DOCSLIB.ORG

Tabla De Contenido

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tabla De Contenido 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents................................................................................................................... 2 Message from the Chair of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on Public Policy, Legislation, and Regulation ...................................................................................................................... 8 Message from Jorge Durán, Chief of the Inter-American Committee on Ports Secretariat ....... 9 Introduction and Overview of the Chapters ........................................................................... 11 Argentina ............................................................................................................................. 13 Argentinian Port Authority ........................................................................................................... 14 1. Legal Status and Origins .................................................................................................................. 14 2. Organization .................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Objectives and Functions of the Port Authority ............................................................................. 19 (a) Functions of the Administrator (Landlord) ............................................................................................... 20 (b) Regulatory function .................................................................................................................................. 21 (c) Operational functions ............................................................................................................................... 21 4. Relations with Other State and Non-State Agencies ...................................................................... 22 5. Property Ownership Regime – Budget – Financial Resources ........................................................ 23 6. Port Services Delivery System ......................................................................................................... 24 6.1. General Services ..................................................................................................................................... 27 6.2. Specific Services ...................................................................................................................................... 27 6.3. Navigation Assistance Services ............................................................................................................... 27 6.4. Operations Services ................................................................................................................................ 29 7. Port Domain Use Regime ................................................................................................................ 29 7.1. Port Use Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 33 (1) Permit Lengths ...................................................................................................................................... 33 (2) Permit Renewals and Extensions .......................................................................................................... 35 (3) Permit Request Requirements ............................................................................................................. 35 (4) Procedure for Permit Granting, Publicizing, and Transparency ........................................................... 36 (5) Direct Granting ..................................................................................................................................... 37 (6) Works to be Completed by the Permit Holder and Non-compliance ................................................... 38 7.2. Concession for Use ................................................................................................................................. 39 7.3. General Conditions for Granting Concessions for Use ............................................................................ 39 7.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 39 8. Infrastructure Use Regime .............................................................................................................. 41 9. State Oversight Agencies and Regulations ..................................................................................... 42 (a) External Oversight .................................................................................................................................... 42 (b) Internal Oversight ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Notes about Fees for Port Terminal Concessions ........................................................................... 44 1. Preliminary ...................................................................................................................................... 44 2. Fees ................................................................................................................................................. 46 2.1. Concept - Types of fees ........................................................................................................................... 46 2.2. Quantification ......................................................................................................................................... 47 (a) Fees for site use ........................................................................................................................................ 48 (b) Activity-based fees ................................................................................................................................... 49 3. Procedure for Selecting Port Operators ......................................................................................... 50 3.1. Public Tender – Basis .............................................................................................................................. 50 2 3.2. Bidding Terms and Conditions - Preparation Thereof ............................................................................ 52 3.3. Bid Evaluation Phases ............................................................................................................................. 54 3.4. Criteria for Awarding Bids ....................................................................................................................... 57 3.5. Reasonableness, Consistency, and Coherence ....................................................................................... 59 4. Fees During the Contract Execution Phase ..................................................................................... 60 4.1. Updating of the Fixed Fee ....................................................................................................................... 60 4.2. Oversight ................................................................................................................................................. 61 4.3. Non-payment .......................................................................................................................................... 