) If there is any change in the pre-arrival information reported under subsection (1), the master of a vessel shall ensure

  • (a) that the change is reported to the Minister in accordance with the instructions set out in the most recent edition of the Canadian Coast Guard publication Radio Aids to Marine Navigation;
  • (b) that the vessel does not enter Canadian waters unless the change has been reported to the Minister; and
  • (c) in the case of a change that has occurred after the vessel has entered Canadian waters, that the change is reported to the Minister before the vessel’s first interface with a marine facility in Canada.

23. Subsection 233(4) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (d), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after paragraph (e):

  • (f) the fact that the vessel was not subject to this Part before the start of an international voyage.

24. Subsection 234(2) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (t) and by adding the following after paragraph (u):

  • (v) procedures to facilitate shore leave for vessel personnel or crew change;
  • (w) procedures for overcoming any vulnerability resulting from the fact referred to in paragraph 233(4)(f); and
  • (x) procedures to be followed when the vessel becomes subject to this Part and when it ceases to be subject to this Part.

25. Paragraph 256(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (c) report any security threats or security incidents involving the vessel to the Minister without undue delay;

26. Subsection 257(3) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (d), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after paragraph (e):

  • (f) the findings of the vessel security assessment.

27. The reference “[266 to 299 reserved]” after section 265 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

ACCESS
Prohibition

266. The operator of a SOLAS ship or a non-SOLAS ship shall not allow a person to board the ship unless the person is

  • (a) a member of the crew of the ship;
  • (b) a contractor or service provider engaged to perform work on the ship;
  • (c) a person listed in any of paragraphs 267(1)(a) to (e); or
  • (d) any other person authorized by the operator or the master of the ship to come on board.

267. (1) No person shall enter or remain in a restricted area on a SOLAS ship or a non-SOLAS ship unless the person is

  • (a) a member of the crew authorized to do so in accordance with the security procedures established in the vessel security plan;
  • (b) a person other than a member of the crew who is escorted by an individual authorized to do so in accordance with the security procedures established in the vessel security plan;
  • (c) an inspector designated under subsection 22(1) of the Act who is on duty;
  • (d) a member of any of the following groups who is on duty on board the ship or at a marine facility during an interface with the ship:
    • (i) any police force in Canada,
    • (ii) the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
    • (iii) the Canadian Forces within the meaning of Part Ⅱ of the National Defence Act, or
    • (iv) the Canada Border Services Agency; or
  • (e) a provider of emergency services who requires access to the restricted area for the protection and preservation of life or property.

(2) No person shall provide another person with access to a restricted area or assistance in entering a restricted area unless the person accessing the restricted area is a person referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (e).

Escorted Access

268. (1) A person who is being escorted in a restricted area shall remain with the escort while in the restricted area.

(2) An escort shall remain with the person being escorted, or ensure that another person who is authorized to do so under the security plan acts as the escort, while the person is in the restricted area.

[269 to 299 reserved]

28. Subsection 302(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The operator of an occasional-use marine facility shall ensure that the requirements of sections 315 and 355 to 360.1 are met.

29. Section 303 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (i), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (j) and by adding the following after paragraph (j):

  • (k) clearly mark with signs each restricted area at the marine facility.

30. Subsection 310(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) A documented response to a security incident that was recorded under paragraph 312(1)(c) is considered equivalent to a security drill.

31. (1) Subsections 311(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

311. (1) Security exercises

  • (a) shall test the requirements of the marine facility security plan that are relevant to the objectives of each exercise, and shall involve the active participation of marine facility personnel as appropriate to the exercise;
  • (b) may involve the participation of governmental authorities or personnel from vessels, other marine facilities or port administrations who have security responsibilities, depending on the scope and the nature of the exercise;
  • (c) may be performed only with respect to the marine facility or as part of a cooperative program to test the security plan of another marine facility or the security plan of a vessel or a port; and
  • (d) shall test, at a minimum, elements of coordination, resource availability, response, and communication and notification procedures.

