DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Port Finance Survey.Pub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Port Finance Survey.Pub Maritime Administration Public Port Finance Survey for FY 2006 December 2008 Cover: Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach Maritime Administration file photo: West Coast Tour Photographer—Shannon M. Russell Public Port Finance Survey − FY 2006 December 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Office of Intermodal System Development Should you have questions or comments concerning this report, please contact: Maritime Administration Office of Intermodal System Development 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (#W21-201, MAR-540) Washington, DC 20590 Phone: 202-366-2320 Fax: 202-366-6988 E-mail: [email protected] To learn more about the Maritime Administration or the maritime industry, visit our web site at www.marad.dot.gov. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Participating Ports ................................................................................................. 2 Definitions of Terms .............................................................................................. 3 Operating Status ............................................................................................ 3 Port Type ........................................................................................................ 3 Ratios Used in Report..................................................................................... 4 FY 2006 Data Tables .............................................................................................. 5 North & South Atlantic ................................................................................... 6 Gulf ............................................................................................................... 10 North & South Pacific & Great Lakes (inc. Canada) .................................. 14 Appendix: FY 2006 AAPA Port Finance Survey Questionnaire ..................... A-1 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a cooperative effort between the Maritime Administration and the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). It was prepared by the Maritime Administration, using financial information furnished by AAPA. This is the only report of its kind in the port industry that covers U.S. and Canadian ports. It has been compiled for 28 years, first by AAPA or a member port and now, for the ninth year, by the Maritime Administration. The survey data were obtained by AAPA from its U.S. and Canadian corporate membership. AAPA’s U.S. members represent virtually all the major U.S. deep-draft coastal and Great Lakes ports. Public port agencies own approximately one-third of the U.S. deep-draft marine terminal facilities. The report contains financial data on maritime activities at ports, including the income statement, balance sheet, outstanding bonds, debt service, sales offices, and cargo tonnage. Two additional sections cover data on ratio analyses and contributions, donations, and grants received in fiscal year 2006. It is important to note two characteristics about the data in this report − (A) they represent fiscal year (FY) data, and (B) ports have different fiscal years. (A fiscal year is defined as a 12-month period used to calculate annual financial reports. For example, a fiscal year ending June 30 extends from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year.) The table below shows the different fiscal years for the 38 ports in this report. Fiscal Year Port (12 months ending…) April 30 South Louisiana Massachusetts (Boston), Maryland (Baltimore), Philadelphia, Wilmington (DE), Richmond (VA), North Carolina, South June 30 Carolina, Virginia, Gulfport, New Orleans, Port Lavaca, St. Bernard, Portland (OR), Hueneme, Los Angeles, Redwood City, San Diego, Stockton July 31 Port Arthur Canaveral, Everglades, Miami, Alabama, Freeport, Orange September 30 (TX), Long Beach Greater Baton Rouge, Corpus Christi, Houston, Greater Lafourche, Lake Charles, Seattle, Vancouver USA, Cleveland December 31 // Halifax (CAN), St. John’s (CAN), Thunder Bay (CAN), Vancouver (CAN) A special appreciation is extended to FY 2006’s 39 contributing ports (of which 35 were U.S. and 4 were Canadian). The response rate for U.S. ports was 41 percent – namely, 35 responded out of a total of 85 AAPA U.S. members. The response rates for the last report, FYs 2004 & 2005 combined, were 36 percent and 38 percent, respectively. To put this report’s response rates in context, the 35 U.S. respondents represented – • 18 out of the top 30 U.S. container ports in 2006, • 17 out of the top 30 U.S. ports in 2006 handling foreign and domestic waterborne cargo. The report is available on the Maritime Administration’s website (link to 2006 port finance survey). For further information, contact the Maritime Administration; Office of Intermodal System Development; 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE (#W21-201, MAR-540); Washington, DC 20590; tel: 202-366-2320; fax: 202-366-6988; or email: [email protected]. 