What Is It With DRIC Supporters

I just don't get it at all.

Don't they ever listen to what they say? Do they think that everyone accepts blindly the positions they put forward? Can they ever admit the fallacy in what they are stating?

I heard that a major Canadian transportation organization recently has hired a big lobbyist firm in Michigan to lobby FOR the DRIC bridge in Lansing. Wow, the DRIC people must be desperate to have to call on third party assistance. And a Canadian one too!

That seems strange to me. What does the group have to gain by doing so? I wonder how much that will cost their Canadian members in lobbyist fees.

A warning to the lobbyists---do your homework. You do NOT want to look like fools in front of Michigan Legislators whom you are also trying to influence for other clients if you try to feed them all of this nonsense that DRIC supporters would like you to promote.

It does bug me to be honest. I suspect that there may a reader or two of mine who might disagree a bit on what I have to say on the border file. No problem.

However, I try very hard to substantiate what I say and provide the proof of it in my BLOGs so that my readers can understand why I say what I do and then draw their own conclusion.

Let me give you the latest example of DRIC supporters saying things that drive me crazy. It is from a recent interview on the Business News Network. Naturally, I will fisk their comments to try and put their remarks in a perspective.

===================================

Andrea: $5 billion. that's the estimated price tag on the Detroit River International Crossing project, which is expected to help unclog the congested crossing between Detroit and Windsor. But what will it mean for businesses on either side of the border? For their perspective we're joined by Jay Switzer -- sorry, Doug Switzer, VP of Government Relations for the Canadian Trucking Alliance. Thank you very much for joining us today.

[Just watch how that $5B is ignored by the DRIC supporters, especially when that amount grows substantially higher. Too bad that the host did not mention whose side the guests are really on and not leave the impression that they are neutral.]

Doug: thanks for having me.

Andrea: Ok, so Dan Stamper, our previous guest, who operates the Ambassador Bridge, he made an interesting argument, which was essentially that, look, it's cheaper what we're doing. Why do businesses want to pay four times the amount of tolls than they would be paying if we go with our idea? Why do we want to promote a government-funded potential boondoggle here?

[I have never understood why the financing of the border crossing is such a mystery. Why hasn't MDOT released the Wilbur Smith Report on financing the DRIC bridge? Why is it such a secret? I would have thought that the math on financing the two bridges should be easy to compare and the cost of building a traditionally funded bridge compared with a P3 bridge ought also to be easy to calculate. Maybe that is the problem. Disclosing the numbers now would be fatal to DRIC!]

Doug: Right. I think really the issue is where they're paying the tolls to. I don’t think the tolls will be four times what they are on the Ambassador Bridge. I would expect the tolls would be commensurate with what they're already paying.

[Frankly this comment is absurd. How can the tolls be approximately the same when the cost of the DRIC Bridge is in the $2 billion range while that of the Ambassador Bridge is around $3-$400 million? What no one wants to recognize is that the Ambassador Bridge can seriously undercut the tolls of the other bridge, thereby attracting traffic away from the new Bridge. The end result could be the bankruptcy of the DRIC bridge.

Of course, the Bridge Company will be extremely competitive. That is why it is highly unlikely that any P3 organization will seriously put in a bid knowing that they have to compete with someone whose price will be a quarter of theirs. P3 companies like monopolies so that they can make their 13 to 20% rate of return.]

So for the trucking companies and the shippers who are using the border crossing there won't be any additional cost. It's just a question of whether they'll be paying it to the Ambassador Bridge or whether they'll be paying it to a new Bridge Authority.

[Again, a ridiculous comment and wishful thinking. But then again, he works for the Association whose head moaned and groaned about the increase in tolls at the Blue Water Bridge. Perhaps they feel that if they are nice to the Governments, the tolls will be kept low again for the benefit of their members and at the expense of taxpayers.]

Andrea: I want to bring in a second guest. We also have Sarah Hubbard. She is Senior Vice-president of government relations with the Detroit Regional Chamber. Sarah, I want to pose the same question that I just posed to Doug here, which is that the operators of the Ambassador Bridge are saying, look, why would you want to go with the government-backed Bridge? Because basically it costs $5 billion, and the tolls are going to be much higher than what we're charging.

Sarah: Well, we think options are important here.

[What is even more important to Sarah, is not answering the question because if she did, that would be the end of the DRIC Bridge.]

We need redundancy for national security issues.

[Can we bury this argument already!

To be blunt, the attack in Moscow on the subway system confirmed again that terrorists multi-target. If they are going to attack the Ambassador Bridge, they would attack the other new Bridge whether it was beside the old one or a mile down the road or even 60 miles away. More importantly, Sarah forgets to mention that the Tunnel is the main concern because it has been described as a "unique security risk." It should be obvious why that is so.]

We need to make sure that we have very strong, clear entry and exit areas for the Bridge.

[Poor Sarah, clearly she forgot about the Ambassador Gateway project in which the Governments and the Bridge Company have spent already about a quarter of $1 billion to do precisely what she described on the US side. On the Canadian side, although promises have been made, nothing has been done including spending $300 million on the building of a road to the Ambassador Bridge as was contemplated under the BIF program. If Highway 401 is to be extended, it will be extended in precisely the same route to either of the new bridges.]

And we think this is something that community on both sides can live with as well, we like the idea of having several options. In Buffalo they have four Bridges and that seems to work out pretty well there. We have lots of room for growth in the Detroit-Windsor area. We want to really grow the logistics industry and have more trucking and more transportation going on in the Detroit-Windsor area.

[Oh Sarah, she obviously does not know about the problems in Buffalo/Fort Erie where the project to build the new Peace Bridge is in a worse situation than ours, even with all of their bridges. If Sarah is trying to suggest that Buffalo is our competitor, MDOT have already destroyed that myth a long time ago]

Andrea: Ok, there was recently, though, an Editorial in the ""Detroit Free Press"" where basically they were making the argument that Michigan can't afford this bridge, that really any money that they're going to have for the transportation system, they should be using it to fix cracked roads and potholes versus putting money up for this expensive bridge. What are your thoughts, Sarah?

Sarah: Well, that's just not true.

[Really? I remember reading a story recently about many road and bridge projects that cannot be completed because the State does not have the money. I remember reading a story about the dispute between Moroun and MDOT over Bridge Company toll credits that could help pay for some of these projects. Why even the Governor in her SOS speech thought it was ludicrous not to take advantage of private toll credits.]

Either party who builds a new Bridge is going to use bonding, whether it's bonded through a private activity bond or bonded through a public/private partnership or through some kind of government situation. Bonding will carry the primary cost of the Bridge. After that, the federal government will be picking up significant costs of entry and exitways on both ends. You know, there are different kinds of bonds that are used for patching potholes in other areas of the state.

[Oh Sarah, you probably have not heard that alternative payment methods may have to be considered because of the lack of traffic. That means a taxpayer subsidy for the DRIC Bridge. She really has to keep up with the news.

There will only be bonding if the person doing the bonding knows that the bonds will be paid back. That is not a certainty with the DRIC bridge as outlined above.

Does it really make sense for the State of Michigan and its taxpayers to spend money that they could use for their many road projects it cannot complete now when the Bridge Company is prepared to spend their money to build their Enhancement Project?

After NAFTA-gate, Secretary of State Clinton's dismissive comments respecting the border with Canada the other day and the unpleasantness over Afghanistan and the Arctic, Sarah has to be dreaming in Technicolor if she believes that the US Government will contribute one cent to this project to help out Canada.

Note as well, that Sarah effectively answered the question buying never mentioning once how much Michigan would be able to pay.]

Andrea: Ok. Doug, to you. I want to ask you, I mean what's it like right now? Mr. Stamper said that the Ambassador Bridge is very efficient. What kind of -- are there wait times and how difficult is it to get across at the moment?

Doug: At the moment, there aren't extensive wait times particularly directly at the Bridge.

[Oh my goodness, someone finally acknowledging that the Bridge Company knows how to run a border crossing.]

But we still have the dysfunctional situation as you said in your lead-in to this, of having to travel down a city street, going through 16 stop lights to get to the busiest border crossing between Canada and the United States. At its peak, it was running 3.5 million trucks a year plus, essentially running through the Detroit Windsor community.