(2) Security exercises shall be conducted at least once every calendar year with no more than 18 months between them.

(2) Section 311 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) If a marine facility is involved in the implementation of MARSEC level 2 or MARSEC level 3 following a security incident, the implementation of the MARSEC level is considered equivalent to a security exercise.

32. Subsection 324(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) For MARSEC levels 2 and 3, the marine facility security plan shall contain procedures for ensuring that the operator of the marine facility evaluates the need for additional security procedures.

33. Subsection 325(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (e), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after paragraph (f):

  • (g) facilitate shore leave for vessel personnel or crew change.

34. The heading before section 346 of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Security Threats, Security Breaches and Security Incidents

35. Paragraph 346(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (c) report any security threats, security breaches or security incidents to the Minister without undue delay;

36. Section 350 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

37. (1) Subsection 352(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

352. (1) If the Minister is satisfied that a marine facility security plan meets the requirements of this Part, the Minister shall approve the plan and issue a letter of approval certifying that the plan meets the requirements of this Part, unless approving the plan is not in the public interest and is likely to adversely affect marine transportation security.

(2) Subsection 352(2) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (d) and by adding the following after paragraph (d):

  • (e) the findings of the marine facility security assessment.

(3) Section 352 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Minister shall issue, in English or French, an interim statement of compliance in respect of a marine facility if the marine facility security plan has been approved but a security inspector has not yet conducted an inspection under section 23 of the Act to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Part.

(4) The interim statement of compliance is valid until the expiry of six months after the day on which it is issued or until a statement of compliance is issued under subsection (5), whichever comes first.

(5) If the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of an inspection conducted under section 23 of the Act, that the requirements of this Part have been met, the Minister shall issue, in English or French, a statement of compliance in respect of the marine facility.

(6) The interim statement of compliance and the statement of compliance are valid while the approved security plan in respect of the marine facility is valid.

38. The reference “[353 and 354 reserved]” after section 352 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Required Documentation

353. No person shall operate a marine facility, except an occasional-use marine facility, without a valid interim statement of compliance issued under subsection 352(3) or a valid statement of compliance issued under subsection 352(5).

[354 reserved]

39. Section 355 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (e), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after paragraph (f):

  • (g) clearly mark with signs each restricted area at the marine facility.

40. The reference “[359 and 360 reserved]” after section 358 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Security Procedures

359. (1) Security procedures shall be established for an occasional-use marine facility. The security procedures shall include

  • (a) a description of the organization of the occasional-use marine facility in terms of security, including the tasks of marine facility personnel with security responsibilities;
  • (b) the name of the operator and the name and position of the occasional-use marine facility security officer, including information on how they may be contacted at any time;
  • (c) a description of procedures for the following:
    • (i) responding to changes in the MARSEC level,
    • (ii) interfacing, at each MARSEC level, with vessels to which Part 2 applies,
    • (iii) coordinating, with the master of a vessel and, if applicable, the port security officer, shore leave for vessel personnel or crew change, as well as access to the vessel by visitors passing through the occasional-use marine facility,
    • (iv) reporting security incidents to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, the Minister and, if applicable, the port administration,
    • (v) declarations of security,
    • (vi) implementing any temporary security procedures that are required during an interface,
    • (vii) keeping the records referred to in paragraph 358(f),
    • (viii) as appropriate to the occasional-use marine facility’s operations, briefing marine facility personnel on potential threats to security and on the need for vigilance and their assistance in reporting suspicious persons, objects or activities, at each MARSEC level, and
    • (ix) as appropriate to the occasional-use marine facility’s operations, performing the security sweeps required by paragraph 358(e).