1 PUBLIC PORT FINANCE SURVEY FOR FY 2006 39 PARTICIPATING PORTS NORTH & SOUTH ATLANTIC GULF Maryland Port Administration Alabama State Port Authority (Baltimore) Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission Massachusetts Port Authority (Boston) (LA) Philadelphia Regional Port Authority Port of Corpus Christi Authority (TX) (PA) Port of Freeport (TX) Port of Richmond (VA) Port of Gulfport (Mississippi State Port Port of Wilmington (DE) Authority) Canaveral Port Authority (FL) Port of Houston (TX) Port Everglades (FL) Greater Lafourche Port Commission (LA) Port of Miami (FL) Lake Charles Harbor/Terminal District (LA) North Carolina State Ports Authority Port of New Orleans (LA) South Carolina State Ports Authority Orange County Navigation Port District Virginia Port Authority (TX) Port of Port Arthur (TX) NORTH & SOUTH PACIFIC & GREAT Port of Port Lavaca/Point Comfort (TX) LAKES (includes Canada) Port of South Louisiana (LA) Port of Portland (OR) St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal District Port of Seattle (WA) (LA) Port of Vancouver USA (WA) Port of Hueneme (CA) Port of Long Beach (CA) Port of Los Angeles (CA) Port of Redwood City (CA) San Diego Unified Port District (CA) Port of Stockton (CA) Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority (OH) Vancouver Port Authority, BC (CAN) Halifax Port Authority, NS (CAN) St. John’s Port Authority, NL (CAN) Thunder Bay Port Authority, Ont. (CAN) 2 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS OPERATING STATUS Ports can be categorized by their type of operation: non-operating, operating, and limited- operating ports. Non-Operating Ports Basically landlord ports with all port facilities generally [NONOP] leased or preferentially assigned with the lessee or assignee responsible for operating the facilities. Operating Ports Generally provide all port services except stevedoring [OP] with their own employees including, but not limited to, loading and unloading of rail cars and trucks and the operation of container terminals, grain elevators, and other bulk terminal operations. Limited-Operating Ports Lease facilities to others, but continue to operate one or [LTDOP] more facilities with port employees. These operated facilities may be specialized terminals, such as grain elevators, bulk terminals, container terminals, etc. PORT TYPE: U.S. vs. Canadian. U.S. Canada U.S. public ports generally fall into the The Canadian port industry following categories: Bi-State Authority; experienced significant changes in State Department, Agency, or Authority; FYs 1998 and 1999 with the County Department or Authority; passage of the Canada Marine Act Municipal Agency; or Special Purpose (Act). Changing the relationship of Port/Navigation District or Authority. ports with the Crown, the Act now The classification of the ports into these requires the designated Canada Port categories is based on their current Authorities (CPA) to pay annual ownership and status. For the purpose stipends to the federal government of this report, special purpose and payments in lieu of taxes to local port/navigation districts and authorities governments, in addition to are separate local government becoming subject to greater public organizations that generally are granted scrutiny and accountability. Unlike separate taxing authority with some many of their U.S. counterparts, statutory limitations. CPAs neither have taxing authority unto themselves nor do they have access to any federal funding. They are financially self-sufficient entities governed by a Board of Directors comprised of nominees from port user groups and the three levels of government (Municipal, Provincial, and Federal). CPAs operate port facilities as agents of the Crown for core business activities and are independent of the Crown for non- core activities. 3 RATIOS USED IN REPORT The ratios presented in this report are among the major categories of ratios used in financial statement analysis and measure operating performance, short-term liquidity, return on investment, capital structure, and asset utilization. Since there are no established benchmark industry standards, the ratios presented can best be interpreted by comparison with past ratios of the same port or comparison with other ports having the same characteristics of operation and financing. Ratios which measure operating performance include operating ratio, operating margin, net income to operating revenue (gross sales), and operating income to operating revenue (gross sales). Although not formally adopted as a benchmark in MARAD’s 1997 publication, An Analysis of U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GREENTECH 2017! - ABC Recycling - Glencore There’S Less Than a Month Left to Green Marine’S Annual Conference, Greentech 2017
    MAY 2017 L’INFOLETTREGREEN DE MARINE L’ALLIANCE NEWSLETTER VERTE IN THIS ISSUE New participants: 3,2,1… GREENTECH 2017! - ABC Recycling - Glencore There’s less than a month left to Green Marine’s annual conference, GreenTech 2017. This year’s conference will - Port of Belledune be held at the Hyatt Regency Pier Sixty-Six in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from May 30th to June 1st. Most of the New supporters: exhibition showroom booths have been sold, the sponsored events await delegates, and registration continues. - Clean Foundation Along with busily preparing for GreenTech 2017, the Green Marine team is compiling the environmental - Port Edward performance results of the program’s participants and putting the final touches to Green Marine Magazine. Both - Prince Rupert the results and the magazine will be unveiled at the conference. - Protected Seas Industry success stories: - Seaspan NEW MEMBERS - Port NOLA - Desgagnés - Port of Hueneme - CSL Group GREEN MARINE PROUDLY WELCOMES THREE NEW - Neptune Terminals Spotlight on partners & supporters PARTICIPANTS - Ocean Networks Canada - Hemmera The Belledune Port Authority was incorporated as a federal not-for-profit commercial port authority on Events March 29, 2000, pursuant to the Canada Marine Act. The Port of Belledune offers modern infrastructure and GreenTech 2017 equipment, including a barge terminal, a roll-on/roll-off terminal and a modular component fabrication facility. The #BragAboutIt Port of Belledune is a year-round, ice-free, deep-water port that offers efficient List of all Green Marine members stevedoring services. The port has ample outdoor terminal storage space and several indoor storage facilities – a definite competitive advantage for bulk, breakbulk and general cargo handling.