[Our traffic volume today is around the 1999 level, a far distance from the peak described. No one seems to want to acknowledge that the road to the Bridge has been there ever since the Bridge was first built almost 80 years ago. Even with the stop lights, the border operation at the Ambassador Bridge beats that of every other crossing between Canada and the United States according to FHWA.]

Our position on this has been that we had two public policy objectives. One was to get a freeway-to-freeway connection that would get us off the city streets and get us out of the Windsor community.

[This is a bogus issue. The Bridge Company years ago engineered a road to the Bridge following the route proposed by the City of Windsor WALTS study that was effectively copied by the DRIC engineers. Whether a truck goes to the new DRIC bridge or the Enhancement Project bridge, the route is identical except for the last mile where a truck would either go left or would go right depending on the final destination.]

And the second was to build in some redundancy.

[See above re the phony argument respecting redundancy and security. If the Governments were serious, then we would have had reverse customs at the border already as the Bridge Company has been advocating for years.]

The DRIC project is the result of the efforts of Governments on both sides of the border, Canada and the United States, to look at all the options including the option of twinning the Ambassador Bridge and they determined that, after spending several million dollars and a couple years studying this, that the most reasonable way was to build this new Bridge that DRIC is proposing.

[Another misstatement. The Governments have not looked at twinning the Ambassador Bridge but rather looked at what they proposed about building a Government bridge right beside the Ambassador Bridge. That is how they threw out the twinning concept by saying that it would destroy most of Sandwich. Of course that argument was a phony one as well.

As I have Blogged many times before, and which was confirmed by Prime Minister Harper's secret mandate letter to buy the Ambassador Bridge, the DRIC project was nothing more than the Governments' attempt to terrorize the Bridge Company into selling their Bridge to the Governments at a very low price. That strategy has failed miserably.

Why would the Government of Canada want to buy the Ambassador Bridge if it was in such a poor location and such a poor project and an old Bridge. The letter demonstrates that Canada was never interested in a DRIC bridge but always wanted to buy the Ambassador Bridge and to locate a new Bridge beside it.]

Andrea: Ok. Because one of the things that kind of jumped out at me is why isn't the Government -- or the two Governments working in coordination with the Ambassador to maybe twin together with Mr. Moroun that second span? Why isn't that happening, Doug?

Doug: It was one of the options that DRIC looked at.

[See above. They never looked at it. Moreover, the Governments started reading and believing their own demonization reports. They were terrified to negotiate with Moroun, especially because they have no negotiating position as the lawsuits started by him make absolutely clear.]

We have to remember what DRIC really is.

[See above what DRIC really is]

DRIC is a combined environmental assessment process really, in that essence, between the Federal Canadian, Provincial Ontario, State of Michigan and the Federal US. Though they've combined, all four levels of Government have various processes that need to be gone through. And DRIC was the process to meet all of those requirements. So they looked at all the options, and one of the options was twinning. But for a variety of reasons, they can't really build that road to the Ambassador Bridge. The environmental assessment impact showed that it was more of an environmental impact to try to build that freeway-to-freeway connection to the foot of the Ambassador Bridge. Part of the problem is the Bridge is in the middle of the Windsor Community and it's hard to get to it with a highway.

[Discussed above. I do believe that some people should visit Windsor to understand that the Bridge is not in the middle of the city. I've heard that now from several people over the years who really ought to know better. Perhaps they are confusing the Bridge with the Tunnel.]

Andrea: Ok, Sarah, how important would you say -- I mean this has been going on for quite some time now. How important is it that there is some resolution? I've spoken to some people who are watching this, and they're really fearful that if there isn't a resolution, you know we may not see a Bridge in our lifetime, a new one.

Sarah: Absolutely. You don't just decide to build a Bridge overnight. This is something that takes years of planning as Doug mentioned.

[Sarah forgot that the Ambassador Bridge program started long before DRIC and but for Government interference would have been completed by now]

It's a binational process. Both sides of the river have been working together and it's extremely important that we build a new Bridge. This is -- you can't just decide overnight, oh, we need a new Bridge between two large countries. We think it's important to keep moving forward. We want to find resolution to the DRIC process, and if the Ambassador Bridge is able to build their second span, by all means they can build a second span. In fact in the minds of the business community, we like the option of having additional crossings in several places. We want to have choices. We want to have competition and we want to make sure we have the best crossings possible between the US. and Canada so we can be an inland port.

[For a business group, it is fascinating for me to watch them seeing a company being destroyed by Government and yet they are silent about it. Perhaps that is because the Chamber is a DRIC supporter.

Moreover, as a business person, Sarah does not seem to understand basic economics. Who will pay for all of these bridges if traffic is not there to pay for the bonding, her members as taxpayers?]

Andrea: Sarah, what's your sense though -- I mean the Michigan Legislature has to make a decision about whether they're going to continue to fund the DRIC, the Detroit River Crossing. Do you get a sense of which way they're going on this?

[She should have asked Sarah specifically about Senator Cropsey]

Sarah: Oh, there are a few issues being worked out before the Michigan Legislature.

[Yes, like an MDOT traffic report that does not meet legislative requirements and the failure to release the financial picture until the last minute! And how to get P3 operators to come in without a Government guarantee or subsidy.]

In particular we need to find -- to pass a new law that would allow for a public/private partnership in Michigan. You already have that in Ontario and in Canada. and in the US. We need to do that. We strongly believe that it will pass in time for this project to be completed. There are a few vocal opponents of this project in the Michigan Legislature. There are many more silent supporters.

[Perhaps the silent majority understand that the P3 boondoggle is over, that P3s are too expensive. Perhaps they have read my BLOGs on the Port Mann Bridge P3 fiasco!]

Andrea: Ok. and Doug, the last to you. What would this DRIC Bridge mean in terms of the economy and jobs on both sides?

Doug: Obviously there's a direct impact in terms of the trucks trying to get across the border and the operational costs that they incur trying to move across the border.

[But Doug, you just said there are no border problems now and with the new technological advances, pre-clearance and moving Customs away from the border, the problems will be minimal in the future.]

But I think really the most profound impact on the economy is, you know we talk about the supply chain, and the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. All too often, the border is that weakest link.

[Ooooooo, Doug did not say border "thickening." If he did , it means Customs and non-tariff barriers not the Bridge]

So to us the way to strengthen the supply chains between Canada and the United States, to insure that the two great trading partners that we are can continue to trade is to build the DRIC Bridge, provide that redundancy provide that highway-to-highway connection so that we can insure that when people are making business decisions about where to locate businesses, where to source supplies from, they don't have to factor in, well, i'm not sure if my goods will get across the border. We need to build in that kind of certainty, that kind of security that businesses need when they're making investment in sourcing decisions.

[Uh, Doug, capacity is not the issue, traffic flow is! Just ask the Peace Bridge people and they will confirm it. That is why the Ambassador Bridge project is designed for traffic flow improvements not for capacity reasons.

Your issues are NOT bridge related but part of the "Dirty little secret" the Canadian Senate talked about years ago]

Andrea: Ok. Well, thank you very much, both of you, for joining us today.

Bridge Company NAFTA Press Release

It is no April Fool's day joke. It is getting very serious now.

I wonder if this NAFTA case will finally get Ottawa's attention. Or does our Conservative Government expect to be re-elected on an anti-American platform?

After Secretary Clinton's visit, someone in Ottawa or our DC Embassy ought to wake up!

Please note the sentence I emphasized which will give Edgar (aka Eddie) nightmares.

Bridge company claims Canada violated NAFTA, files arbitration claim

WARREN, Mich. – A new highway planned by Canadian authorities to service a proposed border crossing between Ontario and Michigan violates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) because it discriminates against American investors in the nearby Ambassador Bridge, the bridge owners said.

The Detroit International Bridge Co. (DIBC), which owns and operates the Ambassador Bridge, filed a Claim of Arbitration under Chapter 11 of NAFTA on March 23.

DIBC seeks a determination that Canada has breached its obligations under NAFTA, an award of damages of at least $3.5 billion and other appropriate relief.

The arbitration arises from the decisions by Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Windsor to locate the parkway serving the proposed Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) so it steers traffic away from the Ambassador Bridge, DIBC said.

