Read the 2001 Issue - Association of Canadian Port Authorities

Transcription

2001
CanadianPorts
MAGAZINE
The Official Publication of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Port Strategic Planning:
Canadian Port Reform
Planification stratégique
portuaire : la réforme
portuaire canadienne
The Funding of U.S. Ports
Le financement
des ports américains
Competition and Integration:
The Implications
for Port Authorities
2001
CanadianPorts
MAGAZINE
The Official Publication of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Published by
Naylor Publications Co.
(Canada)
Suite 600, 920 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M4W 3C7
Tel: (416) 961-1028
Fax: (416) 924-4408
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.naylor.com
Publisher: Robert Thompson
Editor: Shayne Stephens
Association Editor: Gary LeRoux
Sales Manager: Frank Robinson
Sales Representatives:
Andrew Pattison, Dawn Stokes,
Gord Jackson, Paddy O’Toole,
Walter Niekamp, Wayne Jury
Layout & Design:
Shannon Franklin
Advertising Art: Lesley Helash
©2001 Naylor Publications, Inc.All
rights reserved.The contents of this
publication may not be reproduced
by any means, in whole or in part,
without the prior written consent
of the publisher.
7
46
Contents
Canadian Ports Magazine is
published annually for the
Association of Canadian Port
Authorities
Suite 1502 - 85 Albert Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 6A4
Tel: (613) 232-2036
Fax: (613) 232-9554
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.acpa-ports.net
Chairman’s Message/ Lettre du président
By Don Krusel
Upcoming Events
Features
11
15
18
The ACPA Speaks Out on Behalf of its Members
By John Jursa
26
The Funding of U.S. Ports/
Le financement des ports américains
By/par David Luberoff and Jay Walder
32
Appraising Unique and Special-purpose Properties:
Value Considerations for Canadian Ports
By Michael Blaschuk, AACI, P.App.
36
39
Competitiveness and the Investment Climate
By Dan Perrin
42
Canadian Hockey and Ports:
A Sinking Proposition?
By Bob Langlois
45
46
Definition of Port Fees: What’s in a name?
By Rick Shields
Great Change Always Leads to Great Challenges
By Gary LeRoux
Port Strategic Planning: Canadian Port Reform/
Planification stratégique portuaire:
la réforme portuaire canadienne
By/par Mike C. Ircha
The Implications for Port Authorities
By Trevor D. Heaver
Buyers’ Guide & Trade List
Published May 2001/ACP-A001/6338
Canadian Ports Magazine
5
Letter
Lettre
from the Chair
du président
T
hank you for reading the first annual Canadian Ports
Magazine. Thanks also to the many ports and those in
the port community who have made this magazine possible. We look forward to making this publication a
vehicle for updating all stakeholders on some of the critical issues facing the port community. In addition, the
Association of Canadian Port Authorities (ACPA) publishes a newsletter called “Manifest” throughout the year and
regular “ACPA Bulletins” on matters of immediate interest to ports.
The ACPA also provides detailed
information on its Website for the
port community and the public at
large (www.acpa-ports.net).
In 1998 approximately 400 million tonnes of goods were
shipped through Canadian ports
amounting to over $80 Billion
worth of goods handled. This
represents a significant volume of
trade for Canada. It highlights the
fact that ports are indeed important generators of economic activity in Canada. In addition,
transporting goods via the marine
mode is also widely recognized
as the most cost-effective and
environmentally sustainable
mode of transportation available.
It is a mode of transportation that
must grow if Canada is to achieve
its economic and environmental
objectives in the 21st century.
This magazine points to the Don Krusel
importance of the ACPA in representing the interests of the port community in Canada.
You will find a brief historical account of the evolution
of the ACPA as a leading voice on marine-related issues
from the past Executive Director, John Jursa. It is important for ports to be prepared to compete in a fiercely
competitive global business environment. Hence, Mike
Ircha’s article points to the need for proper strategic
planning for ports as they seek to meet new challenges
in the global marketplace. Much of that competition is
coming from our neighbours to the south in the United
States. Dan Perrin’s article looks at some of the essential
elements for ports to become more competitive. The articontinued on page 8
J
e vous remercie de lire le premier numéro annuel de
La revue des ports canadiens. Je remercie également
les nombreux ports ainsi que les membres de la communauté portuaire qui ont permis de créer ce magazine. Nous sommes impatients de voir cette
publication devenir un moyen de tenir tous les intervenants au courant des récents développements
entourant les importants enjeux
de la communauté portuaire.
L’Association des administrations
portuaires canadiennes (AAPC)
publie également un bulletin
intitulé « Manifeste » tout au long
de l’année ainsi que des communiqués réguliers au sujet des
questions concernant directement les ports. L’AAPC fournit
aussi des renseignements détaillés sur son site web à l’intention
de la communauté portuaire et
du grand public (www.acpaports.net).
Quelque 400 millions de
tonnes de marchandises ont été
expédiées par les ports canadiens en 1998, ce qui représente à
au-delà de 80 millions de dollars
de marchandises manutentionnées. Cela constitue un important volume de commerce pour
le Canada. De plus, le transport
de fret par voie maritime est
généralement reconnu comme
étant le mode de transport le
plus rentable et respectueux de
l’environnement. L’utilisation de
ce mode de transport doit s’accroître si le Canada
veut atteindre ses objectifs économiques et environnementaux au 21e siècle.
Cette revue souligne l’importance que revêt l’AAPC
en vue de représenter les intérêts de la communauté
portuaire du Canada. Vous trouverez un bref historique
rédigé par l’ancien directeur général, M. John Jursa, sur
l’évolution de notre association en tant que principale
voix au sujet des enjeux maritimes. Il faut que les ports
soient préparés à soutenir la concurrence féroce du
contexte commercial mondial. L’article de M. Mike
Ircha explique notamment que les ports doivent dispossuite à la page 9
7
Letter
from the Chair
continued from page 7
cle by David Luberoff and Jay
Walder sheds light on the tremendous level of support American ports
receive from all levels of government
and the ongoing drive for port
development in the US. There is
clearly not a ‘level playing field’
when you compare Canadian ports
to American ports.
There are many reasons why
Canadian ports have to be mindful
of the many issues that must be
tackled to remain competitive as
pointed out in the article by Gary
LeRoux. Chief among these is the
way in which real property is taxed
as the article by Bob Langlois illuminates. He accurately notes the huge
imbalance in the way in which
American government authorities
treat property taxation compared to
that of Canada. The Chief Appraiser
for the Government of Canada,
Michael Blaschuk, brings the issue
of property valuation sharply into
focus when he elaborates on the
‘unique’ nature of port property and
the need for all levels of government to take this into consideration
when assessing port property.
Rick Shields’ article comments on
the new operating environment within which ports must operate under
the umbrella of the Canada Marine
Act. Trevor Heaver’s article also raises
the spectre of global competition as it
relates to public policy issues and
what it all means for Canadian ports.
The way in which governments
and the port community deal with
the many issues in the near term
will dictate the competitiveness of
ports over the long-term. We must
continue this process in earnest –
in concert with all stakeholders –
and we must get it right.
■
Don Krusel
Chair
Association of Canadian Port
Authorities
8
Lettre
du président
suite de la page 7
er d’une planification stratégique
adéquate afin de les aider à relever
les nouveaux défis que présente le
marché mondial. Une bonne part de
cette concurrence vient de nos
voisins américains. L’article de M.
Dan Perrin traite de certains des éléments essentiels que doivent posséder les ports afin d’améliorer leur
compétitivité. Celui de MM. David
Luberoff et de Jay Walder jette la
lumière sur l’appui considérable
dont jouissent les ports américains,
de la part de tous les paliers du
gouvernement et les efforts constants entourant l’expansion des
ports aux États-Unis. De toute évidence, les règles du jeu ne sont pas
équitables si l’on compare les ports
canadiens aux ports américains.
Les raisons pour lesquelles les
ports canadiens doivent songer à
leurs enjeux afin de demeurer concurrentiels sont nombreuses,
comme l’explique l’article de M.
Gary LeRoux, à commencer par la
façon d’imposer les biens-fonds, et
l’article de M. Bob Langlois fournit
des précisions à ce sujet. Il souligne
en détail l’énorme déséquilibre qui
existe entre la façon dont les
autorités gouvernementales américaines traitent les taxes foncières,
comparativement aux autorités
canadiennes. L’Évaluateur en chef
du Canada, M. Michael Blaschuk, se
concentre sur la question de l’évaluation foncière et traite de la nature
unique des biens-fonds portuaires
et du fait que tous les paliers du
gouvernement doivent en tenir
compte lorsqu’ils en font l’évaluation.
Dans son article, M. Rick Shields
formule des commentaires sur le
nouveau contexte d’exploitation
des ports, dans le cadre de la Loi
maritime du Canada. L’article de
M. Trevor Heaver laisse également
entrevoir le spectre de la concurrence globale, en ce qui a trait aux
politiques gouvernementales, et
explique ce que cela signifie pour
les ports canadiens.
La façon dont les gouvernements
et la communauté portuaire aborderont ces nombreuses questions à
court terme décidera de la compétitivité des ports à long terme. Nous
devons poursuivre ce processus
consciencieusement, de concert
avec tous les intervenants, et ne pas
faire fausse route.
■
Don Krusel
Président du conseil
Association des administrations
portuaires canadiennes
9
The ACPA Speaks Out
on Behalf
T
he Association of Canadian Port
Authorities (ACPA) is the voice of
Canada’s port community. It is a
voice that speaks with conviction
on issues common to all members.
With its expanding membership
base, the ACPA is speaking out on
behalf of all its members including
port users, pilotage interests, private ports and certain government
departments and agencies. Never
was this more evident than at the
first annual Port/Government Interface Conference dealing with issues
of critical importance to the port
community. The three-day conference, held at the Ottawa Congress
Centre, was attended by more than
120 delegates in the port business
and the Federal Government. The
conference addressed many issues
of concern to Association members
including: real property, environmental stewardship, cost-recovery,
governance, legislative and regulatory change, international trade,
and competition.
The Association of Canadian Port
Authorities was founded as the
Canadian Port and Harbour Association in 1959 grouping together the
organized ports and harbours of
Canada into one national association. Today the Commission and
former Ports Canada Ports are
Canada Port Authorities (CPA) as a
result of the enactment of the
Canada Marine Act in 1998. The
other approximately 300 public
ports and harbours under Transport Canada have been or are in
the process of being divested as
well. The name of the Association
was changed at its annual meeting
held in 1999 in Quebec City. With
the change the ACPA also developed a new Vision, Mission and
Goals Statement as outlined on its
of its Members
Website (www.acpa-ports.net). The