(2) The security procedures established for an occasional-use marine facility shall also include procedures, as appropriate to the marine facility’s operations, to control access to the marine facility at each MARSEC level and to

  • (a) deter the unauthorized entry of weapons, explosives and incendiaries, including any device that could be used to damage or destroy marine facilities or vessels or harm individuals;
  • (b) secure any weapons, explosives, incendiaries or other dangerous substances and devices that are authorized by the operator to be at the occasional-use marine facility;
  • (c) identify the locations at which restrictions or prohibitions preventing unauthorized access are to be applied for each MARSEC level and specify that each location allowing access to the occasional-use marine facility is to be addressed;
  • (d) identify the types of restrictions or prohibitions to be applied and the means of applying them;
  • (e) establish the means of identification required to allow persons and vehicles to have access to or remain in the occasional-use marine facility without challenge; and
  • (f) identify the locations at which the authorized screening of persons and goods, including vehicles, is to be conducted and ensure that these locations are covered in order to enable continuous screenings regardless of weather conditions.
Approval of Security Procedures

360. (1) If the Minister is satisfied that the security procedures for an occasional-use marine facility meet the requirements of section 359, the Minister shall approve the security procedures and issue a letter of compliance certifying that they meet the requirements of this Part, unless approving the security procedures is not in the public interest and is likely to adversely affect marine transportation security.

(2) Security procedures are valid for the period fixed by the Minister, which shall not exceed five years after the day on which they are approved by the Minister. In fixing the period, the Minister shall consider the following:

  • (a) the marine facility’s operations and the industry in which it operates;
  • (b) the operator’s security record;
  • (c) the marine facility’s security record; and
  • (d) the complexity of the security procedures of the marine facility and the details of those procedures.
Required Documentation

360.1 No person shall operate an occasional-use marine facility without a valid letter of compliance issued under subsection 360(1).

41. Section 361 of the Regulations and the heading “Definitions” before it are repealed.

42. Section 362 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (g), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (h) and by adding the following after paragraph (h):

  • (i) clearly mark with signs each restricted area at the port.

43. Section 364 of the Regulations is renumbered as subsection 364(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) The port security committee shall meet at least once a year for the purpose of reviewing its responsibilities that result from the application of subsection (1) and determining on that basis whether any modifications are required to the port security plan.

44. Section 372 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

372. A port security plan

  • (a) shall be based on the findings of the port security assessment;
  • (b) shall be in English or French;
  • (c) shall be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure;
  • (d) shall, if stored in electronic format, have procedures to prevent its unauthorized deletion, destruction or amendment; and
  • (e) shall be submitted to the Minister for approval.
Submission and Approval

372.1 (1) If the Minister is satisfied that a security plan meets the requirements of this Part, the Minister shall approve the security plan and issue a letter of approval certifying that the plan meets the requirements of this Part, unless approving the plan is not in the public interest and is likely to adversely affect marine transportation security.

(2) The plan is valid for the period fixed by the Minister, which shall not exceed five years after the day on which it is approved by the Minister. In fixing the period, the Minister shall consider the following:

  • (a) the port’s operations and the industry in which it operates;
  • (b) the port administration’s security record; and
  • (c) the complexity of the port security plan and the details of its procedures.

(3) The Minister shall issue, in English or French, an interim statement of compliance in respect of a port if the port security plan has been approved but a security inspector has not yet conducted an inspection under section 23 of the Act to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Part.

(4) The interim statement of compliance is valid until the expiry of six months after the day on which it is issued or until a statement of compliance is issued under subsection (5), whichever comes first.

(5) If the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of an inspection conducted under section 23 of the Act, that the requirements of this Part have been met, the Minister shall issue, in English or French, a statement of compliance in respect of the port.

(6) The interim statement of compliance and the statement of compliance are valid while the approved security plan in respect of the port is valid.

Required Documentation

372.2 No person shall operate a port without a valid interim statement of compliance issued under subsection 372.1(3) or a valid statement of compliance issued under subsection 372.1(5).

45. Section 373 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of subparagraph (f)(iv), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (g), and by adding the following after paragraph (g):

  • (h) a description of the procedures to facilitate shore leave for vessel personnel or crew change.