In May 2003, Transport Canada, the Canadian government transportation agency, committed to extend Highway 401 to facilitate access to the Ambassador Bridge. Relying on Canada’s promises, DIBC invested hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements in connection with the Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project – the $230 million program to provide direct access to the bridge from the U.S. interstate highway system.

Canada cancelled the improvements to Huron Church Road and instead approved a new freeway linking Highway 401 with the proposed DRIC bridge. The road, commonly referred to as the Windsor-Essex Parkway, is proposed to be 11 kilometers long. The first 9 kilometers would run from Highway 401 directly toward the Ambassador Bridge, but 3 kilometers short, before turning south toward the proposed DRIC bridge.

The new DRIC bridge would be jointly owned by Canada and the U.S. DIBC alleges that Canada’s actions violate NAFTA by favoring Canadian investors in DRIC over the U.S. investors in the Ambassador Bridge, and by denying fair and equitable treatment to the U.S. investors in the Ambassador Bridge. The Ambassador Bridge is wholly owned by DIBC, a privately held U.S. company.

NAFTA prohibits actions of discrimination by the United States, Canada or Mexico against citizens or companies of one another and requires them to treat one another’s investors fairly and equitably. Discriminatory activities of government subdivisions of those nations such as states, provinces or municipalities make the nations themselves liable in damages under NAFTA.

NAFTA provides for arbitration by a three-person tribunal to resolve disputes under Chapter 11. The Secretary-General of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes will constitute the tribunal if the parties do not reach agreement on the panel within 90 days. NAFTA also includes a 90-day period for the parties to attempt to agree on a resolution of the dispute.

Apology NOT Accepted

Aren't you sick of people apologizing? Screw up, cause damage and then kiss up and make it all better.

I did a quick News search and here are the apologies given in the past week or two:

• Jesse James apologizes to the Sandra Bullock and his kids for his infidelity.
  
• Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn says he "apologizes to those I could have offended" after he became the second Conservative cabinet minister in less than a week to lose his cool with airport security.
  
• The European clerical sex abuse scandal has reached Italy, with the bishop of the northern diocese of Bolzano apologizing to victims and promising to co-operate with prosecutors
  
• Czech doctors' organization apologized to Jewish doctors Thursday for the persecution they endured in pre-World War II Czechoslovakia
  
• Toyota Motor Corp. officials apologized to Canadians for the raft of safety problems that has caused the recall of some of its most popular brands
  
• Walmart apologizes for racial remarks
  
• The head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has apologized for his handling of a child sex abuse scandal 35 years ago
  
• In statement, Rangers manager apologizes for testing positive for cocaine
  
• Industry Minister Tony Clement apologized Tuesday for letters mailed to community groups across Canada telling them their funding for Internet access was being cut
  
• A sobbing Charmaine Roy apologized "from the bottom of my heart" to the people she defrauded
  
• Time Warner Apologizes For Mixup Involving Kiddie Channels, Porn
  
• Co-op Cabs apologizes
  
• Virgin America's CEO on Tuesday apologized to passengers who endured a grueling trip from Los Angeles to New York this past weekend
  
• Miami Heat forward Dorell Wright was arrested early morning Thursday (March 11th) in Miami Beach, FL. for DUI and has now apologizing after returning to the Miami Heat from his, at the least, distractive arrest.
  
• HP Apologizes To Consumers In China Over Problems With Laptops
  
• Tiger Woods Apologizes for His 'Sins'
  
• Helena Guergis apologizes for PEI airport meltdown
  
• Greyhound apologizes to stranded passengers

Whew, I am sorry for showing so many. Darn, now I am doing it.

That is why I congratulate this Windsor lady for showing some spunk:

• "Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc. has apologized after a clerk ejected Julie Holmes from a Windsor store because she had a service dog with her, but she’s not dropping the issue. She’s filed a human rights complaint.
  
  “They have apologized and I appreciate it,” said Holmes, 24, who has muscular dystrophy. “But if I accept sorry from them, I have to accept sorry from everybody. Then everybody can treat me like garbage as long as they say sorry. I have to get the point across and educate.”

P3 The Blue Water Bridge

This bridge is a natural to be P3ed.

It is owned by Canada through the Blue Water Bridge Canada and by the State of Michigan through MDOT. As everyone knows, both Governments are hot to trot on a P3 for whatever is built in Windsor/Detroit although Michigan legislation does not allow for P3s. So far.

Trouble is, no one has a tremendous amount of experience on P3s for major transportation routes, especially an international one. Ontario had a deal over Highway 407 and it took a lawsuit to figure out who could do what. I hardly think think that makes Ontario a pacesetter in this area.

Who could dare take such a chance on the major land broder crossing between the US and Canada? No one is the answer. We need to run a test first to see how it can be done and what lessons can be learned.

Wait, I have a fabulous idea. Or rather, I am publicizing someone else's fabulous idea that few have picked up on. P3 the Blue Water Bridge:

• "[Republican Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan] Cropsey also is unhappy with Granholm's budget recommendation for the Michigan Department of Transportation. Her proposal calls for reducing operational expenses by $20 million and using that money for road construction to leverage $100 million in matching federal funds. Even so, Michigan will be unable to use an additional $475 million in federal road cash because of inadequate state road funding.
  
  Cropsey said Granholm needs to think about creative solutions such as instituting road tolls and privatizing bridges.
  
  "Maybe we ought to turn the Blue Water Bridge over to the private sector and let them run it," Cropsey said of the bridge between Port Huron and Sarnia, Ontario.”

It's not such a foolish idea. Remember that Canada had the Blue Water Bridge on a list of possible assets it might sell. Just the other day, the Finance Minister said:

• "Finance Minister says Canada may sell government assets
  
  
  March 9, 2010 Canada may announce plans in the coming year to sell government assets following a review of its operations, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said.
  
  Flaherty, who this week outlined the Conservative government’s plan to bring down its budget deficit, told CBC Radio a lot of work had been done on the review and “there’s more to be said about that before too long.”
  
  “There are some opportunities there for some privatizations of businesses that one questions why the government is in them anymore. So we’ll look at those and I expect that in the next year we’ll be able to make some announcements,” he said in an interview posted to the cbc.ca website Friday.
  
  “It’s actually an asset review. Why does the government own A or B or C? Why are we in that business? Do taxpayers really need to own this?”
  
  He did not elaborate on what assets might be sold or how much this could raise."

Relax all of you Canadian economic nationalists. He is not really going to sell the bridge but he could P3 it instead. This way he can say he still owns it while he brings in all of this cash to pay down the deficit.

After all, how could he sell it when the Prime Minister has a secret mandate letter to buy the Ambassador Bridge. He may buy it but then probably would turn around to P3 it probably to the same party who P3s the Blue Water Bridge. We know that this was part of Canada's plans for years thanks to Gridlock Sam's "socialist-type" musing that could come into play:

• "Balanced Traffic between Blue Water Crossing and Windsor-Detroit Crossings
  
  Developing a balanced traffic network between the Sarnia-Port Huron and Detroit-Windsor Crossings would provide benefits without a new crossing but would be compatible with any of the new crossings... It sets aside the profit-motive, which means each facility is competing for the most traffic, with a utilitarian-motive: the greatest good for the greatest number. Such a scheme may require revenue sharing among participants."

But why would MDOT do it? They aren't a bunch of namby-pamby leftwing-leaners are they.

There is a simple explanation: money. MDOT is desperate for money. They need to spend a half a billion dollars to fix up the mess they made at the Blue Water Bridge Plaza. They have a need for hundreds of millions of dollars for highway and bridge projects they cannot finance. And if they get money for their budget from private parties, then effectively they are no longer controlled by Legislative oversight at budget time and can tell the Legislature to stuff it. Mind you, they do that now anyway as we can see with DRIC.

They were seduced by Canada over sums that were raised in Chicago and Indiana as the P3 boom skyrocketed. And who would not be! I wonder how many billions they thought the Bridge was worth, half of it to go to MDOT. However, it may be too late for them as the economic meltdown has meant that P3 operators will have trouble finding the cash to satisfy the bureaucrats. Who knows though, Canada might offer to buy it but at a reduced amount. Perhaps like the Tunnel too.