Association was restructured to
take a more active role in government relations.
The Association of Canadian
Ports, the forerunner of the CPHA
and the ACPA, had its inception at
the convention of the American
Association of Port Authorities in
Toronto in September, 1933. It was
at this conference that Canadian
representatives met on their own
and decided to form an association.
The Minutes of that meeting
described the group’s objectives in
this manner: “Canadian ports
should meet in a conference of
their own for the consideration of
matters of particular interest to
Canadian ports and port authorities,
with the idea of obtaining, so far as
local conditions will permit, a standard of uniformity to be followed
at all ports in relation to port
charges and regulations.”
The meetings that followed were
chiefly roundtable discussions deal-
ing with port issues, regulations
and mutual problems. The early
meetings of the CPHA were much
the same. But as the Association
evolved and the committee structure was strengthened, the Association moved forward with expanded
annual meetings with a strong
emphasis on meaningful business
sessions. The seminar program
actually had its start with the Harbour Masters Conference. Then the
committees moved ahead with
property, public relations/marketing, port operations, port management, environment and corporate
governance seminars. The seminar
program now is second to none.
Working with the Executive
Director, the business affairs of the
Association are managed by a
Board of Directors consisting of the
Past Chair, one Director representing the Associate Members, and
two Directors selected from each of
the following geographical regions
with Corporate Membership:
11
Atlantic Region, St. Lawrence
Region (Province of Quebec) Great
Lakes Region including Manitoba,
and the Pacific Region. Officers
consist of a Chair, First Vice-Chair,
Second Vice-Chair, Past Chair and
the Executive Director.
Directors normally meet four
times a year, usually once in each
of the four regions. Most Association work is done through committees. These consist of Operations;
Environment; Constitution, Law and
Legislation, Real Property Management; and Public Relations/Communications. From time to time, the
Association strikes Task Forces to
look at critical issues. At present
there are two Task Forces: Competition Policy Review and Payment
in Lieu of Taxes.
The main activities of the ACPA
are:
• An ongoing dialogue with government on issues affecting
members;
• An annual conference where
reports by the Board of Directors and by various standing
and ad hoc committees are
presented, where papers are
given by experts in the field of
operations and port-related
activities, and where those
belonging to the Association
can discuss problems of mutual interest;
• The many port-related research
projects covered between
annual meetings by the Association’s committees;
• Position papers and resolutions on key transportation
and marine issues of the day;
• Special seminars for members
including: Corporate Governance, Public Relations/Communications, Harbour Masters,
Property Operations, Port
Management, and Environment;
• A Website outlining the work
of the ACPA.
The Association has involved
itself in a strategic planning process
that has over the years resulted in a
Vision, a Mission and a set of Goals
that form the basis for its Business
Plan.
The ultimate goal of the ACPA is
to be effective in representing the
interests of the Canadian port community, which includes the ports
themselves, port users, business
suppliers to ports, community organizations and others. The port community now finds itself faced with
strong competition and an everincreasing regulatory environment.
A primary goal of the Association is
to build solid bridges to key government officials, allied organizations, at all levels, to ensure that
the issues do not become problems
and that quick solutions are found
to existing problems.
The ACPA is indeed, as its slogan
says: “Charting a Course for Tomorrow - Today.”
■
John Jursa
Former Executive Director of the
ACPA
13
Great Change
Always Leads to Great
Challenges
I
t’s a time of great change in the
port community. It can be a time of
great opportunity if the port community seizes the moment and
helps shape the competitive environment within which ports must
now operate. The shape of the port
system is not the exclusive domain
of Port Authorities. Many stakeholders must take responsibility in shaping Canada’s national ports system.
The newly minted Canadian Port
Authorities (CPA) are not homogeneous, varying widely in terms of
the size of their respective port
operations, type and size of market
served, and, consequently, their
financial and staff resources. Unlike
departments and other agencies of
the federal government, the new
CPAs do not receive appropriations
from the federal government. In an
era of corporate streamlining and
harsh competition, the CPAs must
concentrate on fulfilling their primary commercial functions – and
specific administrative regulations –
imposed upon them by the terms
of the Canada Marine Act. At the
same time CPAs must function as a
‘commercially viable business’ as
decreed by the Act. No easy feat for
ports given that they have a number of legislative constraints which
their competitors to the South in
the United States do not have.
The Association of Canadian Port
Authorities (ACPA) represents the
interests of the CPAs in matters of
common interest to the Ports. Currently, the ACPA members are most
concerned with ensuring that the
application of the Canada Marine
Act to the new Authorities is fair
and equitable. After more than two
years of operating under the CMA,
the ports are now ready to pass
judgment on its merits, and to
actively seek changes that are necessary for maintaining port competitiveness.
The ACPA members are also dealing with many important issues
such as cost-recovery and user fees;
environmental stewardship; privacy
and access to information; payments in lieu of taxes; infrastructure
development; productivity and
competition matters; corporate tax15
ation; international trade; and other
social and regional issues as dictated by the local circumstances of the
various Port Authorities. These are
the new realities faced by the CPAs
and all impact, one way or another,
port competitiveness.
As noted above, there are many
determinants of Canadian ports’
ability to compete. Nothing impacts
this ability to compete more than
the effect of legislation and regulation on port activities. The Canada
Marine Act – and other legislation –
will determine to a large extent
Canadian ports’ ability to effectively
compete domestically and on a
global scale. This is not to suggest
that “regulators” or officials in government consciously set out to
hamstring the ability of ports to
compete; quite the opposite. Most
will agree that officials at all levels
of government are well educated
and well intentioned people who
find themselves in a system that
sometimes takes on a life of its
own. All officials, however, must
take into consideration the unique
nature of Canada’s port system and
that it has truly evolved over time.
It is now incumbent upon government officials, and members of
the port community, to work closely together to ensure that an important mode of transportation
continues to be one of the best in
the world. Recently an Ottawa protagonist was heard to say that,
“Time and time again, it is the private sector that determines national
transportation policy in this country, and not the government.” The
private sector thus has a large role
to play in shaping government policy with respect to the national ports
system in Canada. It is critical for
the future of marine transportation
that we get it right.
Unfortunately, we have no crystal
ball. The future cannot be predicted, it must be created. The Minister
of Transport has identified five ‘big
challenges’ related to the future of
transportation in Canada: sustainable transportation; increased ease
of border crossings; building infraCanadian Ports Magazine
structure; applying new technology;
and safety. There may be a few
others that could be added to that
list, such as: better and more
streamlined regulations; improved
trade policy; a more competitive
tax system; an integrated approach
to transportation policy; and, of
course, more public money for
much needed transportation infrastructure. The Minister of Transport
has put out the challenge to everyone in the transportation sector –
including marine – when he recently posed two questions at a national conference: “What role does
policy play in responding to these
challenges? And, what can government do to help?” It is up to all in
the port community to continually
provide answers to these challenging questions.
■
J. Gary LeRoux
Executive Director
ACPA
17
Port Strategic Planning:
Canadian Port Reform
C
anadian port reform was aimed at
allowing Canadian Port Authorities
(CPAs) to compete effectively.
Canada’s major ports operate in an
increasingly competitive business
environment. To gain advantage
over their competition, Canadian
ports must develop business strategies dealing with their organizational cultures, institutional structures,
operations, and facility provision.
Developing appropriate strategies
involves creating a strategic plan
that must take into consideration
both the external and internal port
environments. Ports must look at
strategic planning as a critical tool
for the next decade of change.
Canada’s major ports now operate in a highly competitive business
environment. An environment that
demands ports make strategic decisions about their investments in
infrastructure and service provision.
Canadian ports face competition
both domestically and from their
US counterparts due to an integrated continental transportation network (particularly in the intermodal
field). To gain advantage over their
competition, Canadian ports must
develop business strategies dealing
with their organizational cultures,
institutional structures, operational
systems, and facility provision.
Recent port reform has moved
major commercial ports into Canadian Port Authorities as federal
non-profit, business corporations.
Port reform was aimed at allowing
CPAs to compete effectively.
continued on page 20
18
Planification stratégique
portuaire : la réforme
portuaire canadienne
L
a réforme portuaire canadienne
visait à permettre aux administrations portuaires canadiennes
(APC) de concurrencer efficacement. Les principaux ports du
Canada évoluent dans un contexte
commercial de plus en plus concurrentiel. Ils doivent établir des
stratégies commerciales qui tiennent compte de leur culture
organisationnelle, de leurs activités et de la fourniture d’installations, de sorte qu’ils se distinguent
de la concurrence. L’élaboration
de stratégies adéquates comprend
la création d’un plan stratégique
englobant tant le milieu interne
qu’externe du port. La planification stratégique devrait représenter
un outil stratégique indispensable
pour les ports, pour la prochaine
décennie de changement.
Les principaux ports canadiens
évoluent maintenant dans un contexte commercial où la concurrence
est très féroce – un contexte
exigeant d’eux qu’ils prennent des
décisions stratégiques au sujet de
leurs investissements pour les infrastructures et la fourniture de services. Les ports canadiens sont aux
prises avec une concurrence tant
nationale qu’américaine, en partie à
cause du réseau de transport continental intégré (surtout dans le
domaine intermodal). Les ports
canadiens doivent établir des stratégies commerciales qui tiennent
compte de leur culture organisationnelle, de leurs structures institutionnelles, de leurs systèmes
suite à la page 21
19
With this strong competitive element ports must determine the