46. Paragraph 380(1)(d) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “or” at the end of subparagraph (ii), by adding “and” at the end of subparagraph (iii) and by adding the following after subparagraph (iii):

  • (vi) the Canada Border Services Agency.

47. (1) Paragraph 503(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (b) are a licensed ship’s pilot referred to in subsection 501(2);

(2) Paragraph 503(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (d) have security responsibilities, including authorized screening and security guard functions, at the marine facilities and port administrations for the ports referred to in subsection 501(1);

48. Subsection 701(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

  • (d) a notice of refusal to issue a certificate of proficiency referred to in subsection 802(2); and
  • (e) a notice of suspension or cancellation referred to in subsection 14(2) or 805(1).

49. The heading of Part 8 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

CERTIFICATION

50. The heading “DÉFINITIONS ET INTERPRÉTATION” before subsection 800(1) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

INTERPRETATION

51. (1) Subsection 800(1) of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) The portion of subsection 800(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

References in STCW Code

(2) For the purpose of interpreting tables A-VI/5, A-VI/6-1 and A-VI/6-2 of the STCW Code,

(3) The portion of subsection 800(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

References in French version of STCW Code

(3) For the purpose of interpreting tables A-VI/5, A-VI/6-1 and A-VI/6-2 of the French version of the STCW Code,

52. The heading before subsection 801(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF PROFICIENCY

53. (1) The portion of subsection 801(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Requirements

801. (1) The Minister shall issue a certificate of proficiency to a person if

(2) Paragraph 801(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (b) in the case of a certificate of proficiency as a ship security officer, the person has at least 12 months of sea service, calculated in accordance with sections 115, 116 and 118 of the Marine Personnel Regulations;

(3) Subsection 801(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by replacing paragraph (d) with the following:

  • (d) the person provides proof that he or she is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;
  • (e) the person meets the standards of medical fitness set out in Division 8 of Part 2 of the Marine Personnel Regulations and has been issued a medical certificate or a provisional medical certificate under that Division; and
  • (f) the person meets the standards of competence required by these Regulations for the performance of the duties associated with the capacities identified in the certificate of proficiency.

(4) Subsection 801(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Alternative for vessel personnel with security responsibilities

(3) The Minister shall issue a certificate of proficiency as a member of the vessel personnel with security responsibilities to a person who commenced sea service before January 1, 2012 if the person

  • (a) provides the Minister with a testimonial indicating that the person has undertaken the tasks, duties and responsibilities listed in column 1 of table A-VI/6-2 of the STCW Code;
  • (b) has acquired, during the preceding three years, a total of at least six months of sea service, calculated in accordance with sections 115, 116 and 118 of the Marine Personnel Regulations;
  • (c) is at least 18 years of age;
  • (d) provides proof that the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and
  • (e) meets the standards of medical fitness set out in Division 8 of Part 2 of the Marine Personnel Regulations and has been issued a medical certificate or a provisional medical certificate under that Division.

Alternative for vessel personnel without security responsibilities

(4) The Minister shall issue a certificate of proficiency as a member of the vessel personnel without security responsibilities to a person who commenced sea service before January 1, 2012 if the person

  • (a) provides the Minister with a testimonial indicating that the person has undertaken the tasks, duties and responsibilities listed in column 1 of table A-VI/6-1 of the STCW Code;
  • (b) has acquired, during the preceding three years, a total of at least six months of sea service, calculated in accordance with sections 115, 116 and 118 of the Marine Personnel Regulations;
  • (c) is at least 18 years of age;
  • (d) provides proof that the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and
  • (e) meets the standards of medical fitness set out in Division 8 of Part 2 of the Marine Personnel Regulations and has been issued a medical certificate or a provisional medical certificate under that Division.