If you do not think that this is a possibility, then why else would MDOT raise the tolls by almost double? There was an immediate need to get the revenues up to increase bridge value and to attract bidders. Moreover, if the successful bidder increased tolls right after it took over, then the private operator would take the public hit and would not like that. Just take a look what happened when Alinda did that in Alabama when they bought out 4 Macquarie bridges there.

However, I have to tell you that this concept will not work. All that it will get would be OTA's David Bradley whinging another time when the private P3 operator increased tolls again. Who could stand that! I guess he cannot figure out that someone has to pay for bridge building. Or perhaps he has and wants it to be taxpayers not bridge users like his members.

I hate to admit it. The better idea would be to follow what the Detroit Free Press proposed and let Matty Moroun run both crossings (and throw in the Fort Erie/Buffalo crossing too for good measure):

• "Moroun's legal efforts can stall the planning and building of a second crossing, but ultimately they won't stop it. If the Ambassador wants to continue getting a big piece of the border action, it ought to negotiate an agreement under which it would jointly own and operate the Ambassador, the new downriver crossing and maybe even the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. Moroun's company could even share revenue on the new downriver crossing while repairing the Ambassador.
  
  The bridge company, which has done an excellent job of operating the Ambassador, has the capital and expertise to make such a public-private partnership work. If structured properly, such an agreement could protect the bridge company's economic interests while providing the public oversight and governance that a border crossing should have.”

Put the DRIC bridge P3 project on ice for awhile, P3 the Blue Water bridge by allowing P3 legislation just for that project. And learn what a disaster that will be as the Governments get taken for a ride.

Then the Governments can beg Matty to please build his bridge and run theirs!

Clinton Dismisses Canada Border Concerns

You can listen to the interview and form your own conclusions.

All I can say is that Canada's Washington Embassy, our foreign affairs geniuses and the academic cognoscenti especially in a certain Ottawa University have been so wrong that the only thing that will save our relationship with the US is Iggy becoming PM!

Just listen to what the US Secretary of State has to say in diplomatese so that Canadian politicians won't have massive heart attacks:

1. The thick border is not getting any thinner
2. She is just beginning to clear away obstacles
3. Perimeter security---the Americans are not looking at it now although Canadians keep writing about it. (Listen to her tone especially)
4. We've had a near depression so protectionism is staying. Tough luck if Canada is nervous and anxious
5. We are not going to make agreements on everything right away---so bye-bye DRIC
6. The focus is on the Mexican border because the US screwed up and is the cause of many of the Mexican problems by making illegal guns available and buying drugs from the "barbaric and vicious" drug trafficers.

Do you really believe that the State Department headed by Secretary Clintion, after her comments, will reverse what the Department said before about DRIC's Central Corridor and will issue a Presidential Permit to DRIC to build a bridge?

Don't be silly!

BLOGExtra: Minister of International Trade Van Loan Bombshell

I heard this video clip on the CBC Money program, "The Lang and OLeary Exchange." Watch and listen to it for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTl8ww-3AnA

It is a real shocker:

I wonder exactly what it means since Dan Stamper stated clearly that Minister Van Loan before he became an MP was writing letters to the Government supporting what the Ambassador Bridge was proposing as "the right answer." That is completely contrary to the Government position that DRIC is the way to go.

Of course, our media investigative reporters will ignore the issue since it is NOT another anti-Moroun attack. It's similar to the Windsor Star approach to journalism--ignore key stories that don't favour your position and they disappear.

Frankly, I find it shocking. Why then has Van Loan remained silent? In his former position of Minister of Public Safety, he had responsibility for Customs (CBSA) and was involved in border crossings matters as this excerpt from a letter from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce shows:

Or in this story:

• "Van Loan signs border pact with homeland security head
  Trade, security issues dominate 2-day meeting
  
  Border security issues sat at the top of the agenda on the first day of a two-day conference between high-ranking officials on both side of the Canada-U.S. border.
  
  Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan met with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in Windsor on Tuesday. The pair will meet again in Ottawa on Wednesday.
  
  After touring port operations on both sides of the border, the two signed an agreement allowing armed guards to patrol shared waterways and share information and resources."

But as I wrote before, here is what was so startling about what Van Loan said in the past:

• “In Washington to talk to his U.S. counterpart, Canada's public safety minister said Wednesday that they agreed to meet twice a year to head off problems that might snarl trade at the border…
  
  Van Loan said the two sides would probably meet once a year in Canada and once in the United States, perhaps at the border itself.
  
  He also got a commitment from Napolitano that Washington will look again at the idea of what is called land pre-clearance, he said.
  
  Under a proposal favoured by Ottawa, American officials would check U.S.-bound trucks on the Canadian side of the border and vice versa, easing trade bottlenecks.
  
  Van Loan said he suggested a pilot project at the Windsor-Detroit border but nothing was settled.”

Nothing ever happened with that idea did it! How could it---it would have helped Moroun and negated any need for a DRIC bridge. Obviously, someone slapped the Minister down, hard. Who cares about solving security issues when there is a Canadian political agenda at play.

So what is it with the Minister? It seems to me that he is pro-Bridge Company yet he is a Minister in the Government which is opposed to the Bridge Company. How does he reconcile that?

How can he remain in the Government and especially as a Minister if he does not favour what the Government wants? Or, is being and remaining a Minister that important?

My head is spinning. Someone needs to start asking some questions soon to clear this up.

It is clear now that on the border file at least, the Harper Government is completely out of control!

More Border Stories

More stories for you to consider

IT'S THE POLITICS

Interesting article in Toll Road News

• "A peace plan for the war at the Detroit River crossings US-Canada"

Nice to see an "outsider" trying to bring some sanity to our insane border fight. The concept is similar to what I have proposed before, including my "kangaroo" article around three years ago http://windsorcityon.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-kangaroo-can-save-canadas-economy.html :

• "How A Kangaroo Can Save Canada's Economy"

Unfortunately, Mr. Samuel does not understand that logic plays no part in what the Governments, especially Canada, want to do. It is an ideological and political war against the Bridge Company not an economic one. That's why the serious lawsuits are starting with more to come from both sides I would bet.

Maybe a court can bring some sense to this.

ARE STAR FORUMS MESSED UP

IS PAMELA ANDERSON CANADA'S LAST HOPE

The Canadian Government may be this desperate to beat Moroun, anywhere. He is their competitor to build a second bridge in Buffalo/Fort Erie too.

As you know, Pamela was born in Canada and is a spokesperson for PETA. Consider this story:

• PETA Offers to Save Peace Bridge; If it Changes Name
  
  BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) -- PETA officials have made a 'meaty' offer to the NYSDOT.
  
  PETA has offered to help pay for the repairs needed to bring the span up to safey ratings if the name of the bridge is changed to "Peace on Your Plate Bridge".
  
  This offer follows reports saying that the Peace Bridge has such a low safety rating that it could be forced to close.
  
  In the letter, PETA makes the claim that world peace could be more readily attained if everyone adopted a non-violent vegan diet.
  
  "Changing the bridge's name to the 'Peace on Your Plate Bridge' is a win-win situation," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "The name change would help keep this vital link in Western New York's economy up and running, and people crossing the bridge would be reminded that we really can have world peace -- starting with one meal at a time."

Could it be that Canada would go along with this?

I would strongly suggest that the Bridge Company plan an information session with PETA and hopefully with Pamela in attendance. She does have a history with Detroit since she married Detroit's Kid Rock so that is their opening to meet her. Wouldn't it have been great, and would have put Windsor on the world's stage, if their vows could have been exchanged at the border crossing between Canada and the US on the Ambassador Bridge.

They need to be polite and not attack the PBA people as boobs. Rather, their job should be to meet PETA and Pamela to keep them them abreast of what is going on.

WHERE IS THE DRIC P3 MONEY COMING FROM

• Infrastructure funds struggle to attract investors
  
  AMSTERDAM - Global infrastructure fundraising dropped by more than half in 2009 from the year before as investors moved to more liquid assets, according to data sent to Reuters by placement agent Probitas Partners.
  
  Just $US10.7 billion ($11.85 billion) was raised by infrastructure funds in 2009, 57 per cent less than the $US24.7 billion raised in 2008, according to figures compiled by Probitas.
  
  The contrast is even greater when compared to the $US34.3 billion raised in 2007.
  