resources available to exploit external opportunities and defend
against threats, and to consider the
internal strengths and weaknesses
of Canadian ports. This article
briefly looks at these strategic
issues facing Canadian ports. The
way in which CPAs deal with these
issues will determine their ability to
effectively compete in the near
future.
At its simplest, strategic planning
provides a vision or direction and
develops specific goals, objectives
and action for achieving the
desired vision. It is a disciplined effort guiding the
fundamental decision and
actions shaping an organization - defining what
the port is, what it
does and why it does it.
The American Association of Port Authorities
(AAPA) defines strategic
planning as “a systematic
and continuing process
which enables a port and
its management to clearly
determine mission, direction and activities.” Strategic
planning seeks to identify
the major factors affecting
the port’s future, including
an appraisal of the port’s
external and internal
environment. The
objective of an environmental appraisal
is to develop appropriate responses to
benefit from identified opportunities
and take steps to
counter threats to its market share. A
clear appraisal of the port’s internal
strengths and weaknesses identifies
strategic investment requirements (in
terms of human resources, training,
facilities and infrastructure). The port
20
needs to know where it is now in
relation to its environment (and its
competition), where it wants to go
(its vision and mission), and how it
will get there (strategies).
Following the institutional commitment to a strategic plan, the
next step deals with the port’s mandate - determining clearly what the
port can and cannot do. This is particularly important following the
recent passage of the Canada
Marine Act and the subsequent
issuance of negotiated Letters
Patent for each CPA, specifying
their mandate. Letters Patent are a
government document issuing a
special right forming each CPA
with a limited scope of operation. Essentially, these
negotiated Letters Patent
are the CPA’s articles of
incorporation. They
inventory the CPA’s
lands, properties and
port limits, define the
CPA’s obligations, and
include governance
rules and regulations.
To thoroughly
understand the port’s
role and its response to
internal and external
challenges, a SWOT
analysis (strengths,
weaknesses,
opportunities
and threats)
is conducted. Often,
this analysis
involves
input from
stakeholders and customers.
The SWOT analysis coupled
with the port’s mandate and mission
allow the strategic plan committee
to define and prioritize the key
issues facing the port. Identifying
key issues leads to the development
of strategic goals, objectives and
implementation strategies to address
them. The end result is a realistic
vision of a renewed port stemming
from an organizational commitment
to implement specific action plans to
bring the strategic plan to fruition.
Port strategic planning requires a
constant focus on the needs of customers. Old business must be evaluated and replaced by new
business that promises potential for
higher port revenues. Acting strategically requires fundamental
changes in the port’s management
and operations - objectives, value
systems, managers, process and
systems.
The goals of an organization
define its relationship with its environment. A change in either the
port’s goals or its environment
requires a re-evaluation and possible change in goals or direction to
adapt to the change. In this era of
environmental turbulence, the reappraisal of organizational goals has
become the almost constant preoccupation of effective transportation managers.
Top-level managers can provide a
degree of organizational stability in
an increasingly uncertain world.
Setting goals buffers the port from
some of the outside influences, creating stability. There is a risk, however, that excessive buffering could
be dysfunctional, as it could lead
the port to ignore warning signs
form its external environment. In
the extreme, such buffering could
lead to internal resistance to
change, as the need for change is
not perceived nor widely accepted.
In turbulent environments, rapid
change means the port’s goals have
to be re-examined frequently.
Increasing competition should lead
ports to continually ask their goalsetting question, “what business are
we in?”
Successful organizational change is
driven by several factors, including a
suite de la page 19
d’exploitation et de la fourniture
d’installations, de façon à se distinguer de la concurrence. La
récente réforme portuaire a transformé les grands ports commerciaux en administrations portuaires
canadiennes, en tant que sociétés
commerciales fédérales sans but
lucratif. La réforme portuaire visait
à permettre aux APC de livrer concurrence de manière efficace.
Vu cet environnement fort compétitif, les ports canadiens doivent
déterminer les ressources disponibles
afin de viser des possibilités externes,
de se prémunir contre les menaces et
d’examiner leurs atouts et leurs
lacunes. Cet article résume les enjeux
stratégiques des ports canadiens. La
façon dont les APC abordent ces
enjeux déterminera leur aptitude à
livrer concurrence efficacement dans
le futur.
En termes simples, la planification
stratégique fournit une vision ou
une orientation et détermine les
buts, les objectifs et les démarches
spécifiques qui permettront de concrétiser la vision souhaitée. Il s’agit
d’un effort discipliné qui guide la
décision et les démarches fondamentales qui façonnent un organisme – définissant ce qu’est le port,
ce qu’il fait et la raison pour laquelle il le fait. L’American Association
of Port Authorities (AAPA) définit la
planification stratégique en tant que
« processus systématique et soutenu
qui permet à un port et à sa direction de déterminer clairement sa
mission, son orientation et ses activités ». La planification stratégique
cherche à identifier les principaux
facteurs influant sur l’avenir du port,
y compris l’évaluation du contexte
externe et interne du port. Cette
évaluation a pour but de trouver
des réponses appropriées afin de
tirer profit de certaines occasions et
de prendre les mesures qui
écarteront les menaces planant sur
sa part de marché. L’étude approCanadian Ports Magazine
fondie des forces et des faiblesses
internes du port détermine les
besoins d’investissement stratégique
(sur le plan des ressources
humaines, de la formation, des
installations et des infrastructures).
Le port doit savoir où il en est par
rapport à son environnement (et à
la concurrence), où il veut aller (sa
vision et sa mission) et comment il
s’y rendra (ses stratégies).
Une fois que le plan stratégique
est adopté, la prochaine étape consiste à définir le mandat du port,
c’est-à-dire ce qu’il peut
et ne peut faire, de
façon précise. Cela
revêt une importance
particulière vu l’adoption récente de la Loi
maritime du Canada
et la délivrance subséquente des lettres
patentes négociées pour
chaque APC, précisant
leur mandat. Les lettres
patentes consistent en
un document du gouvernement qui confère un droit spécial
formant chaque
APC et lui
accordant
un pouvoir
d’exploitation. Ces lettres patentes
négociées
constituent
essentiellement
les statuts constitutifs.
Elles répertorient les terrains, les
biens-fonds et le périmètre portuaire des APC, déterminent leurs
obligations et comprennent les
règlements en matière de régie.
Pour bien comprendre le rôle du
port et sa réaction face aux défis
internes et externes, il faut
procéder à une analyse de ses
FFPM (forces, faiblesses, possibilités
et menaces), dans le cadre de
laquelle on demande souvent aux
intervenants et aux clients de faire
part de leurs commentaires.
L’analyse des FFPM, conjuguée au
mandat et à la mission du port, permet au comité du plan stratégique
de définir et de prioriser les principaux enjeux du port. Après avoir
identifié les enjeux, on établit les
buts stratégiques, les objectifs et les
stratégies de mise en œuvre qui
permettront de les aborder. On
obtient ainsi une vision réaliste
d’un port renouvelé, découlant de
l’engagement de l’organisation à
mettre en œuvre des plans d’action précis qui concrétiseront le plan
stratégique.
La planification
stratégique portuaire
exige une attention
constante aux besoins
des clients. Les anciennes activités doivent
être étudiées et parfois
remplacées par de
nouvelles, afin que le
port puisse augmenter
ses revenus. Cette
démarche stratégique
entraîne des changements fondamentaux
à la gestion et à
l’exploitation du
port, à ses objectifs, ses systèmes
de valeur, ses gestionnaires, ses
processus et ses
systèmes.
Les buts que se fixe
un organisme définissent sa relation
avec son environnement. Un changement apporté aux buts du port ou à
son environnement entraîne une réévaluation et peut-être la modification
de ses buts ou de son orientation en
vue de s’y adapter. Nous traversons
une période de turbulence environnementale, où la réévaluation des
buts organisationnels est devenue
une préoccupation quasi-constante
suite à la page 25
21
strong, visible leader espousing a
compelling vision of the future, high
participation levels,
and a strong team
spirit (focused on
promoting change).
All port staff must be
motivated to adopt
new ways to increase
productivity. Many ports
have introduced financial
incentives as a motivating
element. These incentives include profit sharing or the issuance of
shares at reduced prices
to port employees. But,
motivation does not
come merely from
financial rewards; a
number of intrinsic
factors are needed
such as: a belief in
people; becoming partners; linking rewards with performance; creating a positive
environment; and celebrating success.
Today’s port managers need to
help their staff see the ‘big’ picture understand how the parts of the
logistics chain interact, how local
actions often have longer-term and
broader impacts than initially realized, and why certain operating
policies are needed for the port as a
whole. Efficient, productive, and
competitive Canadian ports will
increasingly depend on the innovations and knowledge-driven expertise of their employees. The
challenge for port managers is to tap
this reservoir of expertise and use it
to their best competitive advantage.
Canadian ports operate primarily
as landlord facilities. Few ports are
directly involved in cargo-handling
operations. In effect, Canadian ports
provide a platform for private sector
cargo-handling activities. Regardless
of how efficient the private terminal
operations, inland transportation
operators, and stevedoring companies are, their efforts will be ineffective without appropriate
infrastructure - both on the
water side (adequate channel
depths and protected waters)
and land side (sound berths
and storage facilities). The
fortunes of the private sector
operations depend on the
effectiveness of the Canadian
ports’ infrastructure. Similarly, the success of the ports
depends upon efficient and
viable private operators
using the ports’ facilities.
Hence, ports cannot
take a passive role
in merely providing
facilities to private
operators but must
assist them in
enhancing cargo
throughput. As L.
Liburdi noted some
time ago in an analysis of ports:
In the past, many ports played
essentially a landlord role. But, in
today’s business environment,
ports must be an active partner in
the transportation chain ... Our
investment strategies must be
market oriented, and provide our
customers with value ... to compete in the global marketplace,
we must recognize the scope of
changes that are happening all
around us and respond with customer oriented solutions that
make sense in the contemporary
market.
The issues facing Canadian ports
are complex and difficult to
resolve. The recent enactment and
implementation of the Canada
Marine Act will lead to further
rationalization and enhanced competitiveness of Canadian ports. The
