An example of a good corporate citizen


#1

Pay attention PRPA. We want industrial development but find a way to improve our access to the ocean.

"In the open letter General Manager of BC Operations Gaby Poirier says that as RTA looks to having new neighbours to the smelter site “It is important now, more than ever, to ensure the people of Kitimat continue to have direct ocean access.”

northernsentinel.com/ourtown/282470631.html


#2

[quote=“Crazy Train”]Pay attention PRPA. We want industrial development but find a way to improve our access to the ocean.

"In the open letter General Manager of BC Operations Gaby Poirier says that as RTA looks to having new neighbours to the smelter site “It is important now, more than ever, to ensure the people of Kitimat continue to have direct ocean access.”

northernsentinel.com/ourtown/282470631.html[/quote]

I think this is highly unfair, considering all the PRPA has donated to through their Community Enhancement fund and all they sponsor…furthermore, what land do you expect them to hand over to the City?

The remaining land on Ridley is earmarked for development, the land on Lelu is earmarked for development, the remaining land on the PR waterfront is either in use (Fairview, Pinnacle) or is earmarked for expansion.

The only land that is left is the development land next to the Atlin Terminal in Cow Bay, which the PRPA has very extensive development plans of its own ( dev.skykao.com/work/prince-rupert-port-authority-cow-bay-masterplan/) that would highly benefit the citizens of PR.


#3

[quote=“bthedog”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]Pay attention PRPA. We want industrial development but find a way to improve our access to the ocean.

"In the open letter General Manager of BC Operations Gaby Poirier says that as RTA looks to having new neighbours to the smelter site “It is important now, more than ever, to ensure the people of Kitimat continue to have direct ocean access.”

northernsentinel.com/ourtown/282470631.html[/quote]

I think this is highly unfair, considering all the PRPA has donated to through their Community Enhancement fund and all they sponsor…furthermore, what land do you expect them to hand over to the City?

The remaining land on Ridley is earmarked for development, the land on Lelu is earmarked for development, the remaining land on the PR waterfront is either in use (Fairview, Pinnacle) or is earmarked for expansion.

The only land that is left is the development land next to the Atlin Terminal in Cow Bay, which the PRPA has very extensive development plans of its own ( dev.skykao.com/work/prince-rupert-port-authority-cow-bay-masterplan/) that would highly benefit the citizens of PR.[/quote]

It’s not unfair. No one expects 156 acres but it’s clear that residents want water access. There is lots of space yet to be developed out there. Lelu had been earmarked for park space prior to Petronas declaring interest but that was removed from public documents almost immediately after the lng facility came to light. Not asking for a lot, just a little space and consideration before it’s too late.


#4

[quote=“bthedog”]

The only land that is left is the development land next to the Atlin Terminal in Cow Bay, which the PRPA has very extensive development plans of its own ( dev.skykao.com/work/prince-rupert-port-authority-cow-bay-masterplan/) that would highly benefit the citizens of PR.[/quote]

It’s a pretty master plan no doubt < officemb.ca/work/prince-rupe … asterplan/ , but maybe the Port Authority should stick to running a port rather than using public funds to build a retail development at Cow Bay that competes with the private sector.


#5

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“bthedog”]

The only land that is left is the development land next to the Atlin Terminal in Cow Bay, which the PRPA has very extensive development plans of its own ( dev.skykao.com/work/prince-rupert-port-authority-cow-bay-masterplan/) that would highly benefit the citizens of PR.[/quote]

It’s a pretty master plan no doubt < officemb.ca/work/prince-rupe … asterplan/ , but maybe the Port Authority should stick to running a port rather than using public funds to build a retail development at Cow Bay that competes with the private sector.[/quote]

Public funds? Can you elaborate on that?

Ithink the Cow Bay retail development is exactly what this city needs…I fully welcome this development and am glad the PRPA has the money (unlike the city) to develop something like this.

Furthermore, it is not just a “retail development”, there are plenty of things in those plans that would VASTLY improve the waterfront experience in this city (the public plaza, public pier, extensive boardwalks ect.)


#6

[quote=“bthedog”]

[quote=“BTravenn”]

It’s a pretty master plan no doubt < officemb.ca/work/prince-rupe … asterplan/ , but maybe the Port Authority should stick to running a port rather than using public funds to build a retail development at Cow Bay that competes with the private sector.