  There are currently 119 funds on the road worldwide seeking an aggregate $US115 billion according to market research and consultancy firm Prequin, making this a very competitive environment for fundraising.
  
  Infrastructure assets such as roads, airports and power grids are notoriously illiquid, making them less appealing to investors during a liquidity crunch.
  
  This is exacerbated by the scarcity of debt to support projects, Probitas said.

GARTER SNAKE TO GET NEW DIGS

You recall the Butler garter's snakes that could stop the DRIC road until something is done since they are a species at risk.

In the Star, it was reported:

• "Thousands of badly needed construction jobs associated with the enormous project could be delayed unless an agreement to protect the snake and several wildflowers also unique to the region can be reached.
  
  I don't think a delay is likely -- at least not for long. But some kind of deal to protect the so-called endangered species is going to have to be struck or the jobs could end up in legal limbo."

The story was reported in the Detroit media this way:

• "The existence of the Butler's garter snake was identified a few years ago while the DRIC study team examined wildlife ... in the access corridor," Grondin said.
  
  "We have tracked the snake's movement and have been developing strategies to protect them."
  
  According to Grondin, the Canadian government is working on strategies to "protect, create and restore of habitat for species at risk "like the Butler's garter snake."

Years of study and no solution yet. And those strategies are "part of the province's planned preconstruction activities," which basically is government speak for "we plan to do something, we just don't know what."

In the end if DRIC can force out hundreds of families and businesses from Delray by the use of expropriation and telling them to go elsewhere, then I am sure they can force out the snakes too by offering them a new home.

Funniest quote in the Detroit story:

• "What makes it unique?
  
  The Butler has a smaller head, a different scale arrangement and is known to thrash madly about when frightened by you and me.
  
  Since 2007, the serpent has been listed as threatened under Ontario's Endangered Species Act, which means it can't be harassed, captured, possessed, bought, sold or killed.
  
  To learn just what could or should be done about the "serpent de jarretière du Butler" I placed a call to Mark Butler (no relation), spokesman for Transport Canada."

FIX I-94 INSTEAD

Instead of using its money to build a DRIC Bridge, perhaps MDOT could fix up the bridges on I-94 instead:

• "I-94 to reopen Monday after weekend repairs
  Additional supports to be added to overpass
  
  The Michigan Department of Transportation said today it expects to reopen all lanes on an I-94 overpass in Allen Park by Monday morning, days after the bridge was restricted because of safety concerns.
  
  Bridge inspectors shut two of three lanes on eastbound I-94 over Southfield Road Thursday afternoon, leading to lengthy traffic delays. An MDOT employee observed that pavement appeared to have dropped by as much as half an inch on the left side of the overpass, and follow-up inspections led the state to close the lanes.
  
  “We will begin a detailed investigation to identify all needs for a long-term repair. Due to our funding issues, it’s impossible to know exactly when that contract will be enacted"

Perhaps MDOT could call Matty about toll credits too!

Is A Boycott Summer Fest Facebook Page Next

I wonder if the Facebook group "Keep Windsor's Summerfest at the Riverfront!" will now morph into one called "Boycott Summerfest at the WFCU parking lot."

Since the City owns the site, and if people get mad enough, it might be shortened to "Boycott WFCU" since this looks like nothing more than a money-grab to make the failing arena white elephant look profitable if Edgar (aka Eddie) runs for Mayor again.

Is that what this means

• "I don't like the decision," said Sleiman, who hopes to spearhead other events downtown.
  
  "I beg everyone in the downtown area and in the west end to not go to that carnival."

That might be an interesting idea since you know Summer Fest will not be coming back otherwise. As was written previously:

• "Durocher said she would like Summer Fest -- which attracts 90,000 people over its three-week run -- to return to its old riverfront location next year. But she admits that decision depends on how well the carnival fares at the WFCU Centre.
  
  "If it goes to the WFCU and it's a monumental success, it would not only be our decision, it would also be the choice of World's Finest Shows," she said. "Wherever we go, if there's more return on investment, that's where they're going to want to go."

Wow, I wonder how many downtown restauranteurs will get upset, from one-star ones to five-star ones since a lot of business would be taken away. Or will they be convinced to be quiet since there might be other goodies they will be promised say, like an urban village again.

Or, I got it, how about a canal???!!!!

How about trotting that boondoggle out already. Why it's the salvation for the downtown isn't it and just before the election too. That mind's eye vision has been too quiet for too long. What a perfect set-up for the Mayor who can set up meetings all summer for citizen conversation about a canal. Consultation he can call it like the ones he did NOT have for daycare.

Of course, if the Mayor runs, he needs the downtown voters since they can be galvanized to come out to vote so he weasel-words Summer Fest:

• "But Mayor Eddie Francis, parks and recreation representatives, and Barry Jamieson, president of World's Finest Shows, all said that the move is likely only for this year -- and only makes sense."

"Likely" is the word which he can use after the election when he says it will never come back downtown.

Think I am kidding, here is what Ms Durocher said to back off what she said before, to be more politically correct:

• "In any case, Durocher said she hopes Summer Fest will return downtown next year"

No commitment there to come back. Just a "hope."

And why would it? Look at all the money it will make for the WFCU and the parking lot owner next door and the people who can sell booze there:

• "She said for this year, Summer Fest will offer a lot more than just a midway at the WFCU Centre. She's hoping to bring in a BMX competition to augment lots of stage entertainment, vendors, buskers, and possibly another big event.
  
  Furthermore, the WFCU Centre, she said, may well choose to open up a licensed terrace during the festival.
  
  "It's not just going to be a midway in a parking lot," she said. "There's going to be lots to do."

And this silliness about

• "The organizer of the popular Summer Fest said Friday that after reviewing all the options, the decision is now final: the annual Windsor tradition will move to the WFCU Centre this year to avoid riverfront construction.
  
  "We spent all morning at parks and rec," Maggie Durocher, president of Windsor Parade Corporation which stages the event, said after meeting with city officials for almost three hours. "We went through a map, we went through every possible venue that is available to the city, looking for alternatives, looking for a way to keep it downtown. But there is nothing that works."

Pure window-dressing to pretend that something was being considered

• "Maggie Durocher, executive director of the not-for-profit Windsor Parade Corporation, which runs Summer Fest, said the idea to move came from Windsor's parks and recreation department late last year."

They had months to figure out alternatives.

Folks, it was a done deal. The decision was made and nothing was going to change it, not even citizen protests.

Come on people, you forgot. Mr Farhi's land is our new DOWNTOWN! Gord told us that a loooooooooong time ago.

• "I can see eventually 60 acres being developed ... the equivalent of an entire downtown," said Farhi.

Now you know he was not kidding. I do hope though that the "huge piles of twisted scrap steel next door to the WFCU Centre" will have been cleared up by then.

After all, if we need an event for the downtown to help the businesses prosper there and to have a family event where it should be and which is probably most convenient for the people who want to go there, you know now whom the Mayor favours:

• "Mayor Eddie Francis said it's "bittersweet news" that the plant is being demolished. "My first priority would be to have a plant open and people working." But it's better, he agreed, to have redevelopment in the Lauzon/Tecumseh area than a padlocked plant. "You want activity. You want action," said Francis. "The entire Lauzon Road corridor is going to come to life again. This just adds to and complements the activity at the WFCU Centre. Shrewd investors are already picking up properties."
  

Now It's NAFTA

You just know that more is coming. You can just feel it. What other big surprises does the Bridge Company have?

Why didn't Stephen call me? He should have listened to me. Now he is in a big pickle. NAFTA is in play as part of the dispute between the Bridge Company and Canada. Here is a copy of that document for you to read. http://www.scribd.com/doc/28979255/NAFTAclaim

Why oh why? His people must have anticipated this response from the Bridge Company.

Prime Minister Harper will cost the Canadian economy dearly. The anti-NAFTA legislation introduced in Congress is much more serious than Canada seems to understand

Such naïveté

• "International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan said Tuesday that the groundswell of protectionism among some U.S. lawmakers is directed less at Canada than at Mexico, as well as overseas markets.
  
  "I've been down there with the prime minister, meeting with President Obama. I met with congressional and Senate leaders and others that are key on trade files there, and what you get told again and again is, ‘Well, none of this is directed at Canada,'" Van Loan told CTV's Power Play.
  