61 4.4. Review..................................................................................................................................................... 62 5. Epilogue .......................................................................................................................................... 63 Canada ................................................................................................................................. 65 Canadian Ports Law: Jurisdiction, Governance and Liability ........................................................... 66 Abstract............................................................................................................................................... 66 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 66 2. Overview of the Canadian Legal System and Jurisdiction over Ports and Harbours ...................... 68 2.1. Canadian Legal System and “Canadian Maritime Law” .......................................................................... 68 2.2. Jurisdiction over Ports ............................................................................................................................ 69 3. History of Canadian Port Administration ........................................................................................ 71 3.1. 1936 to 1983: National Harbours Board ................................................................................................. 71 3.2. 1983 to 1995: Canada Ports Corporation Act ......................................................................................... 72 3.3. 1998 to Present: Canada Marine Act ...................................................................................................... 73 4. Canada Port Authorities ................................................................................................................. 74 4.1. Capacity and Structure...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Letters Patent
    Canada Gazette Page 1 of 77 Français Contact us Help Search Canada Site Home About us History FAQ Site Map Notice Vol. 141, No. 51 — December 22, 2007 ORDERS IN COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Certificate of amalgamation of port authorities P.C. 2007-1885 December 6, 2007 Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pursuant to section 59.1 of the Port Authorities Management Regulations, hereby issues the annexed certificate of amalgamation of the port authorities specified in the certificate. CERTIFICATE OF AMALGAMATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES WHEREAS pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 2007-944 a certificate of intent to amalgamate the Vancouver Port Authority, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority was issued on June 7, 2007; AND WHEREAS the notice requirements pertaining to the certificate of intent to amalgamate set out in subsection 59.1(2) of the Port Authorities Management Regulations have been met; AND WHEREAS the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has recommended that the Vancouver Port Authority, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority be amalgamated and continue as one port authority to be named the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority; NOW THEREFORE under the authority of section 59.1 of the Port Authorities Management Regulations, it is hereby certified that the Vancouver Port Authority, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority are amalgamated and continue as one port authority to be named the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, with the letters patent for the amalgamated port authority contained herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to Vexillological Research—Port Flags In
    APPROACHES TO VEXH.LOLOGICAL RESEARCH: PORT FLAGS IN AUSTRALIA AND CANADA A CASE STUDY ^ Kevin Harrington SYNOPSIS Flags for Port Authorities have followed in the heels of the movement towards more active government interest and involvement in the multifold activities of ports and harbours, a movement particularly pronounced in the past two decades, as technology and trade developments rapidly expanded. PORT FLAGS A STUDY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN PORTS INTRODUCTION Vexillological research into the flags of ports, harbour commissions and port authorities poses a number of problems. First of all, one could ask the question why should such research be done at all. Secondly how does one gather the data, i.e. - where is the information? Thirdly, where does one stop, what are the dimensions or framework for the research? We have gathered the data by writing directly to port managers in both Australia and Canada. This paper will primarily describe the various flags and suggest some directions worthy of further consideration. FLAGS OF NEW SOUTH WALES Visits to the Maritime Services Board (MSB) of New South Wtdes followed our correspondence (See Appendix 1). Three port flags were shown and discussed in an interview with Marketing Manager Robert Worsley. The official MSB flag, made by Harry West of East Balmain, Sydney, is a British blue ensign defaced by the MSB badge. This badge comprises a red disc bearing a representation of a sailing vessel, the Sirius. Surrounding the disc is a lifebuoy alternately blue.and yellow, a symbol of maritime safety. A white ribbon with red backing where shown, bears in black lettering the words THE MARITIME SERVICES BOARD OF N.S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Vancouver Supply Chain System
    PORT OF VANCOUVER SUPPLY CHAIN SYSTEM James Ireland Bachelor of Commerce, University of British Columbia, 1977 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In the Faculty of Business Administration Executive MBA O James Ireland 2005 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2005 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: James Ireland Degree: Master of Business Administration Title of Project: Port of Vancouver Supply Chain System Supervisory Committee: Senior Supervisor Michael Parent, Associate Professor Second Reader Carolyne F. Smart, Associate Professor Date Approved: SIMON FRASER $$&2Q? UN~VERSWY~ibra ry DECLARATION OF PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENCE The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection, and, without changing the content, to translate the thesislproject or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work. The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint John Port Authority