54. (1) The portion of subsection 802(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Refusal to issue

802. (1) Despite section 801, the Minister shall refuse to issue a certificate of proficiency to a person if

(2) The portion of subsection 802(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Notice of refusal to issue

(2) If the Minister refuses to issue a certificate of proficiency to a person, the Minister shall notify the person of the refusal. The notice shall include

55. Paragraphs 803(1)(a) and (b) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (a) provides participants with the training to undertake the tasks, duties and responsibilities listed in column 1 of tables A-VI/5, A-VI/6-1 and A-V1/6-2 of the STCW Code and acquire the knowledge listed in column 2 of those tables; and
  • (b) uses the methods and criteria listed in columns 3 and 4, respectively, of tables A-VI/5, A-VI/6-1 and A-V1/6-2 of the STCW Code to evaluate the participants’ competence to undertake the tasks, duties and responsibilities referred to in paragraph (a).

56. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 803:

RECOGNIZED INSTITUTION

Designation by Minister

803.1 (1) The Minister shall designate a training institution as a recognized institution if the Minister is satisfied that the training institution administers, in accordance with the established practices and the requirements of the domestic and international marine industry, approved training courses for the purpose of providing the training necessary to obtain a certificate of proficiency issued under this Part.

Monitoring

(2) The approved training courses shall be monitored continuously through a quality management system that conforms to Regulation I/8 of the STCW Convention.

Revocation

(3) The Minister shall revoke the designation of a recognized institution if, after informing the recognized institution that the results of an evaluation conducted by the Minister indicate that the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) are not being met, the Minister is satisfied that timely action has not been taken to correct the deficiencies.

57. Section 804 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Suspension or cancellation

804. (1) The Minister shall suspend or cancel a person’s certificate of proficiency if the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that

  • (a) the certificate was obtained by any fraudulent or improper means or a misrepresentation of any material fact;
  • (b) the public interest warrants it, particularly in view of the person’s record; or
  • (c) the person’s performance of the duties associated with the capacities identified in the certificate constitutes, or is likely to constitute, an immediate threat to marine transportation security.

Cancellation

(2) The Minister shall cancel a person’s certificate of proficiency if the Minister determines that the person is no longer a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

58. The portion of subsection 805(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Notice of suspension or cancellation

805. (1) If the Minister suspends or cancels a person’s certificate of proficiency, the Minister shall notify the person of the suspension or cancellation. The notice shall include

59. Subsection 807(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Exception

(3) On application in writing by a person whose certificate of proficiency was suspended or cancelled on any of the grounds referred to in paragraph 804(1)(c) or subsection 804(2), a member of the Tribunal assigned for the purpose may, after giving notice to the Minister and after considering any representations made by the parties, grant a stay of the suspension or cancellation until the review is completed if he or she determines that granting a stay would not constitute a threat to marine transportation security.

60. Sections 811 to 813 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Possession of certificate

811. No person shall possess a certificate of proficiency except the person to whom it was issued or the person’s representative.

Production of certificate

812. The holder of a certificate of proficiency shall produce it on the Minister’s request.

Return of certificate

813. If a certificate of proficiency is suspended or cancelled, the person to whom it was issued shall return it to the Minister on request.

61. Schedule 0.1 to the Regulations is repealed.

62. Items 3 to 5 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

3. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

63. The portion of items 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations in column 3 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 3

Corporation ($)

5.

3,000 to 5,000

6.

3,000 to 5,000

64. Items 99, 120, 209, 293, 374 to 380, 452, 518, 519 and 522 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations are repealed.

65. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 2:

Item Column 1


Provision
of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations
Column 2






Individual ($)
Column 3






Corporation ($)
Column 4





Continuing violation

2.1

Subsection 14(4)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

66. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 7:

Item

Column 1



Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2







Individual ($)

Column 3







Corporation ($)

Column 4






Continuing violation

7.1

Subsection 203(1) and paragraph 204(1)(f)

250 to 2,400

1,000 to 12,000

 

67. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 10:

Item

Column 1


Provision of the Marine
Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2






Individual ($)

Column 3






Corporation ($)

Column 4





Continuing violation

10.1

Subsections 203(1) and 206(5)

250 to 2,400

1,000 to 12,000

 

68. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 37:

Item

Column 1


Provision of
the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2






Individual ($)

Column 3






Corporation ($)

Column 4





Continuing violation

37.1

Subsection 203(1) and paragraph 212(h.1)

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

37.2

Subsection 203(1) and paragraph 212(h.2)

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

69. The portion of item 42 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

42.