next millennium promises a
brighter future for Canadian ports
as they have been freed from
many of the strictures of the federal government to enable them to
operate as fully commercial enterprises.
■
Mike C. Ircha
The Transportation Group
University of New Brunswick
(Part of a larger article to
appear in Maritime Policy
Management in 2001)
23
suite de la page
suite de la page 21
des gestionnaires compétents en
transports.
Les cadres supérieurs peuvent
assurer une stabilité organisationnelle dans un monde de plus en
plus incertain. En se fixant des
buts, le port se protège des influences externes et assure ainsi sa
stabilité. Cette « protection » risque
cependant de devenir dysfonctionnelle, en ce qu’elle empêchera le
port de déceler les signes avantcoureurs que lui envoie son environnement externe. Au pire, cette
protection pourrait mener à une
résistance interne au changement,
le besoin de modification n’étant ni
perçu, ni généralement accepté.
Puisqu’il évolue dans un environnement turbulent, le changement
rapide exige du port qu’il revoie
fréquemment ses buts. L’exacerbation de la concurrence devrait
inciter les ports à se poser sans
cesse la question suivante par rapport à leurs buts : « en quoi consistent nos activités ? ».
La réussite du changement organisationnel provient de plusieurs facteurs, dont la présence d’un chef de
file solide et visible, qui embrasse
une vision irrésistible de l’avenir,
un niveau élevé de participation et
d’esprit d’équipe (axé sur la promotion du changement). Le personnel
portuaire doit être motivé à adopter
de nouvelles façons d’améliorer la
productivité. De nombreux ports
ont instauré des incitatifs financiers
comme élément de motivation. Il
peut s’agir de partage des profits ou
de l’émission d’actions à prix réduit
aux employés portuaires. Toutefois,
la motivation ne vient pas seulement de récompenses financières. Il
faut des facteurs intrinsèques
comme la croyance envers les gens,
la formation de partenariats, le lien
entre les récompenses et le rendement, la création d’un environnement favorable et la célébration
du succès.
Les gestionnaires portuaires d’aujourd’hui doivent aider leur personnel
à avoir « une vue d’ensemble », à
comprendre l’interaction entre les éléments de la chaîne logistique, comment les démarches locales ont des
répercussions plus vastes et à plus
long terme qu’on ne le croit au
départ, et pourquoi certaines
politiques s’imposent pour le
port en général. Les ports
canadiens, efficaces, productifs et concurrentiels
seront de plus en plus
tributaires des innovations
et des connaissances de
leurs employés. Leur défi
consistera à puiser dans
cette réserve de connaissances et à les
mettre à profit afin
d’accroître leur compétitivité.
Les ports canadiens
fonctionnent principalement en tant
que locateurs
d’installations. Peu
d’entre eux
participent
directement
aux activités
de manutention des
marchandises. Ils servent en effet
de plate-forme aux activités de
traitement de fret du secteur privé.
Peu importe le niveau d’efficacité
des activités des terminaux privés,
des exploitants de transport en
arrière-pays et des compagnies
d’arrimage, sans infrastructures
adéquates, leurs efforts seront
voués à l’échec – tant du côté maritime (profondeur de chenal
adéquate et eaux protégées) que
du côté terrestre (quais et installations d’entreposage sûrs). La réussite des activités du secteur privé
dépend de l’efficacité des infrastructures des ports canadiens. De
même, le succès des ports dépend
de l’utilisation de leurs installations
par des exploitants privés efficaces
et viables. Les ports ne peuvent
donc jouer un rôle passif et simplement fournir des installations aux
exploitants privés : ils doivent les
aider à accroître leur volume en
transit. Comme le soulignait L.
Liburdi, il y a quelque temps,
dans son analyse des ports :
Auparavant, les ports
jouaient pour la plupart
essentiellement un rôle de
locateur, mais vu le contexte commercial d’aujourd’hui, ils doivent
devenir partenaires actifs
de la chaîne des transports… Nos stratégies d’investissement doivent être
tournées vers les marchés
et fournir une valeur à la
clientèle… Nous devons
reconnaître la portée des
changements qui se produisent partout autour de
nous et trouver des solutions concentrées sur le
client, qui tiennent
compte du marché
actuel, si nous voulons
concurrencer sur le
marché mondial. [TRADUCTION]
Les enjeux des ports
canadiens sont complexes et difficiles à résoudre. La récente promulgation et mise en œuvre de la Loi
maritime du Canada permettra
d’accroître la rationalisation et la
compétitivité des ports canadiens.
Leur avenir s’annonce prometteur,
car ils sont maintenant libérés de
nombreuses contraintes fédérales et
peuvent fonctionner en tant qu’entreprises commerciales à part
entière.
■
Mike C. Ircha
The Transportation Group
Université du Nouveau-Brunswick
(Extrait d’un article devant être
publié en 2001, dans la Gestion de
la politique maritime)
25
The Funding
of U.S. Ports
A
s ports, shipping lines and railroads
undertake investment programs,
they are faced by important differences of goals and institutional
structure. Shipping lines and railroads are private firms that seek to
maximize net revenue, taking into
consideration the behavior of carriers and competition between rival
shipping companies. In contrast,
while most U.S. ports were privately owned in the 19th century and
early 20th century, all major U.S.
ports now are publicly owned entities. Public port authorities were
established to overcome the disadvantages of railway domination of
the freight industry, including the
monopoly power that the railroads
enjoyed as terminal owners.
Although the semi-autonomous
governance structure was created
to allow the ports to operate in a
more business-like manner, in
many cases they have been treated
more as economic development
agencies than business enterprises.
As such, the ports’ primary goals
are to maximize freight flows on
the belief that more freight passing
through the port will translate into
more regional and local economic
activity. In some situations, port
26
Le financement
des ports
américains
À
mesure que les ports, les lignes
maritimes et les compagnies de
chemin de fer entreprennent des
programmes d’investissement, ils
sont aux prises avec d’importantes
différences en ce qui touche les
buts et la structure institutionnelles.
Les lignes maritimes et les chemins
de fer sont des firmes privées qui
cherchent à maximiser leur revenu
net, en tenant compte du comportement des expéditeurs et de la
concurrence entre les compagnies
de navigation rivales. Par contraste,
la plupart des ports américains
appartenaient à des entreprises
privées au 19e siècle et au début
du 20e siècle, alors que la majorité
d’entre eux sont maintenant des
entités publiques. Les administrations portuaires publiques ont été
établies afin de surmonter les désavantages de la domination des
chemins de fer au sein de l’industrie du fret, y compris le monopole
qu’ils exerçaient à titre de propriétaires de terminaux. On a instauré
une structure de régie semiautonome en vue de permettre aux
ports d’évoluer de manière plus
commerciale, mais dans plusieurs
cas, ils ont été traités davantage
comme organismes de développesuite à la page 29
27
advocates in cities that historically
have been major ports contend that
those cities would suffer a serious
intangible but significant psychic
losses, if they no longer house
“working” ports. In Boston, for
example, shipping advocates and
city and state officials have been
adamant that ailing port facilities in
South Boston must continue to
function even though the land
occupied by those facilities probably could be developed for potentially valuable commercial and
residential uses and even though
the goal of a working port makes it
difficult to redevelop nearby waterfront land.
Although most port authorities are
structured as public enterprises with
a “bottom-line orientation,” most
major ports receive significant state
and local government subsidies. All
major ports except Los Angeles and
A variety of Subsidies supporting
port development are available
from the federal government as
well. Most general federal subsidies
arise through the issuance of taxexempt debt by state and local governments and their political
subdivisions (including port authorities). As a general rule, state and
local governments may not issue
tax-exempt bonds for the construction of facilities if the financing
plan includes too much private participation in the operation or beneficial use of the facility. However,
bonds issued to support the construction and renovation of docks,
wharves and related facilities are
considered to be “exempt facility
bonds” and may be financed on a
tax-exempt basis even if the private
participation exceeds the standard
threshold. Thus port facilities
financed with tax-exempt debt have
lower interest costs than they
Given the quest for government
subsidy, it is important for the
nation’s port authorities to convince
their political stakeholders of the
benefits associated with the existence and expansion of their port
facilities. The difficult question is
the scale of that impact. For their
part, port operators have made
extensive use of economic impact
studies that seek to estimate the
impacts (in terms of jobs, income,
and sales) of existing and expanded port facilities. A study conducted
for the three public ports in Indiana, for example, concluded that
the ports are responsible for an
annual output of $587 million, produced by workers in nearly 6,000
jobs throughout the state.
As part of their effort to attract
and retain business, most major
U.S. ports have embarked on large
capital improvement programs.
(Most ports have also tried to
Long Beach, for example, receive
direct, ongoing subsidies from state
and local governments or are crosssubsidized by other operations of
the authority. The ports of Seattle
and Tacoma receive a dedicated
portion of local property taxes,
while the Virginia Port Authority,
which oversees the ports of Hampton Roads and Newport News,
receives a share of state gasoline
and motor vehicle taxes. Similarly,
the port of Charleston, South Carolina, receives money from that state’s
general fund, and the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey crosssubsidizes its port facilities with revenues from the authority’s three
airports, five bridges and tunnels,
and revenue from its World Trade
Center.
would if they were financed with
otherwise equivalent taxable private debt.
The federal government also subsidizes some speculative port activities, particularly dredging projects
that are increasingly necessary for
some ports (notably those on the
East Coast) to handle the new
mega-ships, which require 50-foot
channels and berths. The federal
government has also provided partial funding for some important
port-related intermodal projects.
The two most notable being a subordinate-debt loan to aid in the
construction of the Alameda Corridor project and grants in the 1998
surface transportation law that will
help fund freight-related projects in
the Seattle/Tacoma area.
loosen extremely restrictive work
rules and to make better use of
information technology.) Funding
for the capital improvements comes
from a variety of sources, including
state and local subsidies, operating
revenues and bonds secured either
by subsidies or net operating revenues. The Virginia Port Authority,
for example, used payments from
an excise-backed trust fund to
secure some bonds and the ports of
Tacoma and Seattle use local property taxes directed to the port to
secure some of their debt. In general, however, the share of port
financing covered by general obligation bonds has fallen, while the
share of projects financed by port
revenues, revenue bonds, and
28
suite de la page 27
ment économique plutôt que
