Number Seventeen
July 10, 2000
This bulletin is provided to inform the greater marine community on developments affecting the Canadian Coast Guard's Marine Services Fee (MSF) initiative. It is our intention that the bulletin will be issued as progress and developments warrant. Additions (or deletions) to the mailing list are invited.
The Coast Guard (CCG) is proposing to amend the definition of "container ships" provided in the Fee Schedule - Fees to be Paid for Marine Navigation Services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. As a result of discussions with commercial shipping clients, CCG has determined that the present definition requires further clarification to facilitate the identification of what vessels are billable using the tonne-kilometre formula. This is, therefore, a technical amendment that will bring the present regulations in line with the Coast Guard's intent and policy in relation to these vessels. The proposed definition is as follows:
"container ship" means a ship designed or specifically used for the transportation of cargo in containers or designed specifically for the carriage of containers in holds and/or on deck with stern, bow, or side ramps for the loading/unloading of Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo) cargo.
The proposed container ship definition will continue to exclude vessels classified as "RoRo Passenger/Cargo Ferry", "Lo-Lo" and "general cargo".
As indicated in the Fee Schedule, "bulk carriers" are also billed according to the cargo tonne-kilometre formula. The tonne-kilometre fee applies to vessels classified as "bulk carrier", "bulk carrier/Great Laker", "Ore/Bulk/Oil carrier" and self-unloading bulkers but excludes vessels classified as "ferry", "general cargo", "barge", and all tug-barge combinations regardless of their physical configuration and all types of liquid bulk carriers.
Comments on this proposal may be submitted to Ted Wallace, at the address below on or before August 9, 2000.
The Marine Services Fees Information Sheet provides interpretations of fee schedules imposed under the Oceans Act. These interpretations are not binding and, where a discrepancy between the two documents arises, the fee schedule will always take precedence.