Subsections 203(1) and 213(1)

70. The portion of item 43 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

43.

Subsections 203(1) and 214(1)

71. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 54:

Item

Column 1


Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2






Individual ($)

Column 3






Corporation ($)

Column 4





Continuing violation

54.1

Subsection 203(1) and paragraph 218(1)(d.1)

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

72. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 96:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3




Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

96.1

Subsections 203(1) and 267(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

96.2

Subsections 203(1) and 267(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

96.3

Subsections 203(1) and 268(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

96.4

Subsections 203(1) and 268(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

73. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 131:

Item

Column 1

Provision of
the Marine
Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

131.1

Subsection 203(2) and paragraph 212(h.1)

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

131.2

Subsection 203(2) and paragraph 212(h.2)

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

74. The portion of item 136 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

136.

Subsections 203(2) and 213(5)

75. The portion of item 137 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

137.

Subsections 203(2) and 214(4)

76. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 148:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations
Column 2





Individual ($)
Column 3





Corporation ($)
Column 4




Continuing violation

148.1

Subsection 203(2) and paragraph 218(1)(d.1)

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

77. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 185:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

185.1

Subsections 203(2) and 267(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

185.2

Subsections 203(2) and 267(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

185.3

Subsections 203(2) and 268(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

185.4

Subsections 203(2) and 268(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

78. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 190:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

190.1

Subsections 203(3) and paragraph 204(1)(f)

250 to 2,400

1,000 to 12,000

 

79. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 193:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

193.1

Subsections 203(3) and 206(5)

250 to 2,400

1,000 to 12,000

 

193.2

Subsection 203(3) and paragraph 213(1)(b)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

193.3

Subsection 203(3) and paragraph 214(1)(b)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

80. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 206:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

206.1

Subsections 203(3) and 267(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

206.2

Subsections 203(3) and 267(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

206.3

Subsections 203(3) and 268(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

206.4

Subsections 203(3) and 268(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

81. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 214:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

214.1

Subsections 203(4) and 213(5)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

214.2

Subsections 203(4) and 214(4)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

82. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 227:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

227.1

Subsections 203(4) and 267(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

227.2

Subsections 203(4) and 267(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

227.3

Subsections 203(4) and 268(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

227.4

Subsections 203(4) and 268(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

83. The portion of items 228 to 234 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

228.

Paragraph 205(1)(a)

229.

Paragraph 205(1)(b)

230.

Paragraph 205(1)(c)

231.

Paragraph 205(1)(d)

232.

Paragraph 205(1)(e)

233.

Paragraph 205(1)(f)

234.

Paragraph 205(1)(g)

84. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 234:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

234.1

Paragraph 205(1)(h)

250 to 5,000

1,000 to 25,000

 

234.2

Paragraph 205(1)(i)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

234.3

Subsection 205(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

X

85. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 237:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

237.1

Subsection 206(5)

250 to 2,400

   

86. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 264:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

264.1

Paragraph 212(h.1)

250 to 1,000

   

264.2

Paragraph 212(h.2)

250 to 1,000

   

87. The portion of item 269 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

269.

Subsection 213(1)

88. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 269:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

269.1

Subsection 214(1)

600 to 2,400

   

89. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 273:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

273.1

Paragraph 218(1)(d.1)

250 to 1,000

   

90. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 315:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

315.1

Section 266

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

315.2

Subsection 267(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

315.3

Subsection 267(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

315.4

Subsection 268(1)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

315.5

Subsection 268(2)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

91. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 413:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

413.1

Paragraph 303(k)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

92. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 458:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

458.1

Section 353

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

93. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 464:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

464.1

Paragraph 355(g)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

94. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 471:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

471.1

Section 360.1

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

95. The portion of item 477 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

477.