    [Show full text]
  • CANADA MARINE ACT | Review Publications Related to the Canada Marine Act
    TP14107B CANADA MARINE ACT | review Publications related to the Canada Marine Act: TP13937 – Review of the Canada Marine Act - Guidance Document (May 2002) Please direct your comments, orders and inquiries to: Transport Canada Marine Policy (ACF) Place de Ville Tower C, 25th Floor, Area B 330 Sparks Street Ottawa ON K1A 0N5 Telephone: (613) 991-3536 Fax: (613) 998-1845 E-mail: [email protected] This document is available online at www.tc.gc.ca © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, (Transport Canada) 2003 ISBN 0-662-67359-X Catalogue No. T22-120/2003 TP14107B (06/2003) *TP14107B* THE CANADA MARINE ACT – BEYOND TOMORROW Report of the Review Panel to the Minister of Transport CANADA MARINE ACT | review TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT Dear Minister: In accordance with your request of May 26, 2002, that the Canada Marine Act Review Panel undertake consultations with marine stakeholders pursuant to the review specified in section 144 of the Canada Marine Act (CMA) and your Terms of Reference for the review, the CMA Review Panel is pleased to present to you its Final Report – Canada Marine Act: Beyond Tomorrow. Respectfully submitted, Richard Gaudreau Allan Donaldson Chair David Gardiner Frank Metcalf, Q.C. 3 CANADA MARINE ACT | review Table of Contents introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................7 chapter 1 | THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE PANEL’S MANDATE .............................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Info Source
    Introduction to Info Source Info Source: Sources of Federal Government and Employee Information provides information about the functions, programs, activities and related information holdings of government institutions subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. It provides individuals and employees of the government (current and former) with relevant information to access personal information about themselves held by government institutions subject to the Privacy Act and to exercise their rights under the Privacy Act. The Introduction and an index of institutions subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act are available centrally. The Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act assign overall responsibility to the President of Treasury Board (as the designated Minister) for the government-wide administration of the legislation. GENERAL INFORMATION Background The Halifax Port Authority was created on May 1, 1999 by letters patent issued on that date by the Minister of Transport pursuant to Section 8 of the Canada Marine Act. Therefore, the Halifax Port Authority is a Canadian Port Authority and an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada within the framework of the Canada Marine Act. The Port of Halifax is a major contributor to the economy of Nova Scotia and is a national asset connecting importers and exporters with global markets. The Halifax Port Authority is governed by a Board of Directors, and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. Additional information related to the Port, its history, and mandate can be found here. Responsibilities The Halifax Port Authority is responsible for the development, marketing and management of its assets in order to foster and promote trade and transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored By: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C
    Research Brief August 2016 Salt Lake Inland Port Market Assessment Authored by: Natalie Gochnour I Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Table of Contents Executive Summary Executive Summary . 1 The World Trade Center Utah contracted with the Kem Background and History . 5 C . Gardner Policy Institute to prepare a preliminary as- Research Scope and Limitations . 6 sessment of the practicality and market context for the Essential Characteristics of an Inland Port . 6 development of an inland port in Salt Lake County . The Key Findings from Scoping Interviews . 7 Gardner Policy Institute researched background informa- Port Governance . 9 tion, reviewed past local studies, inventoried inland ports Public Incentives . .. 11 of interest, conducted scoping interviews, and prepared Market Characteristics .. 12 summary information on the technical feasibility of cre- Foreign Trade Zone Status and Privileges . 14 ating an inland port in Salt Lake County . This Executive Right to Work Laws . 14 Summary includes a summary of the key findings from Labor Market Conditions . 15 the data, research, and interviews . Required Infrastructure Improvements Key Findings and off-site Improvement Costs . 16 Next Steps . 18 Our research confirmed that Salt Lake County meets many of the essential criteria for developing an inland REFERENCES . 19 port . However, there are numerous issues that will require APPENDIX A . 20 additional data collection, analysis, public discussion, Summary of past studies and, ultimately, investment . APPENDIX B . 21 We have distilled our research down into 17 key findings: History of inland port policy discussion in Utah APPENDIX C . 22 1 . Significant nationwide interest in inland port de- Salt Lake County Global Cities Initiative and velopment—Logistics hubs that combine container - Regional Export Plan ized rail, trucking interchange, and warehousing and APPENDIX D .
