On Wednesday, January 21, the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) posted two documents on its website.  One was a press release announcing the go-ahead for a new ferry.  The other was the report from the panel hearing the dispute over how much the TPA owes the City of Toronto (City) in payments in lieu of taxes (PILTS).  Both documents provide insight into the TPA’s operations.

Recently, Transport Minister John Baird seemingly took it upon himself to increase the number of board of directors of the TPA.  Did he act alone?  Why does the TPA need nine directors?  It can’t be because the TPA is at the forefront of port activity in Canada.

Toronto’s port which, according to the latest figures (2005 and 2006) in Transport Canada’s 2008 Annual Report, is tied with Nanaimo and Belldune for 14th spot out of 19 port authorities listed, in terms of percentage share of tonnes handled.  According to the Report, Toronto’s port suffered a 19.1% drop in tonnes handled from 2005 to 2006.  And while it ranked 9th nationwide in operating revenues in 2006, it topped the list as the number one money loser with a $4,610,000 deficit.  The runner-up, Saguenay, lost $443,000.

The future doesn’t hold much promise either.  According to Alan Paul, the TPA’s Chief Operating Officer in evidence, Paragraph 62, to the PILTS dispute panel report, the Marine Terminal was originally developed because of a perceived need as a result of the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway.  Paragraph 62 finishes by saying that containerization has now reduced traffic and the property was operating at approximately 70-75% of capacity in 2003 and 2005. 

Transport Canada’s 2008 Annual Report doesn’t hold out much promise for an improvement.  It shows not much difference for St. Lawrence Seaway cargo handling in the Montreal – Lake Ontario sector between 1993 (31,970,000 tonnes) 2007 (31,959,000 tonnes) figures.

If the increase in the number of directors can’t be tied to port activities, it must be for another reason.

The PILTS dispute panel report contains another interesting observation.  In trying to determine the PILTS charge on the airport, Paragraph 21 states, “We note that the type of passenger landing at the Island Airport differs from the passengers landing at Pearson Airport.  Very few Island Airport passengers from Ottawa have overnight luggage.  It is a laptop and briefcase crowd.  The Ottawa passengers use Porter Airline as a taxi service to and from a meeting.”

The TPA press release dated January 21 also allows interesting insight.  It quotes Mark R. McQueen, newly elected Chair of the TPA Board of Directors.  Mr. McQueen was Chair at the time of the TPA’s Annual Meeting in August 2008.  According to a September 12, 2008 TPA press release, he was replaced on a six-month rotating chair basis.  However, less than four months later and two more directors appointed by Ottawa, Mr. McQueen is back in the saddle.  What gives?

Seeing that Mr. McQueen has more than a passing acquaintance with the federal Tories, having once been an operative in the PMO’s office and being a Tory federal appointee to the Board, is he under strict orders to protect the Ottawa laptop and briefcase crowd’s taxi service out of the Island Airport?

Surely it is unimaginable that millions and millions of taxpayers’ dollars are being spent on airport infrastructure and an airline start-up on direction from Ottawa primarily because politicians, civil servants and business people don’t want to travel downtown from Pearson.  But then why does a money-losing port facility need ten board members, none of whom has any shipping experience? 

When the City appointed a board member whose vote would likely break an impasse, did Mr. Baird step in?  Why did Mr. McQueen take back the reins of power through Mr. Baird’s meddling? 

We may never know the answers but one thing is clear.  Ottawa, acting like an occupying power, is running the show as far as Toronto’s port is concerned and the City better learn its place.

Bob Kotyk