Paragraph 362(g) and subsection 364(1)

96. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 501:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

501.1

Paragraph 362(i)

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

97. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 502:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

502.1

Section 372.2

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

98. The portion of item 521 of Schedule 3 to the Regulations in column 1 is replaced by the following:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

521.

Subsection 380(1)

99. Schedule 3 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 555:

Item

Column 1

Provision of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations

Column 2





Individual ($)

Column 3





Corporation ($)

Column 4




Continuing violation

556.

Section 811

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

557.

Section 812

250 to 1,000

1,000 to 4,000

 

558.

Section 813

600 to 2,400

3,000 to 12,000

 

100. The Regulations are amended by adding, after Schedule 3, the Schedule 4 set out in the schedule to these Regulations.

101. The Regulations are amended by replacing “security clearance” and “security clearances” with “transportation security clearance” and “transportation security clearances”, respectively, in the following provisions:

  • (a) paragraph 312(1)(o);
  • (b) paragraph 323(h);
  • (c) paragraph 373(g);
  • (d) paragraph 375(1)(m);
  • (e) paragraph 380(3)(b);
  • (f paragraph 384(3)(a) and subsection 384(4);
  • (g) subsection 392(1);
  • (h) subsection 393(1);
  • (i the heading before section 394 and section 394;
  • (j the heading of Part 5;
  • (k) the heading before section 503;
  • (l ) the portion of section 503 before paragraph (a) and paragraph (e);
  • (m) the portion of section 504 before paragraph (a) and paragraph (a);
  • (n) the portion of section 505 before paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);
  • (o) the portion of subsection 506(2) before paragraph (a), paragraph (2)(m), subsection (4) and the portion of subsection (5) before paragraph (a);
  • (p) subsection 507(1);
  • (q) the portion of section 508 before paragraph (a);
  • (r) the portion of section 509 before paragraph (a) and paragraph (e);
  • (s) subsections 511(1) and (3);
  • (t subsections 512(1) and (3);
  • (u) section 513;
  • (v) section 514;
  • (w) subsections 515(1), (2) and (4) to (6);
  • (x) the portion of section 516 before paragraph (a);
  • (y) subsection 517(1); and
  • (z) section 519.

102. The English version of the Regulations is amended by replacing “breaches of security” with “security breaches” in the following provisions:

  • (a) subsection 216(2);
  • (b) paragraph 218(1)(c);
  • (c) paragraphs 234(2)(g) and (j);
  • (d) paragraph 235(o);
  • (e) the heading before section 256;
  • (f) paragraphs 256(a) and (b);
  • (g) paragraph 306(k);
  • (h) subsection 310(2);
  • (i) paragraph 312(1)(c);
  • (j) subparagraphs 323(e)(ix) and (f)(iv);
  • (k) the heading before section 346;
  • (l) paragraphs 346(a) and (c);
  • (m) subparagraphs 373(e)(viii) and (f)(iv); and
  • (n) paragraph 375(1)(c).

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT

103. The definition “certain dangerous cargoes” in subsection 2(1) of the Domestic Ferries Security Regulations (see footnote 9) is replaced by the following:

“certain dangerous cargoes”
« certaines cargaisons dangereuses »

“certain dangerous cargoes” has the meaning assigned by the definition “certain dangerous cargoes” or “CDCs” in subsection 1(1) of the Marine Transportation Security Regulations.