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto Port Authority Practices and Procedures Within the Limits of the Port & Harbour of Toronto
    TORONTO PORT AUTHORITY PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PORT & HARBOUR OF TORONTO as at June 2000 PREAMBLE These Practices and Procedures are made pursuant to the Canada Marine Act Section 56, Subsection (1) (b), and are intended to promote safe and efficient navigation, and environmental protection in the waters of the Port of Toronto. Under Section 59 Subsection (1) (a), it is an offense if a person or ship does not follow these practices and procedures. The waters of the Port of Toronto are those waters within the port limits as defined in the Letters Patent for the Port of Toronto as shown on Canadian navigation chart 2085. These Practices and Procedures are to be followed by all vessels entering, manoeuvering, berthed, or anchored within the port limits. SHORT TITLE 1. These Practices & Procedures may be cited as the Toronto Port Authority Practices and Procedures. INTERPRETATION 2. In these Practices & Procedures: “ACT” means the Canada Marine Act. “AUTHORITY” means the Toronto Port Authority. “DESIGNATED AREA” means an area designated by the Authority in respect of an activity. “OFFICER” means a person employed or designated by the Authority to direct some phase of operation or use within the port limits. “OVERALL LENGTH” means the horizontal distance measured between perpendicular lines drawn at the overall extreme after ends of a vessel. “PLEASURE CRAFT” means a vessel, however propelled, that is used exclusively for pleasure and that does not carry passengers who paid a fare for passage. “REPRESENTATIVE” means the Master, Owner or Charterer of a vessel or an agent of either of them and includes any person who in the operation of that vessel within the port limits of the Authority accepts responsibility for payment of fees under the Act to be assessed against that vessel.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Maritime Transportation System
    Canada-United States Law Journal Volume 42 Issue 1 Article 13 2018 Management of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Maritime Transportation System Mike Piskur Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj Part of the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Mike Piskur, Management of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Maritime Transportation System, 42 Can.-U.S. L.J. 228 (2018) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cuslj/vol42/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canada-United States Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 228 CANADA-UNITED STATES LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 42, 2018] MANAGEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE MARITIME TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Mike Piskur† ABSTRACT: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Maritime Transportation System (“MTS”) bears critical importance to the economic competitiveness of Canada and the United States (“US”). Maritime transportation comprises both a major economic driver and job creator for both countries. As a cost-effective and highly efficient means of transporting raw materials and finished products to market, the MTS is essential to agricultural, mining, and manufacturing supply chains that frequently stretch across the US-Canada border and beyond. Yet management of the MTS is fragmented, with responsibility for various system components scattered across numerous federal agencies in both the US and Canada. This fragmentation results in a dearth of transparency, confusing and disjointed governmental authority, higher user costs, barriers to establishing new markets, and overall reduced system competitiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Highway Projects Description
    MARINE HIGHWAY PROJECTS DESCRIPTION American Samoa Inter-Island Waterways Services Applicant: Pago Pago, Port of ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Baton Rouge – New Orleans Shuttle Service Applicant: New Orleans, Port of ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Bridgeport to Jefferson Port Ferry Service Applicant: Connecticut Port Authority ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Cape May – Lewes Ferry Applicant: Delaware River and Bay Authority .................................................................................................................................... 7 Chambers County – Houston Container on Barge Expansion Service Applicant: Chambers County ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Cross Gulf Container Expansion Project Applicant: Brownsville, Port and Manatee, Port ................................................................................................................................ 9 Cross Sound Ferry Enhancement Project Applicant: I-95 Corridor Coalition ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Marine Act Loi Maritime Du Canada