  "And there are understandable anxieties, concerns about loss of manufacturing to China, some concerns about the relationship with Mexico, (but) Canada always seems to be sort of the favourite son. Nobody looks at us as a bad guy."

Mind you, this is the same Mr. Optimistic guy who said a while ago in his old job:

• “Canada-U.S. border review worries overblown: Minister
  
  Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan on Monday said he's convinced early worries that the new Obama administration might impose new security measures at the Canada-U.S. border have been overblown.
  
  At the start of a three-day visit to Washington, Van Loan said he's satisfied that a U.S. review of its northern border — ordered in January by Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary — was simply a matter-of-course exercise by the department's new head to become familiar with her portfolio.
  
  "What I thought was very positive about that is that she recognized that the northern border is very different (from the U.S.-Mexico border), that we have a very different situation," Van Loan said in an interview. "She does view us in a very different light . . . She very much understands the objective here is achieving security while facilitating trade."

Where does this guy hang out? Didn't he read this:

• "Representatives Gene Taylor, Walter Jones, Peter DeFazio, Bart Stupak, Michael Arcuri, Joe Baca, Roscoe Bartlett, Bruce Braley, Michael Capuano, Jerry Costello, Bob Filner, Raul Grijalva, Phil Hare, Maurice Hinchey, Steve Kagen, Marcy Kaptur, Dale Kildee, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Mike McIntyreEric Massa, Mike Michaud, and Ron Paul, Mark Schauer, Peter Visclosky, Charlie Wilson and Lynn Woolsey introduced legislation to repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
  
  NAFTA and similar free trade agreements have resulted in a 29% decline in U.S. manufacturing employment since 1993. NAFTA discourages investments in U.S. manufacturing facilities and accelerates the erosion of our industrial base...
  
  Our trade deficit with Canada in 1993 was $11 Billion prior to NAFTA. By 2008 the trade deficit swelled to $78 billion and dropped to $20 Billion with the decline of the economy in 2009."

In case the name "Bart Stupak" is also unknown to the Minister, he was a key Democrat whom President Obama had to convince to help him on health care and who supported the President in the end on abortion protection. Obama owes him!

And we know that the Unions that helped make Obama President are not too happy with NAFTA either.

It cannot get worse for Stephen. And Canada!

Windsor In Dwight's Budget

We Canadians talk a good game about spending money on the border because it is so important to our economy but it is the Americans who have actually done it.

Perhaps there is something there in the Ontario budget on the DRIC road but I could not find it.

I saw this:

• "The Province is also making ongoing long-term infrastructure investments that will continue to lay the foundation for future economic growth. Expanding transit and highways will improve the movement of people and goods, helping to lower travel times and transportation."

Maybe it is hiding under "other transportation" but the sums set out are so small relatively speaking that it appears that DRIC expenditures may have been cut back.

Note Dwight did say in the Star pre-budget:

• "Work on the $1.6-billion Windsor-Essex Parkway, the planned new border feeder highway, will also push forward, Duncan said."

But the Budget did not say what work how much would be spent or how quickly.

Interestingly, the Star also reported that:

• "Meanwhile, the government will save money by delaying a raft of capital projects, many of them in Toronto. Several GTA transit projects will be postponed, as will plans to build a Toronto courthouse as well as a $1.4 billion office complex at Queen's Park."

The Toronto Star pointed out:

• "Belt-tightening will also derail expansion of public transit projects to save $4 billion over five years, including the TTC’s planned LRT lines for Eglinton and Finch Avenues and expansion of Scarborough rapid transit."

I guess that this came from Dwight saying:

• "Once our stimulus-related infrastructure projects near completion, we will slow the pace of planning and construction of some of the government’s capital projects."

Like DRIC perhaps? He is not going to spend billions in Windsor if Toronto light rapid transit lines are being cut back!

Here is what I did find on the border:

• "In addition, as Ontario’s economy shows signs of recovery, and trade and traffic volumes increase, it is critical that Ontario’s borders with the United States, Canada’s most important trading partner, operate as effectively as possible. Federal investment in technology and human resources at borders is critical to ensuring traffic flows as efficiently as possible. The federal government’s recent budget commitment to invest $87 million over two years to improve border efficiency and to expand and promote trusted traveller programs is a positive and welcome step in this regard."

Gee that sounds to me like Dwight does not want a bridge since if there is no bridge, there is no need for a DRIC road. Not a word about a Federal investment in a bridge.

• "Ontario is advancing its interests in Washington, D.C. by establishing an office located in the Canadian Embassy. This office will promote the linkages and interests of the Ontario/U.S. relationship affected by U.S. policies through ongoing monitoring and focused advocacy. These include such important issues as border, trade, climate change, water, air and related matters."

Hmmm, the "border." Isn't the bridge a Federal matter Dwight?

• "Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation net income is lower over the forecast period, largely due to the projected impact of a strong Canadian dollar and an unfavourable economic outlook for U.S. border states. These decreases are partially offset by a higher net income outlook for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario."

Poor Sean O'Dell. There go tourist numbers and therefore car numbers down, again. No wonder LCBO income is higher as tourist operators are being driven to drink!

Under The "B" For Bridge

Bingo, now I know how to explain the traffic machinations involving the DRIC bridge.

I have always felt that some people still do not understand why the issue about traffic volumes and the DRIC Bridge is so important.

After all, supposedly the need for the DRIC Bridge arose because traffic was going to double. Even now when traffic is at the 1999 level, or worse, Transport Canada can still say with a straight face:

• "Butler said the Canadian government is committed to the building a new bridge to provide additional capacity for an anticipated growth in border traffic."

You see, in order to survive financially, even with traffic doubling, the DRIC bridge would have to take a ton of Bridge Company car and truck traffic and that of the Tunnel and the Blue Water Bridge. The DRIC experts said that after all.

Presumably if traffic did not double or, if the Bridge Company, whose tolls would be lower, competed ferociously for traffic, either the DRIC Bridge would go broke or the other crossings would have financial difficulties if the DRIC Bridge was subsidized.

I thought this was an easy concept to grasp. But I think I was wrong. People should not feel too bad if they are having problems with this because even the CEO of Chrysler does not understand it. You would think he would understand numbers and what lack of numbers can do to a bottom line:

• "DRIC received an endorsement earlier this week from Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of Fiat and Chrysler, when he spoke to about 500 industry representatives at a dinner Monday in Michigan hosted in part by the Canadian Automotive Parts and Manufacturing Association.
  
  "The North American automobile industry and hundreds of thousands of employees in vehicle assembly and parts production depend on the smooth flow of just-in-time deliveries across this critical border gateway," he said. "Chrysler strongly supports the partnership between the governments of Michigan and Ontario, as well as Canada and the United States, as they work toward securing a new gateway at Detroit-Windsor."

Fortunately, the Bingo hall issue made the "traffic issue" simple for people to grasp.

As the Star story points out, just read how the proposed new Bingo Hall and the existing Bingo Halls will be fighting over a reduced number of bingo players--traffic--to understand the concept of how all of the Bingo Halls and the users could face serious problems. Apply it to DRIC and you will be much wiser:

• "A group of charity bingo advocates will approach council Monday to open a non-profit bingo hall on the city's east end in what they are calling a last-gasp effort to rescue dozens of local charities on the edge of financial failure.
  
  The group wants to reopen the shuttered Hollywood Bingo hall at 3975 Wyandotte St. E. on the corner of George Avenue. The hall closed in 2006 under consolidation of the local bingo industry.
  
  Bingos were hit hard in Windsor by the proliferation of casino gambling, loss of U.S. customers through border restrictions and finally no-smoking legislation in 2006.
  
  There were once about a dozen local halls, but now there are only four owned by a single operator — the Poirier family of Poirier Electric.
  
  The operator of the remaining bingo halls — and some charities which profit from them — are fighting the move, claiming there is not enough room in the industry to support another bingo hall...
  
  Long-time charity bingo advocate David (Red) Wilson, who used to be president of the charity operations at the former Hollywood Bingo, is leading the effort to reopen the facility. He believes dozens of local charities will be better served under the non-profit hall.
  
  "There is no alternative plan for us," he said. "This is our opportunity...
  
  But the concept has supporters of the existing bingo halls furious and fearful the competition will drain away what little profits are being generated for both the Poiriers and roughly 75 charities those halls support.
  