    Saint John Port Authority Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2018 (all amounts in thousands of Canadian dollars) Independent auditor’s report To the Board of Directors of Saint John Port Authority Our opinion In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Saint John Port Authority and its subsidiaries (together, the Authority) as at December 31, 2018 and its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) . What we have audited The Authority's consolidated financial statements comprise: the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2018; the consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the year then ended; the consolidated statement of changes in equity for the year then ended; the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year then ended; and the notes to the consolidated financial statements, which include a summary of significant accounting policies. Basis for opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the consolidated financial statements section of our report. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. Independence We are independent of the Authority in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the consolidated financial statements in Canada. We have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 14 King Street, Suite 320, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada E2L 1G2 T: +1 506 632 1810, F: +1 506 632 8997 “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. J.W. Pickersgill MG 32, B 34
    Manuscript Division des Division manuscrits Hon. J.W. Pickersgill MG 32, B 34 Finding Aid No. 1627 / Instrument de recherche no 1627 Prepared in 1991 by Geoff Ott and revised in Archives Section 2001 by Muguette Brady of the Political -ii- Préparé en 1991 par Geoff Ott et révisé en 2001 par Muguette Brady de la Section des Archives politiques TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PRE-PARLIAMENTARY SERIES ............................................... 1 SECRETARY OF STATE SERIES, 1953-1954 ..................................... 3 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERIES ..................................... 4 Outgoing Correspondence - Sub-Series ........................................ 4 Citizenship - Sub-Series .................................................... 5 Estimates - Sub-Series .................................................... 28 National Gallery - Sub-Series .............................................. 32 National Film Board - Sub-Series ........................................... 37 Indian Affairs Branch - Sub-Series - Indian Act ................................. 44 Indian Affairs Branch - Sub-Series - General ................................... 46 Immigration - Sub-Series .................................................. 76 Immigration Newfoundland - Sub-Series ..................................... 256 Immigration - Miscellaneous - Sub-Series .................................... 260 Public Archives of Canada - Sub-Series ...................................... 260 National Library of Canada - Sub-Series ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port Metro Vancouver's 21St Century Re‐Structuring
    Canadian Political Science Review Vol 2 (4) December 2008 Making Biggest Bigger: Port Metro Vancouver’s 21st Century Re‐Structuring – Global Meets Local at the Asia Pacific Gateway Kevin Ginnell (Simon Fraser University), Patrick Smith (Simon Fraser University) and H. Peter Oberlander (University of British Columbia)1 Abstract Vancouver’s Port is Canada’s biggest. On January 1, 2008, it got bigger ‐ restructuring the Port of Vancouver, the Fraser River Port Authority and the North Fraser Port Authority, into a single Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, marketed (as of June, 2008) as Port Metro Vancouver.1 This new entity was the culmination of a process of divestiture, re‐organizational adjustment, shift to market orientation and consolidation that has played out over several decades across Canada’s ports. This article examines some of this recent history – both in terms of (i) divestiture and increased market orientation and (ii) more recently, major port consolidation ‐ and governmental responses to ensure Vancouver remains Canada’s busiest port and a central part of the country’s Asia‐Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative. (APGCI) I. Past as Prologue: Canada’s Ports Divestiture Program2 The early history of Canada’s ports was one of public investment, public ownership and public management. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, the Arctic to the Great Lakes, hundreds of ports, large and small were established and came under the purview of the Government of Canada. Authority came from legislation such as the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the National 1 Kevin Ginnell and Patrick Smith, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6 [email protected] [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Governance Review of the Yellowknife Airport
    Final Technical Report GOVERNANCE REVIEW OF THE YELLOWKNIFE AIRPORT September 2015 The Lindbergh Group Inc. Yellowknife Airport Governance Review SC446825 i Yellowknife Airport Governance Review SC446825 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iv 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Engagement Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1 1.3. Engagement Scope .................................................................................................................. 1 1.4. Overall Approach and Methodology ................................................................................ 3 1.5. Key Issues and Considerations .......................................................................................... 4 2. EVOLVING PRACTICES IN AIRPORT GOVERNANCE IN CANADA AND AROUND THE WORLD ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.2. Overview of Privatization ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Canada's Five Leading National Ports Charles N
    Document generated on 10/02/2021 2:42 a.m. Urban History Review Revue d'histoire urbaine The Development of Canada's Five Leading National Ports Charles N. Forward Volume 10, Number 3, February 1982 Article abstract The east coast ports of Montreal, Quebec, Saint John and Halifax, together with URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1019078ar Vancouver on the west coast, have functioned as Canada's leading general DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1019078ar cargo ports throughout much of the nation's history. Both competitive and complementary relationships have existed between them at various times, and See table of contents the relative importance of each port has fluctuated in response to changes in transport technology and trading patterns. Before Confederation, Quebec was the leading port, but it soon lost this leadership to Montreal, as the steamship Publisher(s) displaced the sailing vessel and the St. Lawrence Ship Channel was widened and deepened. Montreal dominated Canada's shipping trade for many decades Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine until the recent rise of Vancouver finally overshadowed it. During their lengthy history all five ports have managed to survive periods of adversity and ISSN maintain their importance and respective roles in the nation's shipping trade, despite the appearance of many new competitors. 0703-0428 (print) 1918-5138 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Forward, C. N. (1982). The Development of Canada's Five Leading National Ports. Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine, 10(3), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.7202/1019078ar All Rights Reserved © Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine, 1982 This document is protected by copyright law.