Public funds? Can you elaborate on that?

Ithink the Cow Bay retail development is exactly what this city needs…I fully welcome this development and am glad the PRPA has the money (unlike the city) to develop something like this.[/quote]

The Port is a federal agency, managing Crown lands and owning lands on behalf of the Crown. Their tenants may be private (or not in the case of RTI), but any funds the Port invests are public funds. The assets are owned by the Port as a federal agency.

It may be a nice development, but how much public sector ownership of the local economy do you want? Would you also like to see the City invest in an alternative energy project? Do you think that public sector ownership of Citywest is the only way to go?


#7

[quote=“bthedog”]

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Public funds? Can you elaborate on that?

Ithink the Cow Bay retail development is exactly what this city needs…I fully welcome this development and am glad the PRPA has the money (unlike the city) to develop something like this.

The Port is a federal agency, managing Crown lands and owning lands on behalf of the Crown. Their tenants may be private (or not in the case of RTI), but any funds the Port invests are public funds. The assets are owned by the Port as a federal agency.

It may be a nice development, but how much public sector ownership of the local economy do you want? Would you also like to see the City invest in an alternative energy project? Do you think that public sector ownership of Citywest is the only way to go?[/quote]

Oh you mean federal money, I was thinking more on the local side of money, which clearly that is not what you were referring to.

I don’t really want to see almost any public sector ownership of the local economy, but again is this really the case of the PRPA having public ownership of the local economy? The tenants to fill their retail spaces will be private, they would just be the landlord. The city will still be able to collect taxes on this land, more than they are now if they become developed. You are forgetting that by expanding Cow Bay this will only increase traffic to the entire Cow Bay area, which is great for the established local businesses already down there. In addition, with the completion of this Cow Bay development (and the public spaces the Port wants to make), Rupert will have a bonafide “touristy” area that they can heavily market.

The residents are begging for expanded shopping, more public spaces and access to the waterfront…this plan by the PRPA fully addresses almost all of those wants and needs.

As for your other questions, I want the city to have no part in an alternative energy project and I absolutely want to see CityWest sold by the city before it loses anymore value. The City in the end will have already heavily lost in regards to CityWest.


#8

Probably not fair of me to compare the Port authority with a private industrial operation such as RTA as a corporate citizen but the premise of the idea still stands. The Port of Vancouver invests in park space and it would be nice to see PRPA designate some space and commit to a park or recreational area.

cfapp.vancouver.ca/parkfinder_wa … park_id=75

cfapp.vancouver.ca/parkfinder_w … park_id=28


#9

[quote=“bthedog”]

I don’t really want to see almost any public sector ownership of the local economy, but again is this really the case of the PRPA having public ownership of the local economy? The tenants to fill their retail spaces will be private, they would just be the landlord. The city will still be able to collect taxes on this land, more than they are now if they become developed. You are forgetting that by expanding Cow Bay this will only increase traffic to the entire Cow Bay area, which is great for the established local businesses already down there. In addition, with the completion of this Cow Bay development (and the public spaces the Port wants to make), Rupert will have a bonafide “touristy” area that they can heavily market.

The residents are begging for expanded shopping, more public spaces and access to the waterfront…this plan by the PRPA fully addresses almost all of those wants and needs.

As for your other questions, I want the city to have no part in an alternative energy project and I absolutely want to see CityWest sold by the city before it loses anymore value. The City in the end will have already heavily lost in regards to CityWest.[/quote]

We share an abhorrence of the City investing in the private sector. They should be focusing on public infrastructure and services. And I agree with you that a retail complex owned and financed by the Port, which really means by the federal government, would be well received by many shoppers and visitors.

While the proposed retail complex looks really attractive and so on, I think that it should raise some very difficult issues for Mayor Brain and his council.

The Port can say that it will help out the cruise ship business, but is that why the Port wants to become a retail landlord? It seems to be a revitalization project for Prince Rupert as a community more than anything, and the plan provides for “mixed use”, which I took from the presentation to include office space that would have nothing to do with cruise ships or the Port’s primary functions as a federal agency.

Would City bylaws apply? From what I’ve heard the previous council was open to selling the parking lot to the Port so that it could be redeveloped, but they wanted the Port to agree that City bylaws would apply. Bylaws generally don’t apply to Port lands but case law suggests that when a port authority starts operating outside of its’ jurisdiction by building shops and restaurants (and parks I might add), it may no longer be exempt from City bylaws.