  "The first 100 customers pay the overhead," said Phil Haddad, president of Charities of Classic Bingo IV located at Market Square on Walker Road. "The other 20 customers are the profit. We can't lose one person because that represents profit.
  
  "For us, this is deadly. If you don't make money, the charities have to put in more money if there is a negative pool."
  
  Should the new hall open, Haddad predicts everyone will lose.
  
  "Even the ones going to that hall will have a difficult time," he said. "If we were all turning people away and there was a need for another business, I'd say good luck to them. But that's not the case.
  
  "If you have another bingo hall you add free market competition and we will be fighting each other. You don't want that fight. Windsor's charities will lose as a result."

And in another story, it was put more bluntly

• "Backers of a proposed non-profit bingo hall on the city’s east end say it is a last-gasp attempt to rescue dozens of local charities from the brink of financial failure.
  
  But opponents say the move would only “cannibalize” the city’s fragile bingo industry, and everyone will lose."

See what I mean: one for-profit existing operator, huge drop in players because of the economy, new non-profit wants to open a competing hall supposedly for the public good, it would divert traffic, both operators might not have the numbers to be profitable. The result "everyone will lose" including users when traffic is "cannibalized."

Under the "O" for Ooooooooooooo do you get it now!

The Ambassador Bridge And The US Ambassador

I will never be a good card player. I just do not have a poker face and would give away when I held a good hand or even worse, when I had a bad one.

In the same vein, I would never make it as a diplomat. Subtleties of language is not something I am good at. Making black into white is too difficult a job for me, even for Country.

But isn't that what US Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson did with his interview with the Windsor Star. The man is a real pro!

You would think the champagne corks would be popping in Ottawa after reading the Star headline:

• "Obama backs DRIC, says ambassador"

In reality, after the Ambassdor's remarks and the Ambassador Bridge lawsuits, people are ducking under their desks to escape from the fall-out!

Why no one wants to come out and just kill the DRIC boondoggle has always mystified me. But that is what the US Ambassador did in a diplomatic way of course. Not directly but oh in such a subtle manner.

In comments very similar to how L Brooks Patterson suppported DRIC, the US Ambassador supports it because it is supposedly the only project around:

• "With the DRIC project now the only bridge-crossing application still standing for U.S. regulatory approval after the Ambassador Bridge's disqualification, "my government supports the DRIC," said David Jacobson. "We think it's a good thing."

So if you want to build a bridge for capacity purposes, he is right in what he said. However, he went on to say:

• "We believe there is probably demand for both crossings, Jacobson said"

So he is now supporting the Ambassador Bridge project as well. As you will see, in the US Federal mind, the issue is traffic flow, not capacity. And that is what the Enhancement Project solves.

And why is the Ambassador supportive of DRIC. He was misled. Simple as that:

• "But certainly there is enough [demand ie traffic volume] for the DRIC"

No Ambassador, there is no demand. We are back to the 1999 levels.

However, forget all of that nicety of language. What the Ambassador effectively said to Canada is do not call us, we will call you someday when we can come up with a few hundred million dollars for a bridge.

• "In the interview, he declined to answer questions regarding the financing of the U.S. half of the project, saying the money end was out of his pervue."

So much for Canada hoping that the US would put up Michigan's 20% of the billions required as well as its 80% of the DRIC cost if Michigan is unable to do so financially

Capacity issue, what capacity issue:

• "There is no question Windsor and Detroit need far more crossing infrastructure, he said.
  
  As ambassador, Jacobson has spent "entire days crossing the border back and forth, to experience the different border crossings. I don't recommend it" as entertainment, he said wryly.
  
  Jacobson said he paid close attention to border traffic during his attendance at the Olympics in British Columbia. "There were no significant wait times at any point while entering Canada or the United States." And that was despite much larger than normal volumes of people crossing the border."

It's traffic flow, not capacity that is the issue. He is repeating what the Homeland Security Secretary said months before. The "crossing infrastructure" needed is not a new bridge for more capacity but the new Ambassador Bridge 6-lane bridge for adding a lane for the FAST and Nexus vehicles for traffic flow.

And when the Ambassador talked in the Star video about perimeter security, that means moving Customs away from the border as well and in effect turning the Bridge from a border choke-point into a mere road with the odd security check as in Europe. It won't happen quickly as the Secretary made clear because Canada right now is providing hurdles as with shared border management because it kills the need for DRIC.

In the end, when you ignore the headline and read what Jacobson said, the Ambassador likes the Ambassador. After all, his boss, President Obama, still does not care for what happened with NAFTA-gate. And it shows.

UPDATE

Listen to the Ambassador's latest CTV interview at around the 2:30 minute mark http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/march-19/#clip278739

He was not blind-sided this time. His concern re the border is how we strike the appropriate balance between security and efficiency ie how we defend together North America rather than how we deal with the "smaller issues" at the border.

So much for worrying about a new bridge here.

Why MDOT Needs P3 Legislation For The DRIC Bridge

Some Michigan Legislators are going to get very angry after reading this BLOG. Perhaps some people in Washington, DC too. Probably in Ottawa as well but for different reasons. I know I was angry when I was writing it since I felt I had been duped and misled.

I hate to admit it but I must in all honesty.

Public-Private Partnerships. A P3 for the DRIC bridge. What insanity. Except without such legislation the DRIC Bridge is dead in the water.

I get upset when I miss the obvious but it was my own fault. It has been staring me in the face for so long that I just ignored it. I was distracted. And that was part of the tactics. Distract us so they could try to slip something in without us knowing about it. It's an old trick and I fell for it.

But I bet that I am NOT the only one.

Oh I had my moments but my sin was not thinking it through. I just took everything I was fed at face value; I took it for granted and did not look below the surface to try and discover what was really going on.

Think about it. With the economic meltdown so money is impossible to raise, Moroun's competition (assuming the Governments still allow competition) and traffic at 1999 levels with little hope of growing quickly, who in their right mind would gamble billions of pensioners' or shareholders' or investors' money in a P3 DRIC bridge in Windsor/Detroit. The answer is: NO ONE!

Yet MDOT is pressing their Legislature for P3 legislation. Why?

• "MDOT seeks Windsor-Detroit bridge partners
  
  Michigan's department of transportation has issued an official request for companies interested in being part of public-private partnership to construct new international bridge, plazas and feeder roads under a $5-billion government plan touted by the Detroit International Crossing (DRIC) team...
  
  The stage is being set to form a public-private partnership that will move the DRIC project forward, said Michigan's Transportation Director Kirk T. Steudle.
  
  "At this point, we are considering a model that would incorporate some participation by the private sector in financing, design, construction, engineering and maintenance," Steudle said.
  
  "Although we have not yet finalized what that model will eventually look like, we know there are a number of teams out there eagerly anticipating the start of work on this historic project that will create jobs and keep international trade flowing across the border as efficiently as possible."

It cannot merely be because they visited Australia and were convinced by the time-zone changes that P3s made good sense. There had to be more to it than that.

Heck, they could have visited Windsor to learn about P3s. Canadian Government officials could have travelled there to meet with the MDOT people since we are so experienced in them. And look at the Michigan taxpayer money that could have been saved too. I guess they were afraid to cross the Ambassador Bridge since then they would have learned how to operate a border crossing properly and used that experience in Port Huron.

That was the sign though, the tip-off and I completely missed it. What MDOT was doing made no sense. It was ridiculous. A P3 bridge would cost a fortune compared with the traditional way of financing a major project like this since a P3 operator wants a return of 13-20% on these types of projects.

The BC P3 Port Mann bridge project which the Australians, Macquarie, could not finance in the end was a classic case. The poor economy meant that the P3 money could not be raised and the Provincial Government had to take over the project. However, using the same contractors as the P3 company, the Province would save about a billion dollars in costs and would finish the project quicker.

So who needs P3s?

I wish I could say that I figured it all out. But I did not. However, the answer was handed to me on a silver platter. Guess who spilled the beans: MDOT itself!

I know, I know, you cannot believe it either but here it is except it is in relation to the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal project and not DRIC and not dealing with P3s specifically so perhaps MDOT was a bit more forthcoming. And careless:

No wonder MDOT's Bill Shreck could say this after the Bridge Company bought land upon which the DRIC Bridge would be built:

• "A land purchase by Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel “Matty” Moroun has created a new complication for the Detroit River International Crossing project — but the Michigan Department of Transportation insists the plan for a publicly owned span won’t be derailed.
  