comme entreprises commerciales.
Les principaux buts des ports
visent essentiellement à maximiser
le mouvement des marchandises,
en partant du principe que de plus
gros volumes de fret permettront
d’accroître l’activité économique
tration. Les ports de Seattle de
Tacoma reçoivent une portion
déterminée des taxes foncières
locales alors que la Virginia Port
Authority, qui supervise les ports
de Hampton Roads de Newport
News, reçoit une partie des taxes
de l’état sur l’essence et les
véhicules à moteur. De même, le
financées au moyen d’un emprunt
exonéré d’impôt ont donc des
coûts d’intérêts inférieurs à ceux
qu’entraînerait un financement par
l’entremise d’une dette privée
imposable.
Le gouvernement fédéral subventionne également certaines activités
portuaires spéculatives, surtout les
régionale et locale. Dans certains
cas, les défenseurs des ports dans
les villes où se trouvent depuis toujours les plus importants ports soutiennent que ces villes subiraient
des pertes psychiques graves intangibles, néanmoins importantes, si
on n’y exercent plus d’activités portuaires. À Boston, par exemple, les
défenseurs du transport maritime et
les représentants de la ville et de
l’état maintiennent catégoriquement
que les installations portuaires en
désuétude à South Boston doivent
continuer de fonctionner, même si
le terrain où elles se trouvent pourrait probablement servir à des aménagements commerciaux et
résidentiels de valeur et malgré le
fait que ces activités nuisent en
quelque sorte au réaménagement
du secteur riverain situé à proximité.
La plupart des administrations
portuaires sont structurées en tant
qu’entreprises publiques, et leur
orientation est « fondée sur les
résultats », mais elles reçoivent
toutefois des subventions considérables du gouvernement de l’état
et local. Tous les principaux ports,
à l’exception de ceux de Los Angeles et de Long Beach, reçoivent par
exemple des subventions directes
permanentes du gouvernement de
l’état et local ou sont interfinancées
par d’autres activités de l’adminis-
port de Charleston, en Caroline du
Sud, reçoit de l’argent du fonds
général de l’état, et la Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
interfinance ses installations portuaires à l’aide des revenus provenant
des trois aéroports, cinq ponts et
tunnels de l’administration et des
revenus de son World Trade Center.
Certaines des subventions qui
appuient l’expansion portuaire
proviennent également du gouvernement fédéral. La plupart des
subventions fédérales générales
découlent de l’émission de dettes
exonérées d’impôt par le gouvernement de l’état et local et leurs subdivisions politiques (y compris les
administrations portuaires). Règle
générale, le gouvernement de l’état
et local ne peut émettre d’obligations exemptées d’impôt pour la
construction d’installations, si le
plan de financement comprend une
trop grande participation du secteur
privé pour l’exploitation ou l’usage
bénéficiaire de l’installation. Cependant, les obligations émises pour la
construction et de la rénovation des
quais et des installations connexes
sont considérées en tant qu’ « obligations aux fins d’installations
exemptées d’impôt » et peuvent
être financées en tant que biens
exonérés d’impôt, même si la participation privée dépasse le seuil
permis. Les installations portuaires
projets de dragage de plus en plus
nécessaires dans certains ports
(notamment ceux de la côte est) en
vue d’accueillir les méga-navires
qui nécessitent des chenaux et des
postes à quai de 50 pieds. Le gouvernement fédéral a également
assuré le financement partiel de
certains importants projets intermodaux liés aux ports. Les deux
plus importants sont celui du prêtdette de second rang pour la construction du projet du Couloir
Alameda et les octrois dans le cadre
de la loi sur le transport terrestre de
1998, qui aideront à financer les
projets liés au fret dans le secteur
de Seattle-Tacoma.
Vu cette quête de subventions
gouvernementales, les administrations portuaires américaines doivent
réussir à convaincre leurs intervenants politiques des avantages
que représente l’agrandissement de
leurs installations. L’ampleur des
répercussions demeure la question
difficile à résoudre. De leur côté,
les exploitants de terminaux ont
effectué de vastes études de l’incidence économique qui cherchent à
déterminer les répercussions (sur le
plan de l’emploi, du revenu et des
ventes) des installations portuaires
actuelles et agrandies. Une étude
portant sur les trois ports publics de
l’Indiana démontrait que les ports
suite à la page 31
29
other sources of funds (including
earmarked state revenues) has
risen.
Though ports are relying less on
general obligation bonds, they
rarely use pure project-based
funding, in which lease payments
and project-based user fees are
used to secure loans without a
pledge of other operating revenues and government funds as
additional security for those loans.
More commonly, ports will use
revenues from the projects to
repay the bonds they issue. However, the security for those bonds
is other port or government revenues, not the assets of the project
tenants or users. In essence, the
financing is secured by the balance sheets of the ports without
claim to the assets of the facility
users who may have initiated the
project. (Los Angeles is an exception because it requires its tenant
to sign guarantees for minimum
lease and use payments for new
facilities and has tenants’ corporate parents pledge to honor those
guarantees.)
The $2.4 billion Alameda Corridor project, for example, is being
funded by a combination of revenue bonds, payments from the
ports, a federal subordinate loan,
and direct federal grants (both
direct and those passed through to
the project by other agencies such
as the local transit agency). The
bonds are to be repaid with the
fees paid by the railroads for use
of the corridor. However, the
bonds are secured not by the railroads’ assets but by the ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach. In
fact, pro forma projections show
that the fees paid by the railroads
will not be sufficient to service the
debt unitl 2018. Until then, the
ports will make ‘shortfall’ advances
to cover required payments on
both the bonds and the federal
loan.
The current system of funding
for U.S. port improvements clearly
has facilitated the construction of
substantial new port and intermodal facilities throughout coastal
states.
■
By David Luberoff
and Jay Walder
Part of an Article for the
Transportation Quarterly,
Vol. 54, No. 4, Fall 2000
30
suite de la page 29
représentent des extrants de 587
millions de dollars, produits par les
travailleurs qui occupent près de 6
000 emplois dans l’état.
La plupart des grands ports
américains ont entrepris d’importants programmes d’amélioration
des immobilisations en vue d’attirer
de nouvelles entreprises et de
fidéliser leur clientèle. (Beaucoup
d’entre eux ont également essayé
d’assouplir des règles de travail
extrêmement rigoureuses et d’utiliser la technologie de l’information à
meilleur escient). Le financement de
l’amélioration des immobilisations
provient de sources diverses, y
compris les subventions de l’état et
locales, des produits d’exploitation
et d’obligations garanties par les
subventions ou par les produits
d’exploitation nets. La Virginia Port
Authority a, par exemple, utilisé des
versements d’un fonds de fiducie
appuyé par les accises en vue de
garantir des obligations et les ports
de Tacoma et de Seattle utilisent des
taxes foncières locales qui leur sont
destinées afin de garantir une partie
de leur dette. En général, toutefois,
la part du financement portuaire
couverte par les emprunts de collectivité locale a diminué, alors que
la part des projets financés par les
revenus portuaires, les obligationsrecettes et d’autres sources (incluant
les revenus de l’état affectés à une
fin particulière) a augmenté.
Bien que les ports se fient moins
aux emprunts de collectivité locale,
ils utilisent rarement un financement
fondé uniquement sur le projet, où
les paiements de location et les frais
d’usager fondés sur le projet servent
à garantir un prêt sans donner en
gage d’autres revenus d’exploitation
et de fonds du gouvernement en
tant que garantie supplémentaire.
Les ports utiliseront de manière plus
générale les revenus des projets afin
de rembourser les obligations qu’ils
émettent. Ces obligations sont
toutefois garanties par d’autres
revenus portuaires ou gouvernementaux et non par l’actif des
locataires ou des utilisateurs du
projet. Le financement est en fait
garanti par les bilans du port, sans
droit sur l’actif des utilisateurs d’installations qui ont peut-être mis le
projet en branle. (Los Angeles fait
exception à la règle parce que le
port exige que ses locataires signent
une garantie de bail minimum et il
utilise les paiements pour aménager
de nouvelles installations et exige
des sociétés mères des locataires
qu’elles s’engagent à respecter ces
garanties.)
Le projet du Couloir Alameda, par
exemple, au coût de 2,4 milliards de
dollars, est financé par une combinaison d’obligations-recettes, de
paiements des ports, d’un prêt non
privilégié du gouvernement fédéral et
de subventions fédérales directes
(tant les subventions directes que
celles accordées au projet par
d’autres organismes comme l’organisme de transit local). Les obligations
doivent être remboursées par les frais
versés par les compagnies de chemin
de fer pour l’utilisation du couloir.
Toutefois, les obligations sont
garanties par les ports de Los Angeles
et de Long Beach, et non par les actifs des chemins de fer. En fait, les
prévisions pro forma démontrent que
les frais versés par les compagnies de
chemin de fer ne suffiront pas à
amortir la dette jusqu’en 2018. D’ici
là, les ports devront effectuer des
avances pour le manque à gagner
afin de couvrir les versements requis,
tant pour les obligations que pour le
prêt du fédéral.
Le système actuel de financement
des améliorations des ports américains a facilité, de toute évidence,
la construction d’importantes nouvelles installations portuaires et
intermodales dans tous les états
côtiers.
■
par David Luberoff et Jay Walder
Extrait d’un article paru dans le
Transportation Quarterly,
Vol. 54, no 4, automne 2000
31
Appraising Unique and
Special-purpose Properties:
Value Considerations
for Canadian Ports
Introduction
The valuation of unique and special-purpose properties presents a
challenge to the appraisal community. The specific nature of the properties and, in many cases, the lack of
available data compounds the difficulties in the valuation process for
these property types. Many property
assets held by Canadian Port Authorities and Harbour Commissions (herein referred to as “Canadian Ports”)
fall within this property description.
Knowledge of the valuation
process, particularly as it relates to
Canadian Ports, is important for all
appraisal matters whether it be valuations for property taxes, lease
rate determination, acquisition or
dispositions, or any of the other
reasons that Canadian Ports need
expert valuation advice.
As a result, it is important that
this property holder have a sufficient level of understanding of the
appraisal process and valuation
principles to ensure that they are
able to provide their knowledgeable input to the valuation process.
This article looks at the fundamental valuation principles and procedures and relates them to the
Canadian Ports context.
Market Value
Firstly, it must be emphasized,
appraisers measure value they do
not determine value. Value is determined by the marketplace itself. One
definition of market value is that it is:
32
“The most probable price which
a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all
conditions requisite to a fair sale,
the buyer and seller each acting
prudently, knowledgeably and
assuming the price is not affected