What happens to the existing downtown and its’ landlords and businesses and the taxes they pay? They would have trouble competing with a new development in Cow Bay. Even a private redevelopment like Capital Mall would pale in comparison to whatever a federal agency like the Port could build with public funds.

Candidates talked about supporting small business, and the need to encourage redevelopment of downtown has been an off and on talking point. A problem for the elected Mayor and council is that whatever private revitalization they try to encourage, say through bylaws and tax incentives, can be blown out of the water by a major, publicly funded retail development by the Port, headed by a board and executive that no one gets to vote for.

I agree with the comment about how the Port, as a good corporate citizen, should fund a park to provide waterfront access. That’s clearly a major concern of residents. It’s surprising that the Port has not responded.

I would add, though, that as a good corporate citizen the Port should consider how their proposed retail / ‘mixed use’ development will impact local businesses and parts of downtown that are under the City’s jurisdiction, and whatever plans the City has for that area.

What the Port is talking about would be very nice for shoppers and some adjacent Cow Bay businesses no doubt, but it could also be a disaster for a downtown that already faces serious challenges. Does that matter?


#10

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“bthedog”]

I don’t really want to see almost any public sector ownership of the local economy, but again is this really the case of the PRPA having public ownership of the local economy? The tenants to fill their retail spaces will be private, they would just be the landlord. The city will still be able to collect taxes on this land, more than they are now if they become developed. You are forgetting that by expanding Cow Bay this will only increase traffic to the entire Cow Bay area, which is great for the established local businesses already down there. In addition, with the completion of this Cow Bay development (and the public spaces the Port wants to make), Rupert will have a bonafide “touristy” area that they can heavily market.

The residents are begging for expanded shopping, more public spaces and access to the waterfront…this plan by the PRPA fully addresses almost all of those wants and needs.

As for your other questions, I want the city to have no part in an alternative energy project and I absolutely want to see CityWest sold by the city before it loses anymore value. The City in the end will have already heavily lost in regards to CityWest.[/quote]

We share an abhorrence of the City investing in the private sector. They should be focusing on public infrastructure and services. And I agree with you that a retail complex owned and financed by the Port, which really means by the federal government, would be well received by many shoppers and visitors.

While the proposed retail complex looks really attractive and so on, I think that it should raise some very difficult issues for Mayor Brain and his council.

The Port can say that it will help out the cruise ship business, but is that why the Port wants to become a retail landlord? It seems to be a revitalization project for Prince Rupert as a community more than anything, and the plan provides for “mixed use”, which I took from the presentation to include office space that would have nothing to do with cruise ships or the Port’s primary functions as a federal agency.

Would City bylaws apply? From what I’ve heard the previous council was open to selling the parking lot to the Port so that it could be redeveloped, but they wanted the Port to agree that City bylaws would apply. Bylaws generally don’t apply to Port lands but case law suggests that when a port authority starts operating outside of its’ jurisdiction by building shops and restaurants (and parks I might add), it may no longer be exempt from City bylaws.

What happens to the existing downtown and its’ landlords and businesses and the taxes they pay? They would have trouble competing with a new development in Cow Bay. Even a private redevelopment like Capital Mall would pale in comparison to whatever a federal agency like the Port could build with public funds.

Candidates talked about supporting small business, and the need to encourage redevelopment of downtown has been an off and on talking point. A problem for the elected Mayor and council is that whatever private revitalization they try to encourage, say through bylaws and tax incentives, can be blown out of the water by a major, publicly funded retail development by the Port, headed by a board and executive that no one gets to vote for.

I agree with the comment about how the Port, as a good corporate citizen, should fund a park to provide waterfront access. That’s clearly a major concern of residents. It’s surprising that the Port has not responded.

I would add, though, that as a good corporate citizen the Port should consider how their proposed retail / ‘mixed use’ development will impact local businesses and parts of downtown that are under the City’s jurisdiction, and whatever plans the City has for that area.

What the Port is talking about would be very nice for shoppers and some adjacent Cow Bay businesses no doubt, but it could also be a disaster for a downtown that already faces serious challenges. Does that matter?[/quote]

Cow Bay already exists as a separate “downtown” shopping area, I don’t see any issue with expanding Cow Bay further. Downtown is the way it is because property owners have let their buildings erode and decay. If I am a new business, I would want to locate in Cow Bay as well over Downtown…until the Downtown property owners can come together and FIX their buildings, they will continue to have issues and scare away investment.

