Editor:
Re: Port Metro Vancouver supporting the growth of Canadian trade, letter to the editor, Jan. 20
It is interesting that Port Metro Vancouver's Cliff Stewart now justifies the mandate and funding set up of PMV to Delta taxpayers.
I think that most of us know they are an appointed body that manages federal port facilities on the West Coast. He claims the port is not funded by taxpayers because it collects rent revenue from the federally-owned terminals that it manages.
I believe these terminals are owned by the government of Canada so in my mind all assets and revenues belong to the citizens of Canada.
Port Metro is spending millions of dollars on salaries, project plans, engineering studies, consultants, offices and advertising (PR). The money has to come from somewhere.
I believe anyone who understands simple economics can see these costs ultimately come from taxpayer dollars collected from taxpayer owned terminals. I guess the port thinks it's their money.
The Terminal 2 project for Roberts Bank is another subject and we could agree that the port is the developer to facilitate future container growth expansion requirements. This $2.5 billion to $3 billion project is supposed to be funded by the private sector (international shipping companies) but to date there are no investors.
If Port Metro proceeds with T2 without this financing in place, it will have to be with taxpayer dollars. It does seem that this is likely their only option if the project is to proceed at this point in time.
Stewart's statement about the assessment by the environmental review panel is also misleading because Port Metro has exemption status for a full environmental review.
They are also trying to limit the environmental review to the project boundaries and do not want to consider the effects on Greater Vancouver, the Lower Mainland and a majority portion of the Fraser River estuary.
In other words Port Metro has special exemption status via way of the Canada Marine Act and are using it to their full advantage (http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/about/corporate/governance.aspx).
Considering the existing terminal at Deltaport employs about 1,000 people, we would estimate that due to duplication of various positions, T2 would likely employ substantially less than 1,000 additional jobs. Stewart must be getting his employment projections from the president's PR department ?
Simply go to Google and click on "No Business Case for a Second Container Terminal (T2). The document you'll find uses all statistics provided by PMV with a realistic growth rate projection to show that T2 is not needed to facilitate container growth requirement for the next 20 years.
Their business case is not sound and the fact the independent shipping industry has not come up with the requested financing tends to confirm the unnecessary need for T2.
If you want to save the Fraser River estuary, marine life, wildlife, bird habitat and farmland, contact your federal, provincial and municipal government representatives and ask them stop the madness of this unnecessary project that will do great harm to Delta, the Fraser River estuary and the south coast of B.C.
Don Paulsen
