Welcome to NOVAPORTE!

Mary Campbell Follow Me

Posted this 2016-02-11 9:13 AM AST (updated 2016-08-12 4:01 PM ADT)

Big news, fellow citizens of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality – no, Rodney MacDonald has not been re-elected premier, although you could be forgiven for thinking that, given the front page of today's Cape Breton Post (February 11, 2016):

The real news is tucked into the lower left hand corner of page A3 – our port has a name!

It's Novaporte. And it will be surrounded by the Novazone.

I'll let port marketer and amateur etymologist Albert Barbusci, of Harbor Port Development Partners, explain:

“The name reflects the international nature of our project. Nova is Latin for new and port is spelled with an E to recognize that this will be both a gateway and a transshipment hub.”

Now, I will be the first to admit that the use of Latin has been in decline of late (and by “of late” I mean, since the fall of the Roman Empire) but everyone in this province knows at least one Latin word and that Latin word is Nova because IT'S IN THE NAME OF OUR PROVINCE.

As for “port-with-an-e,” while I appreciate the subtle homage to Anne of Green Gables, I'm not sure I would read "Novaporte" and say, “Ah, this place must be both a gateway and a transshipment hub.” I think I'd be more likely to say, “You spelled 'port' wrong;” or to pronounce it “no-va-por-TAY” (which could be cool – “It's time to Novapor-tay!” is not a bad tag line); or to look up “porte” on Wikipedia and find it may refer to:

Sublime Porte - the central government of the Ottoman empire

Porte, Piedmont - a municipality in the Piedmont region of Italy

John Cyril Porte, British/Irish aviator

Toyota Porte

Richie Porte - an Australian professional cyclist who competes for Team Sky

After which, I'd be confused and maybe a bit angry.

And I haven't even got to “Novazone” which, let's be honest, sounds like a nasal spray.

I tried to find a copy of the press release but it has yet to be posted to the HPDP website, so I must go by what the Post reports. Therefore, the next paragraph is:

“Both the terminal and logistics park to to [sic] operate within a recognized foreign trade zone.”

So, yeah.

I've already touched on the question of creating a free trade zone in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (it's been done before; it didn't work). But since writing that last piece, I've discovered that in June of 2015, the Harper government declared two Free Trade Zones in Alberta – the Calgary Region Inland Port and Port Alberta, in Edmonton. They joined Canada's only other FTZ – the port of Winnipeg, and I, personally, can't wait to book a cruise to all three.

But before we (as in, those of us with actual ports) get upset about not having been honored with such a designation, we should note that the former government's definition of FTZ didn't make it sound all that enticing:

“An FTZ Point is a strategic location identified for international trade and foreign direct investment which is uniquely supported by a single-point of access to information on relevant government policies and programs.”

See what I mean? Not very exciting and, to judge by the latest news, not a great shot in the arm for the Western economy either.

Back to the Post story:

“The port has set aside nearly 2,000 acres for development of this project. The harbour is dredged down 16.5 metres and can accommodate ultra-large container vessels.

“Canadian developer Canderel is partnering with Harbor Port Development on the project.”

I can see you waving your hand wildly – you have a question, don't you? In fact, you probably have three questions:

1. Who is Canderel?

Well, unfortunately, I don't think it's this Canderel ("The UK's No. 1 Sweetener").

Presumably, they are this Canderel, a real estate firm:

“Specializing in Property Development, Construction, Leasing, Marketing, and Property and Asset Management we are able to provide "one-stop" comprehensive solutions. With regional offices in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and Dallas, we are able to fully respond to any opportunity within these markets and we have the capability of serving our clients and partners on a national basis.”

“Naming ports” isn't listed among their core competencies, but perhaps they're branching out.

2. How much are they being paid?

3. Who is paying them?

These are questions for HPDP, or possibly, the Port of Sydney Development Corporation, which has already paid for the services of Bechtel and Industream.

Let's keep waving our hands until we get some answers...