Cow Bay properties are always well maintained and taken care of, and business seems to thrive as soon as you gross McBride to Cow Bay. Why is this level of care not on the minds of the downtown business owners? I know times are tough for some (and some have done a good job of revitalizing their buildings like Moby Dick, Tim Hortons, Pacific Inn, Inn on the Harbour, PR Hotel ect), but there is no excuse for dirty buildings covered in moss/mold, gutters growing trees/grass, dirty awnings, burnt out lights, businesses with improper or no signage and exterior walls/doors with paint peeling off. There is no excuse for that!


#11

[quote=“bthedog”]

Cow Bay already exists as a separate “downtown” shopping area, I don’t see any issue with expanding Cow Bay further. Downtown is the way it is because property owners have let their buildings erode and decay. If I am a new business, I would want to locate in Cow Bay as well over Downtown…until the Downtown property owners can come together and FIX their buildings, they will continue to have issues and scare away investment.

Cow Bay properties are always well maintained and taken care of, and business seems to thrive as soon as you gross McBride to Cow Bay. Why is this level of care not on the minds of the downtown business owners? I know times are tough for some (and some have done a good job of revitalizing their buildings like Moby Dick, Tim Hortons, Pacific Inn, Inn on the Harbour, PR Hotel ect), but there is no excuse for dirty buildings covered in moss/mold, gutters growing trees/grass, dirty awnings, burnt out lights, businesses with improper or no signage and exterior walls/doors with paint peeling off. There is no excuse for that![/quote]

Okay, so the downtown business owners and landlords have only themselves to blame, and the non-elected, Port authority should be free to do what it wants with federal funds without having to trouble itself with City bylaws or plans, but is the state of downtown not a City issue or problem? The places that you mention that look okay and have been somewhat fixed up are all on the edges of the worst part of downtown.

Shouldn’t Mayor Brain and his council do something, and if so what? I sometimes wonder if the City should encourage a shift from retail to residences, eg condos and good quality apartments, which is common in older parts of other places, rather than, for instance, requiring that new building owners provide parking for non-existent customers or pay fees to the City.


#12

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“bthedog”]

Cow Bay already exists as a separate “downtown” shopping area, I don’t see any issue with expanding Cow Bay further. Downtown is the way it is because property owners have let their buildings erode and decay. If I am a new business, I would want to locate in Cow Bay as well over Downtown…until the Downtown property owners can come together and FIX their buildings, they will continue to have issues and scare away investment.

Cow Bay properties are always well maintained and taken care of, and business seems to thrive as soon as you gross McBride to Cow Bay. Why is this level of care not on the minds of the downtown business owners? I know times are tough for some (and some have done a good job of revitalizing their buildings like Moby Dick, Tim Hortons, Pacific Inn, Inn on the Harbour, PR Hotel ect), but there is no excuse for dirty buildings covered in moss/mold, gutters growing trees/grass, dirty awnings, burnt out lights, businesses with improper or no signage and exterior walls/doors with paint peeling off. There is no excuse for that![/quote]

Okay, so the downtown business owners and landlords have only themselves to blame, and the non-elected, Port authority should be free to do what it wants with federal funds without having to trouble itself with City bylaws or plans, but is the state of downtown not a City issue or problem? The places that you mention that look okay and have been somewhat fixed up are all on the edges of the worst part of downtown.

Shouldn’t Mayor Brain and his council do something, and if so what? I sometimes wonder if the City should encourage a shift from retail to residences, eg condos and good quality apartments, which is common in older parts of other places, rather than, for instance, requiring that new building owners provide parking for non-existent customers or pay fees to the City.[/quote]

Yes they DO have themselves to blame for KEEPING their businesses looking the way they do. Much of the problem is these buildings are not being cleaned, not being painted, not having their awanings/signs repaired, not having their lighting replaced, not cleaning their gutters to remove trees/moss/grass…these are issues that fall TOTALLY at the feet of building/business owners and are UNACCEPTABLE! I will never be convinced that replacing light bulbs, spending a couple hundred bucks on some paint or simply cleaning their business with soapy water and a garden hose is too much to ask of our downtown tenants/building owners.