COMING INTO FORCE

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

SCHEDULE
(Section 100)

SCHEDULE 4
(Subsections 1(1) and (4))

CERTAIN DANGEROUS CARGOES (CDCs)
  1. All explosives of Class 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5.
  2. The following gases of Class 2.1, when carried in a large means of containment or in such a quantity as to require an emergency response assistance plan (ERAP) under section 7.1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations:
    • (a) UN1035, UN1086, UN1971 and UN1972; and
    • (b) UN1010, UN1011, UN1012, UN1032, UN1036, UN1037, UN1060, UN1063, UN1077, UN1962 and UN1978, except when carried as CDC residue.
  3. All gases of Class 2.3, when carried in a large means of containment or in such a quantity as to require an ERAP under section 7.1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.
  4. The following flammable liquids of Class 3, when carried in a large means of containment or in such a quantity as to require an ERAP under section 7.1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, except when carried as CDC residue:
    • UN1089 and UN1280.
  5. The following oxidizing substances of Class 5.1, when carried in a large means of containment or in such a quantity as to require an ERAP under section 7.1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations:
    • (a) UN1479 and UN3139; and
    • (b) UN1942, UN2067 and UN3375, except when carried as CDC residue.
  6. The following liquids of Class 6.1 (either primary or subsidiary class) that are toxic by inhalation, when carried in a large means of containment or in such a quantity as to require an ERAP under section 7.1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations:
    • (a) UN1051, UN1052, UN1092, UN1163, UN1182, UN1185, UN1238, UN1239, UN1244, UN1251, UN1259, UN1380, UN1510, UN1560, UN1569, UN1580, UN1583, UN1595, UN1613, UN1614, UN1647, UN1670, UN1672, UN1695, UN1722, UN1744, UN1745, UN1746, UN1752, UN1809, UN1892, UN1994, UN2032, UN2232, UN2285, UN2334, UN2337, UN2382, UN2407, UN2438, UN2474, UN2477, UN2478, UN2480, UN2481, UN2482, UN2483, UN2484, UN2485, UN2486, UN2487, UN2488, UN2521, UN2605, UN2606, UN2644, UN2646, UN2668, UN2740, UN2742, UN2743, UN2809, UN3023, UN3246, UN3275, UN3276, UN3278, UN3279, UN3280, UN3281 UN3294, UN3381, UN3382, UN3383, UN3384, UN3385, UN3386, UN3387, UN3388, UN3389, UN3390, UN3488, UN3489, UN3490, UN3491, UN3494 and UN3495; and
    • (b) UN1098, UN1135, UN1143, UN1541, UN1605, UN1831, UN2983 and UN3079, except when carried as CDC residue.
  7. Radioactive substances of Class 7, if the quantity in a single means of containment exceeds the least of
    • (a) 3,000 times the A1 value, as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations, of the radionuclides,
    • (b) 3,000 times the A2 value, as defined in subsection 1(1) of those Regulations, of the radionuclides, and
    • (c) 1,000 TBq (27,000 Ci).
  8. The following corrosive substance of Class 8, when carried in a large means of containment or in such a quantity as to require an ERAP under section 7.1 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, except when carried as CDC residue:
    • UN1754.

[17-1-o]

  • Footnote 1
    “domestic voyage” means a voyage undertaken by a vessel entitled to fly the Canadian flag between two places in Canada.
  • Footnote 2
    Using both population and cargo tonnage, the U.S. impact estimate for the Port of LA was adjusted to reflect the impact of a comparable attack on the ports of Vancouver and Montréal.
  • Footnote 3
    Grandfathered means seafarers with service prior to 2012.
  • Footnote 4
    Discount rate of 8%.
  • Footnote 5
    Expected total of $801 = $500 (cost of session) + $301 (value of seafarer time).
  • Footnote 6
    Expected total of $506 = $325 (cost of session) + $181 (value of seafarer time).
  • Footnote 7
     Statistics Canada, Table 379-0027 — Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at basic prices, Water Transportation, retrieved March 7, 2012.
  • Footnote 8
     SOR/2004-144
  • Footnote 9
     SOR/2009-321
  • Footnote a
     S.C. 2001, c. 29, s. 56
  • Footnote b
     S.C. 1994, c. 40