UPDATE: It's just been pointed out to me that Tim Bosquet covered this subject this morning based on a CP story (and if you think I'm sceptical, read his take: "This thing will fail spectacularly. It’s going to be beautifully catastrophic.")

The most interesting comment, however belongs to Sydney Port Development Corp. CEO Marlene Usher, who states in a news release that the terminal "would be the greenest port in North America once completed."

That's the first I've heard of this and the cynic in me, never far from the surface, agrees with my source, who wonders if the green claims are aimed at winning some of that federal infrastructure money aimed at innovative environmental improvements?

Posted by Mary Campbell
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW

Like 13 Dislike 0

FOLLOW 14

3,001 16

16

Depth
Barry Smith Follow Me 2016-02-11 1:03 PM AST Reply 1 1 Mary I don't know if you are aware but in the '60's there was a strike at the Autoport in Eastern Passage, the cars were diverted to Sydport...or now Novaporte.placed on rail cars and shipped to various locations. During this time Mr Frank Stronach..than head of Magnum Corp. with a auto supply plant in Northside Industrial Park, proposed a duty(tax) free Auto port for Sydney/Point Edward...it didn' t go ahead I think political interests got in the way...imagine. If this had been accepted one only wonders where we might be now!
Stephanie Langley Follow Me 2016-02-11 9:43 PM AST Reply 4 0 Love your writing and wit Mary Campbell! Keep it coming.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-02-11 11:12 PM AST Reply 3 0 Not much info at all in their press release. I guess we'll have to wait for Information Morning or Mainstreet Cape Breton to interview them and/or Canderel and find out what exactly is involved beyond coming up with a name for a theoretical development project. 1. Who did the naming task? 2. Who paid for it? 3. What involvement will Canderel have? 4. Has Canderel put up any money? Port of Sydney Development Corporation is sitting on some cash, including Federal money, and funds from our own municipality. We should be watching the flow of those funds very carefully. Let's see who is really paying and for what. Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2016-02-12 6:49 AM AST Reply 3 0 I am with you Joe on watching the flow of public coffers. This big announcement seems to me like nothing more the "hoopla" to distract while they bring in another paid service with our tax dollars. Where is CCCC the savior Chinese company with whom they were suppose to have a meeting with here "early in the new year". Rumor (and lets be clear because with non disclosues and secrecy we have little to depend on but rumours from inside the mayors office) is that CCCC has opted not to come...not sure if this means forever or if the rumour is just rumour...but I see no mention of CCCC since the glorious announcement of the saviiur companys big investment in our harbour in any recent publication. Who here wonders if next week we will get a second "cecils accomplishment and mayororial campaign brochure" stating this as another feather in his cap. Cecils cap feathers are costing taxpayers some good cash...one hopes at least they are pretty feathers of gold. Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-02-12 4:57 PM AST Reply 0 0 I haven't heard anything about the CCCC visit or results recently (or changes in plan), though I anticipated it would be some time before they gave another update. Was it Jan or Feb expected? Note: filming the representatives from CCCC visiting the port site(s) would have made for some great PR value. Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2016-02-13 7:27 AM AST Reply 0 0 To be far the announcement in one of the "hooplas" was that CCCC was coming for a site visit "early in the new year" so it didn't specify Jan/Feb...but the rumor that floating around is that they are not and again a stress this is only rumour so far. However since Cecil trip and grand announcement we haven't heard a word from CCCC or about them either. Seems strange that someone so interested is not being more highlighted with constant updates. We haven't been given a projected timeline for this "feasibility study" or had questions answered about who is paying for tge study, the port or anything involved. We don't truly know who is being paid for what (although they posted for another administrative positiin which I will be watching to see if its a political appointed position like the rest). We have not one port experiencedperson in any position. Seems to me this is another game of announcing something with no substance to shout about success in the coming election. I personally want to know where every cent of taxpayer money is spent as the CBRM is is complete shambles and we seem to be able to distribute millions on a hunch. 