by undue stimulus.”
The key points to be considered
are:
Open and Competitive Market
Special-purpose properties rarely
have an “open and competitive”
market. This makes it difficult to
gather market evidence to establish
value. The market could also be
subject to various forms of overt or
covert subsidies. This needs to be
considered when examining market
evidence from comparable properties. Most importantly, the real
property market for ports is likely
global in nature and research will
have to encompass a world-wide
market area.
Knowledgeable and
Motivated Parties
Evidence from other ports must be
analyzed for items related to duress
or other motivation to purchase the
property. “Knowledge” will have to
be measured in not only the purchaser’s degree of awareness of the market, but also the vendor’s degree of
knowledge. The lack of freely available information may raise questions
on whether a particular purchaser or
vendor was, in fact, “well-informed”.
Creative Financing or Incentives
Market information from other
ports will have to include analysis
of any “creative” financing programs; incentives; bonus schemes;
or hidden subsidies to ensure that
these are reflected in the true value
of the property.
Reasonable Exposure
The market for ports is truly global. Any applicable trade restrictions,
ownership controls, or similar influences will need to be examined for
their impact on the property’s market value.
Highest and Best Use
This is a key concept in appraisal.
One definition states that “Highest
and Best Use” is: “The reasonable
and probable use that supports the
highest present value of a property
at the date of the appraisal that is:
Legally Permissible; Physically possible; Financially feasible; and Maximally Productive.”
Being “legally permissible” is critical. The property must not only be
able to reflect the uses permitted
under a zoning bylaw or land-use
contract, it must also comply with
the various other types of legislation including those related to
marine transportation; contamination, etc. In many cases, the “court
of public opinion” may limit development potential of port properties
and this must be included in the
determination of the “Highest and
Best Use”. Lack of political
support for re-development
may also impact value and
limit the “permitted uses” of
a site.
Most Canadian Ports should
be familiar with uses that are
“physically possible” on its
sites, however, sub-soil conditions, water-depth issues,
tides, marine organism infestations, etc. should be indicated to the appraisers as the
valuation processes are implemented. “Financial feasibility”
needs to consider, not only
the viability of the proposed
site, but also the impact on
the remainder of the port
property. Permitting other
“uses” to encroach on port
properties may affect the viability by placing higher public
restrictions on other activities
at the port.
Approaches to Value
The Appraiser has three
basic approaches to determine value (there are several
other related approaches).
These are the Direct Comparison Approach; the Cost
Approach; and the Income
Approach.
In the Direct Comparison
Approach the appraiser seeks
to determine the value of a
property based on comparison with other similar properties that have recently sold
in the market. The difficulty
in finding similar properties
will pose a challenge in the
valuation process; the “global” market will define the
market area; and the lack of
data will certainly expand the
definition of “recently sold”.
The Cost Approach values the
land and improvements as separate
components and seeks to conclude
a value by combining the contribution of each component. The land
value is usually determined using
the Direct Comparison Approach
mentioned above, although there
are other methods including the
capitalization of ground rents
(which is discussed later). The
reproduction or replacement costs
of the various improvements are
determined including buildings and
related infrastructure. The appraiser
then deducts the various forms of
depreciation and/or obsolescence
to determine the value for the
improvements. This method is most
commonly used for special-purpose
properties.
The Income Approach seeks to
determine the value of a property
33
based on the capitalized net
income stream. The net income of
a property is calculated after all
related expenses and vacancy losses are deducted from the gross
income. The appraiser will then
apply an Overall Capitalization Rate
(OCR) against this income stream to
determine the capitalized value.
This method can be used to value
undeveloped and improved properties. Undeveloped properties can
be valued based on the capitalized
land rent. The OCR should come
from the market place. If this
approach is possible for Canadian
Port properties, then an analysis of
OCRs from the global market will
be necessary.
Plottage and Assemblage
In the valuation review process
one must consider whether the value
of a Canadian Port is greater or lesser than the sum of its parts. Restrictions on the ability to “break-up” the
asset and requirements to keep the
property operating as a port will
have some effect on this conclusion.
Depreciation (or Obsolescence)
These two related issues principally apply to the Cost Approach to
Value but can apply to the various
other Approaches to Value. These
items can be divided into physical
depreciation; functional depreciation
(or obsolescence); and economic
depreciation (or obsolescence).
“Physical depreciation” is the
wearing out of the asset and is the
most easily observed and measured.
“Functional depreciation (or
obsolescence)” relates to the inability of the asset to provide the service it was originally designed to
provide based on current conditions. This item will require input
from the Canadian Port community
to help identify outmoded technology and design, changes in handling and shipping; over or
under-capacity, required upgrading,
excess operating costs, etc.
“Economic depreciation (or obsolescence)” refers to negative
impacts to the property from outside of the subject site. This
includes issues from the global
market in which Canadian Ports
operate. This factor considers the
“competitiveness” of Canadian Ports
and is possibly the largest overlooked issue with regard to valuation of special-use properties.
Business Valuation
The value of many property types
are a mix of business and real
property values. Separating the real
property value from the business
value can be difficult. For some valuation needs it is necessary to
value only the real property, this is
a necessary exercise. In considering
these non-realty items it is important to be aware of the value of the
intangible assets including licenses,
patents and permits; value of the
assembled workforce; goodwill;
machinery and equipment; etc.
Double Counting
Of concern in the valuation of
many special use properties is the
issue of “double counting”. This
exists wherein the property is valued based on an amenity that it
possess and then the amenity is also
valued. For a residential property
this would include valuing a house
with street access then valuing the
street as well. The value addition of
the street is reflected in the value of
the house. This sometimes occurs
for special use properties and may
be a concern for Canadian Ports.
Issues related to marine access and
the value of the access routes will
need to be addressed.
Reiterative Valuation
In some cases the value of a
property is determined based on
the value of adjacent properties. In
most cases, this is appropriate,
however, if the subject property
“creates” and enhances the value of
adjacent property, a value “loop”
can be created which would result
in a higher value for the subject
property than would be justified.
This issue will need to be examined in any review of valuation
issues for Canadian Ports.
Contamination
Environment contamination,
which affects market value, can
also affect other values including
assessed value (depending on the
jurisdiction). This issue will be a
difficult problem for those responsible for valuing, real property in the
coming decade. In some cases the
cost of environmental cleanup can
supercede the value of the property. Canadian Ports will need to contribute information on this matter to
the valuation process.
Consistent Use
The Principle of Consistency
states that when land is in transition
from one “Highest and Best Use” to
another it cannot be appraised with
one use for the land and another
for the buildings. This may be
applicable for Canadian Port properties. As lands are valued reflecting changing uses (residential
particularly) the continued value in
the buildings will need to be examined.
Conclusion
The valuation of special-purpose
and unique properties presents a
challenge to the valuation process.
Canadian Ports, as experts in their
own field, can assist the appraisers
by being aware of the valuation
process; the data (and sources of
data) needs of the appraiser; and
the current economic issues facing
Canadian Ports in the global marketplace. By being pro-active in the
valuation approach, Canadian Ports
will ensure that they are an
“informed” client and stakeholder
in any consultation process.
■
Michael Blaschuk, AACI, P.App.
Chief Appraiser
Government of Canada
(administers all common-use
real property owned by the
Government of Canada)
35
Competitiveness
and the
O
Investment Climate
ur recent study, prepared for the
British Columbia government, concludes that the continued competitiveness of west coast Canadian
ports depends on continued investment in port infrastructure. One
could argue that a similar situation
exists with other ports in other
regions. At present the investment
climate in British Columbia is not
favourable compared to US west
coast jurisdictions and this is impeding much needed capital investment.
New Investment in both transportation infrastructure and terminal
facilities in the US is accelerating at a
rapid pace. This could result in a
36
reduction or reversal of the growth in
cargo volumes flowing through
British Columbian ports, unless the
investment climate in BC is
improved. For this to happen there
must be an improvement in the
expected return from terminal facilities investment as well as continued
public investment in land-side transportation infrastructure to level the
playing field.
In March 2000, the BC Ports
Competitiveness Committee, comprised of port authorities and terminal operators along the Canadian
west coast submitted a report to the
BC government requesting the
Province take action on several
issues. As a result, in August 2000
the Ministry of Employment and
Investment established the Port
Competitiveness Review Group
with representation from the federal, provincial and local governments, port authorities, port
terminal operators and labour.
The Terms of Reference were to
examine ports competitiveness,
identify some specific issues within
provincial jurisdiction and suggest
options to deal with the issues. It
was recognized that many other
issues related to port competitiveness were being discussed in other
venues. Perrin, Thorau & Associates
facilitated the process and drafted
the report. The relevant questions
posed were: whether BC ports are
currently competitive; what the
major factors of competitiveness are;
and what specific issues need to be
addressed immediately. All were
approached through a critical review
of the existing literature. Twentyone reports prepared between 1992
and 2000 were identified and
reviewed, many of them focused on
west coast Canadian ports.
Port competitiveness is often discussed in terms of the port costs to
shippers. However, the cost of port
services does not seem to be the
primary determinant of port competitiveness. There are two reasons
for this. One, the relevant cost is the
total cost of shipping the cargo from