The part that falls on the city is enforcing bylaws to ensure these businesses are keeping their buildings in a respectable state and making it easier for business to repair their buildings (when I say repair, I mean beyond the scale of buying a few cans of paint, replacing lighting/signage or scrubbing the building exterior down with soap and water; I am talking major repairs, facade improvement ect) without fear of increased taxes due to increased assessment. The city also needs to make it easier for businesses to open up shop by totally removing or drastically reducing the parking costs, removing the fees to install signage ect.

Business owners in the downtown core have to take some responsibility and pride in what their business looks like on the outside…I understand some need EXTENSIVE repairs and perhaps that is beyond what they can afford…but there is no excuse for lack of cleanliness, lack of efficient paint, lack of replacing signage lighting and failing to clean awnings/gutters.

Keeping their buildings in the state they are is only going to contribute to the DECAY of downtown. Decay attracts decay…if you want more business, want more investment in downtown to lower the tax burden, than PROACTIVELY contribute to at least keeping your establishment presentable to the public.

And yes, I agree with you that if the PRPA wants to be a tenant for mixed use business (retail/office) they should be forced to follow city bylaws that are in place and not be exempted from those.


#13

[quote=“bthedog”]

And yes, I agree with you that if the PRPA wants to be a tenant for mixed use business (retail/office) they should be forced to follow city bylaws that are in place and not be exempted from those.[/quote]

That’s probably my main point, and it likewise applies to the waterfront access issue. The Port can pretty much do what it wants on its’ land, but rather than focusing on swaying the public to their way of thinking through public relations, they really need to be more proactive with the Mayor and council to harmonize planning.

They should also recognize that when they get involved in retail developments that have little or nothing to do with their federal jurisdiction over marine transportation, they’re just another commercial landlord and civic bylaws should apply to them like everyone else.


#14

I just checked the Port’s 2013 financial statements. They are interesting:

The statements they publish on their website are not complete financial statements. If you want complete financial statements you have to contact the Port. Makes one wonder what information is in their financial statements that they want to hide or at least make more difficult to access. What do they do to you when you ask for the the statements? - give your name to the Canadian Joint Task Force 2? Frankly, not having complete financial statements on their website is a completely bogus move and completely lacks in transparency. Makes one wonder if they seriously think that they have any Social License. The individual(s) who decided to do this should be ashamed of themselves.

From what I could tell from the truncated statements, the Port does not pay income tax. If this is correct, then the Port has an economic advantage over over other property owners who have to pay income tax on rental income.

The Port’s “Profit for the Year” (their term) in 2013 was $16.5 million and $13.8 in 2012. This is after they kicked in a couple dollars in grants to Community Groups through their funding process. Meanwhile the City is struggling to get needed infrastructure done and it is still carrying alot of debt from the development associated with the Cruise Ship Dock and Uplands. It still owes $2.1 million on the Cruise Ship Dock and $0.7 million on the Uplands development.

So: raise your hand or better yet, write a letter to the Board of the Port and copy it to City Council; post a posting on this forum and other outlets; write a Letter to the Editor; if you think that the Port could contribute more to our Community! Why do they not just simply give the City $15 - $2.0 million each year to fund Community Groups through the City’s grant process rather than have a obscure and secretive process of their own?


#15

The port is a great public servant and only cares about making life better for all of the people of Canada. It has nothing to do with enlarging Canada’s ability to ship raw and produced goods manufactured (or stripped from the ground) by mega-corporations with no footprint in Prince Rupert.

And anyway, you want beach access? I heard Oliver Lake can be a bit of a beach in the summer when the bugs are out and the wolves encircle. Sea wolves, real wolves, ying and yang.

P.S. the opaque approach that the Port takes with its handouts to community groups is totally reasonable. It allows the port to prevent yahoos from going for money they don’t deserve. We need to spend more money on the Rampage given their recent struggles. And less money ought to be spent on things like public access to yada-yada.

I believe in the Hays vision!


#16

I have just done a little research. There are 18 Federal Port Authorities in Canada. I checked 11 of them. All of the ones that I checked, except Port of Montreal, published complete financial statements. Here are the ones that I checked that did publish complete set of financail statements on their websites.