1.3 million for a second cruise port of our tax dollars for example and no explainationof how its being spent or data that shows its necessary. I am, in life, and optimist....however in pilitics I lean realist and something in the port smells "fishy". Peter Sheehan Follow Me 2016-02-13 8:32 AM AST Reply 2 0 It's not uncommon for government and bureaucrats to play with the media to get their message out . Planting news is a typical way to play with the taxpayers and public opinion. Just keep following the people and their actions and how the dots connect to see what is really going on . The Chinese agreed to do a feasibility study is what I recall . So, what does that mean ? It means they are really just kicking the tires to see what is here as compared to what they were told by Clarke etc. . The CCCC knows full well what ships and container traffic is roaming to the Eastern Seaboard and knows , to a large degree, whether a whole new port is feasible or not , even without seeing it . SO even if they come to visit and look , it will be months before you see any thing really happen. How long has the Mulgrave Port been developing ??? In the meantime , the government seed money is being spent , and when will that run out ??? You are still not really seeing enough detail to know the real timeline and the hard cost to taxpayers ,so far, and for the next 2-3 years.
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2016-02-12 6:51 AM AST Reply 0 0 It is not the 60s anymore and Magma is long gone...old school thinking needs to stop and we need a new wave of thinking.
Randall Thompson Follow Me 2016-02-13 10:20 AM AST Reply 0 0 Even if all this was all built and renamed, which I highly doubt, what is the projected cargo to be shipped into and out of Sydney? If Halifax port is not fully operating, which I have heard, how can Sydney be operating? What is the business? I just can't see it. Victoria, BC does not have a container terminal. We watch the big ships sail by constantly for Vancouver and Seattle. You need a tremendous economy with a large population. Someone really needs to explain just what economy and business this container port is fulfilling. imo. madeline yakimchuk Follow Me 2016-02-13 12:30 PM AST Reply 2 0 They will tell you Halifax can't handle the big ships, but they don't mention how bridges are being raised all over the world. They will tell you Halifax doesn't have the land for development, but they don't mention the trend toward "out on the ocean" ports for switching containers to smaller ships, that can be anywhere, and don't even need deep harbours. They will mention our location but don't mention the lack of infrasctucture like rail. There is always an answer, so if you are not a critical thinker they call you just critical. You have raised another point though, perhaps without intending to. What about toxic cargo? Peter Sheehan Follow Me 2016-02-14 5:31 AM AST Reply 1 0 One of the reasons they are rebuilding the MacDonald bridge is to raise the decks for one bigger the of ship that can't get to Fairviewe ship docks . Look for a website called THE BIG LIFT . Halifax Point Pleasant dock activity is down maybe 30-40% , there are days after days that there are no ships and there are the TWO container piers . Seldom is a ship waiting anchored in the harbour to be docked as you see in Vancouver . Seldom do you see any extra or in process rail trains anymore sitting at Bedford with maybe 100 -200 containers per train . There is no plan to upgrade any rail east of Montreal. Connect these dots to Sydney and Mulgrave. The dollar is suppose to be helping exports . Tell me , what does Nova Scotia ,let alone Cape Breton export by the container load ??? Isn't lobsters , isn't 2X4's, isn't wooden furniture , isn't quilts , so what is it?? [comment deleted] Posted 2016-02-14 11:17 AM AST Paul Finney Follow Me 2016-02-14 12:00 PM AST Reply 1 0 Yes. We need to look rationally beyond the marketing spin and at the bigger picture. The last dozen articles in JOC discuss a global shipping slowdown that will last some time. Headlines like 'freight recession', 'historically low spot rates', 'sailing cancellations', 'massive losses and bankruptcy by major shipping lines like Maersk', 'new triple-E ship building cancellations' is the norm. The few triple-E ships being delivered are making the Asia-Pacific route now. Construction is already under way at the major ports to accept any mega-ships and growth for many years. For example, Los Angeles is presently raising five cranes to accept triple-E size of 20,000 teu. A look at a globe, because maps are deceiving, and it's quickly obvious the Asia-North America route across the Pacific will be preferred to the Suez route. Not to sound negative, but the rational argument against a triple-e class terminal in Sydney is compelling. No amount of marketing can compensate for a bad business model. madeline yakimchuk Follow Me 2016-02-14 12:04 PM AST Reply 0 0 Unfortunately the only way any of the rational thinkers on this issue will not be labeled negative is to have new leadership who are willing to developer a different model for development brought into office in October. Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-02-14 3:04 PM AST Reply 2 0 The stakeholders and proponents that try to label any counter opinion as negative aren't necessarily the primary target audience for anyone raising questions and concerns. For example, the Never Forgotten project wasn't reversed because the stakeholders and proponents suddenly agreed that it wasn't a good idea. It happened because the Canadian voices who objected were able to rally enough opposition to put political pressure on Parks Canada and gov officials. They chipped away slowly until it fell. Mayor Clarke actually gave his opposition a gift when he said "cheap seats". It was a political and communications mistake that appealed only to the supporters he filled the room with. Now it's a memorable and easy way to communicate how dismissive he is of citizens who raise concerns. ►If you have concerns that your mayor doesn't want you to have, he might just dismiss you as someone in those cheap seats. A condescending, diminishing way of talking down and ignoring the concerns of the very taxpayers that he's accountable to. So for all objective, thoughtful, rational folks out there, ignore the condescending labels. And share your ideas, opinions, questions, and concerns without externally imposed limitations. And, of course, do so in as assertive but as polite a way as possible. People are easily dismissed based on their choice of language. If you don't believe that, just look to Cindy Day as a case study on how just a few sentences can dramatically provoke a significant (and loud) segment of the population out there to react "adversely". Make your words count.
Joe Ward Follow Me 2016-02-13 11:29 AM AST Reply 1 0 Rebranding can be very expensive. So I think it's in the public interest to know (1) who was contracted to do so, (2) how much was paid, (3) who paid it, and any related contractual obligations that resulted. https://www.simpliowebstudio.com/most-expensive-logo-designs/ Or, alternatively, if it was just done over drinks on the weekend while watching a dull hockey game? In addition to the above: 1. Who approved the new branding? 2. Was council given advanced notice, opportunity for input, opportunity to vote? 3. If it was HPDP that did the rebranding, under whose authority are they empowered to rename public owned assets? In terms of the name chosen, I think the backstory provided is more quirky than the name itself. Particularly if we take "Nova" as an indication of Nova Scotia, which is more or less a no brainer for anyone in Canada, at least from a perceptive point of view. For Americans who haven't heard of Nova Scotia, it might have a fresh ring to it. :) Adding the "e" on the end doesn't concern me too much, though I'm curious as to how it relates to the HPDP choosing to spell "harbour" in the American spelling instead: Harbor. Harbor Port Development Partners Not surprisingly, many among the media have spelled it as might be expected by Canadians: https://www.google.ca/search?q="harbour+port+development+partners"+sydney&oq="harbour+port+development+partners"+sydney I'm sure I probably have as well at some point in time. ;) Wayne O'Toole Follow Me 2016-02-13 11:57 AM AST Reply 1 0 I did a search on the name and it is not registered as required so I am guessing it was a "over drinks" session. My guess is they need some imperical data to prove the feds "marketing cash" is being used but thats just an opinion. Whomever came up with the name doesn't have good marketing sense as it is not a great pick nor inventive or catchy...."lets use our province name and add an e to port"...yep not rocket science. There are way better choices available from a eye catching perspective...I could think of a dozen in 15 minutes in the right mood. So yes my questions are similar....who paid? How much? And what was the process? Or are they in a non disclosure as well? If they would stop with the constant secrecy perhaps more would see value but usually when there are so many secrets its because there is something to hide. There is no danger of anyone "stealing" the port, or land or trademarks...this is not KFCs secret recipe, its a port like thousands of others...no its a pipe dream of a potential port that has been 30 years of spending with no success.