the producer to the user, of which
the costs of actually using terminal
facilities are a small proportion. The
other is that the efficiency, quality
of service and the risk of disruption
play a significant role in shipping
decisions. Accordingly, even the
lowest overall shipping cost may
not be the deciding factor.
Given the continued growth in
cargo volumes experienced at British
Columbian ports, it is apparent that
BC ports are competitive at present.
For some types of cargo, port costs
in BC seem to be lower than in competing US ports; for others, port
costs seem to be higher. However,
overall shipping costs and the quality
and reliability of service combine to
make the ports competitive at this
point in time, regardless of the cost
of port services themselves. It should
be noted, however that Canadian
port and land-side shipping costs
have benefited from the relatively
low value of the Canadian dollar and
a significant appreciation could
reduce competitiveness greatly.
The overriding issue is whether or
not BC ports will remain competitive.
At present there is a large amount of
new capital investment being made
in competing US ports in terms of
port facilities as well as land-side
transportation infrastructure. This
threatens to erode the competitive
position of BC ports unless new
investment in BC - for both terminal
upgrades and transportation infrastructure - keeps pace. Investment in
transportation infrastructure is a key
part of this, but because it is the subject of ongoing work in several
forums, the study went no further
than identifying its importance.
Rather, the study concentrated on the
investment climate for capital investment by private terminal operators
and by port authorities.
Stating the obvious, the level of private investment will depend on the
expected return from the investment
and the degree of risk associated with
the investment. The study found that
there are considerable fixed costs and
risk factors that make the BC investment climate relatively unattractive.
Unless that issue is addressed, BC’s
current competitive position will soon
be eroded, as service quality, capacity
and reliability in the US increases with
new investment south of the border.
Among the issues that make the
investment climate in BC less attrac-
tive than competing US ports are:
BC property taxes on port terminal
facilities are in the 4% to 6% range
per annum whereas in Seattle,
Tacoma and Portland averages
about 1.4%; higher provincial fixed
taxes, including sales tax on
machinery and equipment and Corporation Capital Tax; land-use
issues and erosion of the industrial
land base with deepwater access
and increasing restrictions on the
use of the remaining land serve to
limit the capacity of the ports; and
port authority stipends wherein
port authorities are expected to pay
an annual dividend based on revenues to the federal government.
Port authorities get a large part of
their revenues from leases with terminals so, indirectly it is the terminal operators that pay. In contrast,
US port authorities have taxing
authority to raise revenues from the
surrounding urban area.
The study proposes and analyses
15 different options for addressing
these issues. The provincial government has considered the study. It
has concluded that there is an
emerging port competitiveness
issue related to the investment climate, part of which is within
provincial and local government
control. As a result, the Ministry of
Employment and Investment and
Ministry of Municipal Affairs plan to
work with local government staff to
develop possible joint strategies
consistent with the work of the
Review Group.
While this study is focused on BC
ports, the concept of the investment climate as an indicator of
future port competitiveness may be
applicable in considering the situation of major ports in other
provinces. The study focuses on
some often overlooked aspects of
port competitiveness that may serve
to inform the discussion and debate
on this important economic policy
issue for all Canadian ports.
■
Dan Perrin
PRINCIPAL
Perrin, Thorau and Associates Ltd.
37
The Implications
for Port Authorities
T
he increased competition faced by
ports is more focused than ever on
the performance of logistics systems of which the individual terminals in ports are critical hubs. The
changes in competitive conditions
raise issues about appropriate public port policies and strategies of
port management.
The competitive environment
favours considerable local autonomy. Greater efficiency in ports has
been pursued recently in many
countries by such measures as priCanadian Ports Magazine
vatization and commercialization so
that the role of governments, central governments in particular, has
been reduced significantly. As in
Canada, local port authorities have
come to dominate to the benefit of
responsiveness and knowledge of
local conditions. However, ports
have generally not been treated as
other businesses, leaving a number
of questions.
What should be the objectives of
port authorities? Efficiency in the
ports and, therefore, in the busi-
nesses that use them, is dependent
on running ports to achieve efficiency in commercially viable ports.
This is the objective that is at the
core of National Transportation Policy, although it is less clear in the
National Marine Policy for Canada.
The wider role in the latter is
reflected in the mission statements
of some Canadian ports for which
the expansion of trade is an important objective. Within a commercially viable port this allows for the
practice of cross subsidization.
39
While
it may or
may not be there,
the mission statements are
consistent with their existence.
This is less of a problem than the
outright subsidization of an authority as may occur in some locallyrun ports such as the Port of Seattle
as an example south of the border.
For the port industry to reach higher levels of efficiency, practices
based on realistic cost-recovery
from users of port facilities must be
put in place. As well, other services
need to be adopted as the international standard for port operations.
While this is the direction in which
policy is moving, there is still a
long way to go.
The evolution of more competitive conditions among port terminals has increased the relevance of
public port policy to the allocation
of traffic among ports. The potential effects of public subsidies on
the routing of traffic are greater
now that traffic is more able to
move through alternate gateways.
Also, the distorting effects of differential subsidies are much more
likely to extend across national
boundaries as the size of hinter-
lands is increased. Therefore, the
harmonization of national port policies is more important now than
before. Competition among financially viable ports would largely
remove the current difficulty of
ports being the victim of other
ports’ uneconomic investment practices.
Can port authorities contribute to
the efficiency of port services? If
the concept of the logistics chain is
translated into a more pronounced
vertical integration of shipping
companies, terminal handling companies and hinterland transport
modes and logistics providers, what
will be the role of port authorities?
Will they become full-fledged partners in the logistics chain, will their
involvement be restricted to a supporting role (safety, land use and
concession policies) or might they
disappear from the scene entirely?
The growing role of specialized terminal management companies such
as P&O Ports, HPH Holdings and
PSA has increased the role of the
terminal as an integrator. The Port
of Rotterdam has taken an equity
stake in the ECT terminal and is an
example of the partner model. The
UK has followed the route of privatizing its ports. Port authorities in
Canada are still sitting in the supporting role. Should they be providing more value-added services
that span the requirements of terminals, that offer economies of scale
or scope? An example of this may
be the provision of integrated information systems.
Port authorities face other
issues. When terminals served
largely local and well defined hinterlands and faced little competition, it was possible for landlord
port authorities to become “captured” by their terminal operators.
They could become reluctant to
take actions that would be seen as
posing a competitive threat to
existing terminals. However, in an
environment in which external
competition is more likely to arise,
more onus is placed on the port
authority to maintain a vigilance
on and to foster concern about
competitive performance. A program of performance measurement or even true benchmarking
might be undertaken. Such a program would provide up to date
information on technologies and
systems performance in leading
terminals around the world. The
port authority might see itself as a
leader in “dissatisfaction,” not as a
defender of the status quo.
Though ports should regularly
solicit the views of its user they
must not wait for the complaints of
shippers or shipping lines. Instead,
they must seek out ways to make
the necessary improvements in services and efficiency. In this way
they will become stronger and
more competitive players in the
national transportation system at
home and internationally.
■
Trevor D. Heaver
UBC, Centre for
Transportation Studies
41
Canadian Hockey and Ports:
A Sinking
Proposition?
42
T
he growing presence of U.S.
teams in the NHL and their
dominance in the pursuit of
the coveted Stanley Cup is
something that we are
reminded of every spring
during play-off time. Canadians weren’t startled to
read the recent headline of
the pending - and ultimate
sale - of the beloved Montreal Canadiens to an American ski mogul. One of the
tenuous elements of this
drawn out deal was the
impasse between the owner,
Moslon’s and the City of
Montreal. There was an
ongoing dispute with
respect to the annual property tax bill assessed against
the Molson Centre, which
exceeds $11 Million a year.
The prospective American
buyer indicated they wanted
to see this taxation issue
resolved prior to completion
of the sale. The American
buyer struggled with the
Molson Centre’s property
tax bill that was greater than
the combined property tax
bill of all the other 24 U.S.
teams.
As U.S. businessmen target
our professional sports teams,
U.S. ports are targeting the
movement of goods traditionally reserved for Canadian
ports. Canadian ports are
fighting hard to maintain and
attract shippers who are
being lured by our U.S. competitors. The increasingly
competitive nature of the
continental rail system is
opening up new opportunities and threatening the
strength of traditional eastwest trade routes. As our best
friend and brightest head
south to lace up their skates,
so too will goods traditionally
shipped within Canada.
The dominance of the
U.S.-based NHL teams,
which threatens the compet-
itiveness of small market Canadian
teams, can be compared to that of
the respective port communities.
American municipalities recognize
the economic spin-off from professional sports teams, and provide
taxation incentives that allow for the
development of new sports arenas
(capital re-investment), which in
turn provides short and long-term
job growth (construction/hospitality/tourism). A healthy investment
climate provides a greater return to
the local economy than short-term
tax grabs. This pattern carries over
to how the Americans treat their
ports.
Canadian ports are required to
make payments in lieu of tax on
federal property they own and/or
occupy and control. Their tenants
are also required to pay property
tax. These monies get distributed to
local and provincial governments.
Increasingly, the rate of taxation
levied against port lands has hampered the competitiveness of the
ports and the various businesses
that occupy port land. In some
Canadian jurisdictions, ports and