    CANADA CONSOLIDATION CODIFICATION Canada Marine Act Loi maritime du Canada S.C. 1998, c. 10 L.C. 1998, ch. 10 Current to September 22, 2021 À jour au 22 septembre 2021 Last amended on September 10, 2020 Dernière modification le 10 septembre 2020 Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address: Publié par le ministre de la Justice à l’adresse suivante : http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca OFFICIAL STATUS CARACTÈRE OFFICIEL OF CONSOLIDATIONS DES CODIFICATIONS Subsections 31(1) and (2) of the Legislation Revision and Les paragraphes 31(1) et (2) de la Loi sur la révision et la Consolidation Act, in force on June 1, 2009, provide as codification des textes législatifs, en vigueur le 1er juin follows: 2009, prévoient ce qui suit : Published consolidation is evidence Codifications comme élément de preuve 31 (1) Every copy of a consolidated statute or consolidated 31 (1) Tout exemplaire d'une loi codifiée ou d'un règlement regulation published by the Minister under this Act in either codifié, publié par le ministre en vertu de la présente loi sur print or electronic form is evidence of that statute or regula- support papier ou sur support électronique, fait foi de cette tion and of its contents and every copy purporting to be pub- loi ou de ce règlement et de son contenu. Tout exemplaire lished by the Minister is deemed to be so published, unless donné comme publié par le ministre est réputé avoir été ainsi the contrary is shown. publié, sauf preuve contraire.
    [Show full text]
  • General Information
    GENERAL INFORMATION CONTEXT In 1805, the Canadian government established the Trinity House, which was responsible for managing the port, issuing licences to pilots on the St. Lawrence and even tending buoys. In 1858, the government created the Québec Harbour Commission, which had a mandate to coordinate the development of maritime and port activities in Québec. The Trinity House was abolished in 1873, and in 1875, responsibility for managing the port was granted to the Québec Harbour Commission. In 1936, the government established the National Harbours Board, which brought together the largest ports in Canada, and disbanded the Harbour Commission. The National Harbours Board was an agent of the Crown and was responsible for conducting commercial operations and services. This organization was accountable to Parliament for matters concerning it, through the Department of Transport. Around 1983, the federal government reviewed the legislation concerning the management of Canadian ports and created the Canada Ports Corporation Act. In 1984, it established the Québec Port Corporation as well as six other local port corporations. This new legislative step effectively merged the main Canadian port organizations into a single corporation and returned decision-making power to the local level. On May 1, 1999, following the adoption of the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Ports Corporation began to dissolve, making way for a national port network managed by the Canadian Port Authorities (CPAs). The Québec Port Corporation thus became the Québec Port Authority, a shared governance organization that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. RESPONSIBILITIES The Québec Port Authority plays a role in building a national marine policy that provides Canada with the marine infrastructure that it needs and that offers effective support for the achievement of local, regional and national social and economic objectives and will promote and safeguard Canada’s competitiveness and trade objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • General Information
    GENERAL INFORMATION HISTORY In 1805, the Canadian government established the Trinity House, which was responsible for port management, issuing licences to pilots on the St. Lawrence and tending buoys. In 1858, the government created the Québec Harbour Commission whose mandate was to coordinate the development of maritime and port activities in Québec. The Trinity House was abolished in 1873, and in 1875, responsibility for managing the port was granted to the Québec Harbour Commission. In 1936, the government established the National Harbours Board, which grouped together the largest ports in Canada, and disbanded the Harbour Commission. The National Harbours Board was an agent of the Crown and was responsible for conducting commercial operations and services. This organization was accountable to Parliament for matters concerning it, through the Department of Transport. Around 1983, the federal government reviewed the legislation concerning the management of Canadian ports and created the Canada Ports Corporation Act. In 1984, it established the Quebec Port Corporation as well as six other local