Port of Vancouver
portmetrovancouver.com/docs/ … f?sfvrsn=0

Port of Toronto
torontoport.com/getattachmen … s.pdf.aspx

Port of Halifax
portofhalifax.ca/wp-content/uplo … nglish.pdf

Port of Hamilton
hamiltonport.ca/Corporate/Re … px?l=en-us

Port of Nanaimo
npa.ca/files/7514/1288/3324/NPA_ … SIGNED.pdf

Port of Quebec
portquebec.ca/en/about/port- … ual-report

Port of Oshawa
portofoshawa.ca/images/news/2014 … c-2013.pdf

Port of Saint John’s
sjport.com/assets/Annual-Re … -FINAL.pdf

Port of Thunder Bay
portofthunderbay.com/upload/ … ncials.pdf

Port of Alberni
portalberniportauthority.ca/ … statements

Presumably, the standard is to publish a complete audited financial statement on your website. One can only wonder why the Port of Prince Rupert is not doing so. Let’s hope the Board of Directors recognizes that the Prince Rupert Port Authority is seriously out of step with the other port authorities and directs staff to rectify this transparency issue. While they are doing it, it would be nice if they also published the financial statements for the past 10 years so we can see how the Port Authority has grown.


#17

This is Michael from the Prince Rupert Port Authority. There were a few points raised in this discussion that I can clarify.

The Port Authority was created through federal legislation, which gives it the responsibility to steward specific federal crown land assets. We are ultimately accountable to the federal Minister of Transport, and are required by law to pay an annual “stipend” back to the federal government. The stipend is based on a portion of gross revenues, not income or profit.

The Prince Rupert Port Authority is also required to be a financially self-sufficient organization. It does NOT receive any operating funds from the federal government. However, we have been successful in accessing government capital for infrastructure projects, such as the Road Rail Utility Corridor, from public programs with broad availability.

Net income is reinvested into port infrastructure in Prince Rupert. We have to make business decisions that can ultimately generate a return for the Port Authority to stay economically sustainable.

In short, referring to the Port Authority’s capital and operating expense allocations as “public funds” is not correct.


#18

[quote=“rupertport”]This is Michael from the Prince Rupert Port Authority. There were a few points raised in this discussion that I can clarify.

The Port Authority was created through federal legislation, which gives it the responsibility to steward specific federal crown land assets. We are ultimately accountable to the federal Minister of Transport, and are required by law to pay an annual “stipend” back to the federal government. The stipend is based on a portion of gross revenues, not income or profit.

The Prince Rupert Port Authority is also required to be a financially self-sufficient organization. It does NOT receive any operating funds from the federal government. However, we have been successful in accessing government capital for infrastructure projects, such as the Road Rail Utility Corridor, from public programs with broad availability.

Net income is reinvested into port infrastructure in Prince Rupert. We have to make business decisions that can ultimately generate a return for the Port Authority to stay economically sustainable.

In short, referring to the Port Authority’s capital and operating expense allocations as “public funds” is not correct.[/quote]

Thanks Michael and all that you do for the public!

The question over why the port’s financials aren’t posted to the website was irrelevant, and you were quite right to ignore it.

Of course, a piece of advice in the future: I wouldn’t mention that the port is self-sufficient and also mention that you’ve recieved funding from the federal government for the RRUC. That makes it look like you still need public money to make projects happen, and that’s not the mention these jerks on HTMF need to hear. I hope your close relationship with Todd Hamilton is proving fruitful! :smile:


#19

ha, ha, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously!


#20

As an inveterate jokester myself, I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek nature of the response to our earlier post.

However, there are a couple of points that require explanation. The Port Authority’s consolidated financial statements are in fact posted to its website, and can be found at pcorp@rupertport.com or by visiting our offices at 215 Cow Bay Road, Prince Rupert.

When it comes to capital projects, the Port Authority occasionally seeks investments from the public sector and private partners. The Road, Rail and Utility Corridor project was financed jointly by CN, the provincial and federal governments, and the Port Authority itself. The purpose of the RRUC is to expand the port and enhance Canadian trade – something in which all levels of government have a keen interest! The conversion of Fairview Container Terminal is another case where government investment has generated a significant return in the form of augmented economic activity.

In fact, any organization can apply to benefit from “public funds” through applicable government programs such as the Northern Development Initiative Trust (to name just one of many such sources).

With respect to its regular operations (e.g., ongoing costs and revenues), the Port Authority is required to be financially self-sufficient and therefore must exercise the same fiscal prudence expected of any business.