their tenants actually pay a higher
rate of property tax than other businesses within the community.
As with the professional sports
arena scenario, Americans take a
different view than their Canadian
counterparts. Rather than trying to
extract taxes from part of the infrastructure that supports job growth
and economic activity, they provide
their port system with the ability to
collect (rather than pay) tax, which
in turn supports an environment of
re-investment and new capital
spending. Homeowners in Washington State’s King County pay a
nominal amount of their property
taxes to the Port of Seattle, which
in turn uses the money to reinvest
in the port itself. The Port of Seattle
is a rated borrower with Wall Street
and is able to raise significant capital from private sources, of which
Canadian ports can only dream.
With access to more capital and
much lower operating expenses,
U.S. ports will continue to win the
war of the movement of cargo,
containers and resources bound for
international destinations. As an
example, consider two port tenants
whose property carries the same
notional market value: A Canadian
port tenant occupying 10 acres of
port side land would pay an average property tax bill of $275,000
CDN. In the United States, a port
tenant occupying 10 acres of port
side land would pay a property tax
bill of approximately $25,000 CDN.
Business owners occupying port
lands in the U.S. pay tax at the
same rate on their warehouse or
shipping property as they do on
their house. By maintaining a single
tax rate, elected officials are held
accountable to business and residential tax payers alike.
In Canada, there are a number of
underlying themes within the Canadian property tax regime that set us
apart from the above U.S. scenario.
Canadian municipal and provincial
governments have afforded themselves the ability to apply different
tax rates to different properties and,
as such, have created various levels
of taxpayers. Portside users often
pay property taxes at ten times the
rate of residential taxpayers. Unfortunately, municipalities and provincial governments alike have grown
accustomed to this high level of
taxation, and to a degree, are
immune from persecution given
their accountability to the voting
public (residential taxpayer). Conversely, American elected officials,
at both the county and state level,
make spending and collection decisions that impact all taxpayers (residential and commercial) equally.
As we witnessed in the recent
federal election, the Finance Minister and the Liberals were prepared
to address the so-called ‘brain drain’
with sizable cuts in personal income
tax in an attempt to level the playing field with our southern trading
partner. It will be some time before
the municipal and provincial governments take it upon themselves to
overhaul the property tax regime. If
and when that time comes, it may
43
be too late to halt the “grain drain”
as our Canadian ports continue to
lose out to their more cost-competitive U.S. counterparts. Until Canadian ports garner the level of public
support offered to the Montreal
Canadiens, the status quo of our
property tax regime will stymie the
ability of Canadian ports to pursue
the equivalent of the Stanley Cup increased international business.
The Stanley Cup is no longer just a
national trophy, but a prize sought
by strong international players. By
the same token, Canadian ports
must prove they are competitive
when compared to neighbouring
ports in the US when seeking out
international business.
■
Bob Langlois
Senior Manager
Property Services Group
Deloitte & Touche
44
Definition of Port Fees:
W
What’s in a Name?
hen the Special Committee of Canada’s
federal Cabinet, sitting as the Governor-inCouncil, issued an Order in Council on
June 9, 2000 rescinding an interim decision of the Canadian Transportation
Agency (the ‘Agency’) that interpreted certain provisions of the Canada Marine Act
(‘CMA’), the action represented the most
visible manifestation to date of the complex issues that have arisen as a result of
the implementation of the National
Marine Policy. The basic changes to the
administration of Canada’s federal port
system wrought by the CMA, in particular
the realignment of the relationship
between port users, port administrators
(as now embodied by the Canadian Port
Authorities) and the federal government,
have created tensions that the courts may
be obliged to resolve. In the harshly competitive maritime economy of the early
21st century, the manner in which these
tensions are resolved will have profound
implications for both port users and the
port authorities, and will ultimately determine the success or failure of the federal
government’s port policies.
Order in Council P.C. 2000-889 was
issued in response to controversies that
had arisen on Canada’s Atlantic and
Pacific coasts. In Halifax, the Halifax
Port Authority (‘HPA’) had became
embroiled during 1999 in a rental rate
dispute with a principal, long-standing
tenant who was a long-time operator of
the container terminal at the Port of Halifax. In Vancouver, the Vancouver Port
Authority (‘VPA’) was locked in a similar
conflict with another terminal operator, a
major bulk handling facility for the port.
At the centre of each of these controversies is a basic disagreement about
the extent of the powers granted to
port authorities to set rental rates for
port tenants. In particular, the debate
has been focused upon the proper
interpretation of sections 49-52 of the
CMA. Both terminal operators on both
coasts adopted the position that rental
charges established under port leases
fall within the ambit of the term ‘fees’
as defined in subsection 2(1) of the
CMA. Extrapolating from this conclusion, the terminal operators have
argued that such rental charges are
required to be (i) ‘fair and reasonable’
and (ii) must not be unduly discriminatory or constitute an unreasonable preference or disadvantage, within the
meaning of subsections 49(3) and 50(1)
of the CMA, respectively.
Building upon this ‘rent as fee’ analysis, both terminal operators complained
to the Agency under section 52 of the
CMA about perceived undue discrimination in the establishment of rental
charges applicable to their respective
facilities. In response, both port authorities challenged the jurisdiction of the
Agency to hear these complaints. On
February 4, 2000, the Agency responded
to a preliminary motion brought before
it by the Halifax Port Authority by issuing a decision in which the Agency concluded that rental charges fell within the
ambit of the fees governed by sections
49-52 of the Canada Marine Act, with
the result that the Agency had the necessary jurisdiction to hear terminal’s
complaint. On April 7, 2000, the Agency
reaffirmed its jurisdiction to hear rental
disputes by issuing a letter to the Vancouver Port Authority stating that it
would continue to consider the terminal’s ‘section 52’ complaint.
This assertion of jurisdiction by the
Agency had significant implications for
port authorities across Canada, who
feared that their ability to operate their
ports in a commercially efficient manner
would be substantially undercut if tenants could seek administrative review of
negotiated lease rates. This perspective
found favour with officials at Transport
Canada, who had earlier declined to
support the inclusion of a specific rental
rate review mechanism in the CMA that
had been proposed by a key Senator
during the proceedings of the Standing
Senate Committee on Transport and
Communications in May 1998. As a
result, a submission from Transport
Canada was placed before the Governor- in-Council asking that the Agency’s
decision be rescinded pursuant to a little-used policy oversight provision contained in section 40 of the Canada
Transportation Act and incorporated by
reference in subsection 52(2) of the
Canada Marine Act.
With the issuance of the requested
Order by the Governor-in-Council in
June 2000, the terminal operators’ proceedings before the Agency were essentially thwarted. This fact was confirmed
in July 2000 when the Agency issued
two decisions formally dismissing the
applications of both terminals in Halifax
and Vancouver. The termination of the
Agency proceedings has not brought an
end to the rate disputes in Halifax and
Vancouver, however. Both terminals
coupled their Agency proceedings with
applications for judicial review in the
Federal Court. However, since that time
the Halifax Port Authority has come to a
negotiated agreement with the terminal
operator at its port. The proceeding is
ongoing in the case of Vancouver; a
hearing in the matter is presently scheduled for Vancouver in May, 2001.
This issue has important implications
for the port community both in the specific context of these disputes and in a
larger sense. On a micro level, the
issues concerning the rental increases
that the Agency might have considered
at hearings before an expert panel may
now be fully canvassed instead before
the Federal Court, which has previously
ruled in favour of port tenants in rental
disputes in the past. On a macro level,
it has now been established than any
activity undertaken by a port authority
is susceptible to judicial review proceedings in appropriate circumstances.
If the Federal Court adopts the viewpoint of the Canadian Transportation
Agency on the ‘rent as fee’ issue, the
ability of the port authorities to negotiate with their tenants in a truly commercial manner will be substantially
impaired. Such a ruling would quite
possibly result in pressure by the ports
for statutory amendments to give effect
to the policy viewpoint expressed in
the recent Order in Council (P.C. 2000889). Given these factors, the port community in Canada will no doubt be
watching the unfolding of the Federal
Court proceedings in these matters. ■
Rick Shields
McCarthy Tetrault
[email protected]
45
Upcoming Events
May 28, 2001
ACPA Board Meeting
Quebec Port Authority
Quebec City
June 4 -5, 2001
Saint John Port Days
Saint John, New Brunswick
(Full Program Details at: www.sjport.com)
Aug. 25-29, 2001
ACPA Annual General
Meeting and Conference
“Challenges for the 21st Century”
Delta Pacific Resorts and Hotel
Richmond, British Columbia
(Full Program Details at:
www.acpa-ports.net)
Oct. 1-6, 2001
Association of American Port
Authorities Annual Convention
Hosted by Quebec Port Authority,
Quebec City
(Program Details at: www.aapa.org)
Nov. 21, 22, 23, 2001
ACPA Governance Seminar
ACPA Constitution,
Law and Legislation Committee
Hosted by the Saint John
Port Authority, Saint John
(Program Details Soon at:
www.acpa-ports.net)
March 18-19, 2002
ACPA Annual Port/Government
Interface Conference
Ottawa Congress Centre
Hosted by the ACPA
Future ACPA Annual Meetings
and Conference
2001 - Richmond, BC, August 25-29
Delta Pacific Resorts and Hotel
Hosted by the North Fraser
Port Authority
2002 - Windsor, Ontario, August 24-28
Windsor Casino Hotel
Hosted by the Windsor Port Authority
2003 - Trois-Rivieres, QC, August 23-27
Hosted by the Trois-Rivieres
Port Authority
2004 - St. John’s, Newfoundland
Hosted by the St. John’s Port Authority
Future AAPA Conventions
2001 - Quebec City, October 1-6
Quebec Convention Centre
2002 - Palm Beach, Florida,
September 22-26
2003 - Curacao, Netherlands, Antilles
2004 - Long Beach, California
46

Read the 2001 Issue - Association of Canadian Port Authorities

Transcription

Documents pareils

Le lycée professionnel maritime du Guilvinec Au défi des ports de

Asus A8N-SLI ATHLON 3700 + PRIX : 884 € Garantit 1 an sur

PPC-19RT9-AL-MIL – Panel PC 19`` Durci Militaire

Tiroirs FO

Asus A8 VE ATHLON 3200 + PRIX : 689 € Garantit 1 an sur

PMM159

Fiche technique Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo Pa1510 - Ordi-zen

Télécharger les présentations

Plate-forme 1U/19`` à base de Pentium M JADE

TS324 TS1124 Serveur de ports et de terminaux (Fr)