    [Show full text]
  • P:\Karen\Transpo Website\Papers\Marine\North Amer
    North American port reform: the Canadian and American experience Michael C. Ircha, PhD The Transportation Group Professor of Civil Engineering Assistant Vice-President (Academic) University of New Brunswick Fredericton, NB Canada, E3B 5A3 Tel: 506-453-4801 Fax: 506-453-4908 E-mail: [email protected] Published in the International Journal of Maritime Economics, Vol. 3, 2001, pp. 198-220 ABS TRACT Port reform is a global initiative that reflects the swing of national economies and international lending agencies to the neo-liberal right. Similar to steps being taken elsewhere, Canada began a national port reform process in 1993 that culminated in the implementation of the Canada Marine Act in 1999. This paper considers North American port reform from the Canadian and US perspectives. It provides an overview of the concepts of port privatisation and structural adjustment programs, the development of ports policy in both Canada and the US, and discusses the effectiveness of contemporary Canadian port reform. The research approach taken was to review the process of Canadian port reform and compare it to the US approach that has evolved over time. The paper concludes that despite the lack of contemporary reform in US ports, they remain efficient, effective and competitive (both domestically and internationally with Canadian ports). The Canadian port reform process is a step in the right direction by making major ports more commercial, but more needs to be done to free these facilities from the 1 2 strictures and constraints of the federal government. Keywords: port, administration, reform, privatisation, structural adjustment INTRODUCTION Much of North American trade is continental, primarily between Canada and the US.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Direction Or Stay the Course? Canada's Port-Specific Challenges Resulting from the Port Reform Program of the 1990S
    RTBM-00245; No of Pages 10 Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research in Transportation Business & Management A new direction or stay the course? Canada's port-specific challenges resulting from the port reform program of the 1990s Mary R. Brooks Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, 6100 University Ave., P O Box 15000, Halifax B3H 4R2, NS, Canada article info abstract Article history: This article examines the third wave of port reform in Canada. It analyses whether the third wave can be consid- Received 27 June 2016 ered ‘successful’ by defining how success could be measured in the context of Canadian policy objectives. It pro- Received in revised form 9 August 2016 vides context by exploring the current port situation and port policy. Using a content analysis methodology to Accepted 13 August 2016 examine port governance principles on web sites for the major ports, the study finds that not all ports live up Available online xxxx to modern expectations of governance in a world where social media and web sites provide avenues to acquire fi Keywords: social license. The article reviews the port-related ndings of the 2016 Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, fi Port governance and contemplates what might be proposed in the developing swell of future port reform. The nal section of the Port reform article examines whether a new direction is likely or whether the current course is likely to hold, and what con- Canada clusions and implications may be drawn for port reform more generally. Transport policy © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • February 19, 2018 CONTENTS February 19, 2018
    Publications Mail Agreement No. 41967521 w w w . c a n a d i a n s a i l i n g s . c a F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 8 WHA T’S THE NEXT STEP IN YOUR LOGISTICS CAREER? CanadianCanadian Transp orta tion & Sailings Tra de Logistics www.canadiansailings.ca NEXT PUBLICATION: MARCH 12 1390 chemin Saint-André Rivière Beaudette, Quebec, Canada, J0P 1R0, www.canadiansailings.ca Publisher & Editor Joyce Hammock Tel.: (514) 556-3042 Associate Editor Theo van de Kletersteeg Tel.: (450) 269-2007 Production Coordinator France Normandeau, [email protected] Tel.: (438) 238-6800 Advertising Coordinator France Normandeau, [email protected] Tel.: (438) 238-6800 Web Coordinator Devon van de Kletersteeg, [email protected] Contributing Writers Saint John Christopher Williams Halifax Tom Peters Montreal Brian Dunn Ottawa Alex Binkley Toronto Jack Kohane Thunder Bay William Hryb Valleyfield Peter Gabany Vancouver Keith Norbury R. Bruce Striegler U.S. Alan M. Field Advertising Sales: Don Burns, [email protected] Tel.: (450) 458-5833 CIRCULATION : For all inquiries concerning circulation and subscriptions, please send an email to [email protected] ACCOUNTING: For all inquiries concerning accounts receivable and accounts payable, please send an email to [email protected] ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION: Quebec only $75 plus GST and QST British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland $75 plus HST P.E.I., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba $75 plus GST U.S. US$375 if shipped weekly or US$195 if shipped monthly Overseas US$750 if shipped weekly or US$400 if shipped monthly GREA T W HITE P U B L I C A T I O N S I N C .
    [Show full text]
  • Seaport Governance in the United States and Canada
    SEAPORT GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA By Rexford B. Sherman Director of Research and Information Services American Association of Port Authorities 1010 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 SEAPORT GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Introduction: To observers from abroad, even experienced port specialists, the seaport system of the United States might seem at first glance to be anything but a system. In other countries, port systems are typically small by comparison and commonly subject to direct control by national authority. The situation in the United States differs in several crucial respects. First is simply the size of the industry itself--183 commercial deepdraft ports dispersed along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific and Great Lake coasts. Included in that number, too, are the seaports of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Saipan and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Here, unlike many countries, there is no national port authority. Rather authority is diffused throughout all three levels of government-federal, state and local. That stems from the federal character of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves certain powers for the national government and others strictly for the states. The Canadian system, by contrast, is subject to the general purview of the central government and more specifically to enactments of the national parliament. The enactment in June 1998 of the Canada Marine Act changed somewhat the character of the federal port system and permits the divestment of many ports previously administered by the Ministry of Transport to non-federal public and private entities. However, the nation’s major seaports are governed and managed by federal port authorities and ultimate statutory authority constitutionally remains with Parliament.
    [Show full text]