port corporations. This new legislative step effectively merged the main Canadian port organizations into a single corporation and returned decision-making power to the local level. On May 1, 1999, following the adoption of the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Ports Corporation began to dissolve, making way for a national port network managed by the Canada Port Authorities (CPAs). The Quebec Port Corporation thus became the Québec Port Authority, a shared governance organization. RESPONSIBILITIES The Québec Port Authority plays a role in building a national marine policy that ensures that the necessary marine infrastructure for Canada is established, constitutes a support tool for the achievement of socio-economic, local, regional and national goals, and helps promote and maintain Canada’s competitiveness and its commercial objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • The St. Lawrence Seaway Ready to Welcome Marine Traffic and Contribute to Economic Recovery
    THE ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY READY TO WELCOME MARINE TRAFFIC AND CONTRIBUTE TO ECONOMIC RECOVERY As a gateway to the heartland of North America, the Seaway showcases the economic and environmental benefits of maritime trade SAINT-LAMBERT, March 22, 2021 – The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) announced the opening of its 63rd navigation season today. The CSL Group’s Baie St. Paul, a Trillium-class Laker, was the first ship through the St. Lambert Lock in a virtual opening ceremony attended by a number of dignitaries, including the Honourable Omar Alghabra, the Canadian Minister of Transport, and the Honourable Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Secretary of Transportation. With its outstanding reliability, reduced ecological footprint and strong safety record, the Seaway is ready to partner with Canadian and US industries and communities to help the global economy recover. A leader in maritime transport driving North American and international trade “The St. Lawrence Seaway has been a cornerstone of Canada's economic success for more than 60 years, through the creation of thousands of middle-class jobs, and the generation of more than $9 billion in Canadian economic activity,” said the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Omar Alghabra. “This valuable partnership and trade route will play a vital role in our efforts to building back better through strong economic recovery.” “The Seaway’s consistently high level of system availability contributes to a robust, competitive Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway transportation route,” declared Terence Bowles, President and Chief Executive Officer of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. “We provide convenient access to an impressive number of industries, ports, highway and rail networks.” Moving forward, the Corporation will continue working with national and international carriers and shipping companies to maximize opportunities to diversify its cargo base and increase volumes, as well as reinforce its reputation as a leader in the North American transportation system.
    [Show full text]
  • DRL VACATIONS LTD. V. HALIFAX PORT AUTHORITY (F.C.)
    T-704-03 2005 FC 860 DRL Vacations Ltd. (Applicant) v. Halifax Port Authority (Respondent) INDEXED AS: DRL VACATIONS LTD. v. HALIFAX PORT AUTHORITY (F.C.) Federal Court, Mactavish J.—Halifax, June 8; Ottawa, June 15, 2005. Federal Court Jurisdiction — Judicial review of respondent’s decision to enter negotiations with company other than applicant to operate retail market in Port of Halifax because of alleged breach of fairness — Whether respondent acting as federal board, commission or other tribunal under Federal Courts Act, ss. 2(1), 18.1 — Federal Court 2005 FC 860 (CanLII) statutory court, jurisdiction cannot be presumed — Phrase “jurisdiction or powers” in s. 2(1) referring to jurisdiction or powers of public character — Not including private powers which are merely incidents of legal personality exercisable by federal corporation — Character or nature of powers being exercised determining whether decision maker “federal board, commission or other tribunal” for purposes of s. 18.1 — Respondent’s licensing of port space for souvenir shop purely commercial enterprise, incidental to main responsibility for managing port activities relating to shipping, navigation, etc. — Respondent not acting as “federal board, commission or other tribunal” when making decision under review — Therefore, Federal Court not having jurisdiction to deal with applicant’s judicial review application. Maritime Law — Harbours — Judicial review of respondent’s decision to enter negotiations with company other than applicant to operate retail market in Port of Halifax because of alleged breach of fairness — Canada Marine Act clear port authorities to operate largely independent of government — Port authorities agents of Her Majesty in right of Canada only for purposes of engaging in port activities relating to shipping, navigation, etc.
    [Show full text]