  Bill Shreck, a spokesman for MDOT, said the state can simply expropriate the land it needs if necessary.
  
  “We’ve gone through it a thousand times in a thousand places. It’s normal operating procedure,” he said."

MDOT must believe that they can get around the Michigan Proposition 4 constitutional amendments by expropriating the property in MDOT's name so they are the owner and "leasing" it via a P3 to a private bridge operator.

MDOT would not be expropriating Moroun's land to give it to another private party. Since MDOT is always the owner, even though it could be operated by a private party for up to 99 years, they feel they are not caught by the law. A P3 upfront payment effectively gives MDOT the purchase money too so it works out so well for them.

Of course, they cannot circumvent the law that easily but why spoil their fun.

Do you see what I mean? I am sooooo embarrassed I missed that. It was so plain. P3 legislation is absolutely required NOT for financing reasons but for eminent domain purposes by MDOT.

However, to redeem myself in your eyes, dear reader, I thought of another reason why MDOT is pushing for P3s: to get around the Dubai ports issue for Canada.

If Canada bought the bridge as PM Harper seems to want to do, then all hell would break loose with President Obama and Congress with a foreign Government, even friendly Canada, owning a key border crossing. But if MDOT owns it, even if it leases it to Canada under a P3 for 99 years with the automatic right to renew for another 99 years, who can get mad? An American State Government is the "owner" isn't it?

Now that is clever. Very clever. In fact, it is too clever for MDOT. They are not that good.

Here is another revelation although I am speculating now. I would bet that it was Canada who came up with the idea of getting around the legislation and the Dubai Ports issue since CANADA has so much experience in P3 deals. Moreover, it is Canada who is at risk if it was seen as controlling the crossing.

So hide the scheme by using Michigan. That is the only reason Canada has any interest in a State that cannot even afford to fix its roads and bridges.

Canada would have considered such an issue before, say in the proposed Tunnel deal with Detroit that Edgar (aka Eddie) was trying to achieve. That deal was a lease deal too with Detroit maintaining Tunnel ownership but with Windsor taking over management for 75 years. If it had been finalized, it would have been the precedent for what would happen with the bridge!

So please forgive me. I promise to try and do better. I will try to ensure that there is no "next time."

How Bad Is It For Canada

Remember the smears by Canada against Janet Napolitano, the US Secretary of Homeland Security. What a dumb and foolish strategy. It did nothing more than increase President Obama's distrust of Canada after NAFTA-gate.

Hmmm, the tactic sounds similar to the approach being undertaken against Matty Moroun these days too. I wonder who is quarterbacking that smear campaign.

From Canada's Messenger, Canwest's National Post newspaper. Oh you remember who the Chair of Canwest is don't you and that the Windsor Star is part of that chain:

• "The border for dummies
  
  Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo."
  


• Don Martin: Napolitano makes Bush administration look well informed
  
  This is borderline insanity.
  
  The most worrisome American official confronting Canada today is a former Arizona governor who thinks the U.S. northern border, which she’s only flown over and never actually crossed on the ground, is a security threat on par with the drug-running, immigrant-smuggling, terrorist-sneaking border wall with Mexico.
  
  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is moving unapologetically forward on beefed-up border staffing and enhanced documentation requirements that will make Canadians and travelling Americans yearn for the security paranoia of the George W. Bush administration.
  
  Ms. Napolitano’s brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we’re dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can’t differentiate between a secure border linking the world’s largest trading partners and one that’s a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what’s been described as an ‘invasion’ of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north."
  
  "Obsessed with the border, Napolitano comes undone
  
  In a widely linked editorial in the Wednesday issue of the National Post, our ed board wondered how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job?"

Great tactic...if it worked and President Obama got rid of her. Horrific tactic if it did not and President Obama kept her on. As he did!

Just take a look at what can happen to Canada respecting border crossings and tell me that you still believe that a DRIC Bridge has any hope of being built. The threats are real too when security trumps trade.

I have made it easier for you to read too by setting out each topic in yellow type below:

Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, "Transportation Security Challenges Post-9/11"

Release Date: December 2, 2009

Getting rid of the Secretary to make Canada happy

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chair, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee: Anyway, we have enormous respect for you. I respect you very much. Over the last eight years, your department has experienced a lot of growing pains. I know you are the right person to move the agency forward. I'm totally confident of that. I look forward to being your partner -- I think we all do -- in solving top-security challenges...

I totally thank you for being here. It's very important to us as a committee. We respect what you're doing and we want to be your partner.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): Secretary Napolitano, we are very comforted by the fact that you're in charge there. You come with a great record of public service and you've shown a firm hand since you're here.

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madame Secretary, first of all two compliments.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madame Secretary, for your briefing and your service to our country.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing, and it's great to see my former colleague, former gubernatorial colleague, Secretary Napolitano, and congratulations, and I echo some of my colleagues' earlier comments about the good job you're doing.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary, welcome. Good to see you here. Look forward to continue working with you

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Napolitano, thank you for being here and thank you for your hard work and dedication. I think the president chose well when he put you into this position, and your background and history and experience I'm sure has come into use every single day that you've been in this position.

Sen. Klobuchar: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madame Secretary, for being here. I was just thinking of how full your plate is with H1N1 and the many other issues that you've had -- the Fort Hood shooting investigation and a lot of other ongoing changes with our security. So I thank you for your leadership

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. Good to see you here, Secretary Napolitano. We both share the Southwest as home and I think you're doing an excellent job with a very, very difficult department there to manage.

Fingerprinting people entering and leaving the US could kill tourist traffic

"Sen. Isakson: And lastly, a question. On the US-VISIT program, we require biometrics, primarily in the form of fingerprints, which are validated when someone comes into the United States by air at the US-VISIT program. It is my understanding that it is the third phase of the program is getting ready to be announced, which will also require, in terms of airport -- leaving the country, a revalidation of the fingerprint to ensure the person leaving is the person, in fact, that is supposed to be leaving.

But that's not going to be required at our seaports or at our border crossings with Canada and Mexico on the ground. And 80 percent of the people that come to the United States come either by sea or by those -- the Canadian border or the Mexican border, as I'm told. Why would we not check those borders as well, when they leave, to validate that the person leaving is in fact the person that we think they are?

Sec. Napolitano: Senator I'll get back to you, but let me just -- my educated guess is that with respect to the Mexico and Canadian travelers, that the volume, in terms of number of passengers and number of lanes is such that the logistics of employing that for the exiting visitors at those land ports would be prohibitive. And that's really the bulk of what we're talking about."

Goodbye to Canada's ambitious Pacific and Atlantic gateways efforts and the Edgar (aka Eddie) airport transportation hub. And as for perimeter security, keep on dreaming

Sen. Cantwell: A second issue, if I could, is obviously that that U.S.-Canadian border is very important for shipping and we've had by colleagues talk about security and safety of cargo and container traffic. What are we doing to help ensure that all of North America adopts a regime for border security so that we don't have Asian traffic deciding to go to Canada because they can skip the regime that the United States sets up for border security, only to have that cargo travel all the way across the country and maybe enter, you know, someplace else that doesn't have that border security that you are establishing? So how do we get that North America regime established?

Sec. Napolitano: Well, if you're talking about, Senator, having almost like a perimeter policy around the continent, obviously that's somewhat difficult but I mean --

Sen. Cantwell: I'm saying there's billions of dollars of business -- of cargo container going in. We're probably, you know, 20 percent of all traffic coming from China. Now, if just up the road in Vancouver they decide they're not going to -- (inaudible) -- a security regime and it's cheaper and faster to go through Vancouver, all that traffic is going to go there and the U.S. is going to lose that transportation business. So what are we doing to help make sure that those ports adopt the same kind of regimes?

Sec. Napolitano: Well, I think, Senator, we are -- I am meeting regularly with my colleague -- my counterpart on the Canadian side -- as to what is necessary for security at those ports because there are certain things that are constants with respect to be it integrated port security, be it air security, be it land-border security. There are certain things that need to be done and need to be accomplished. But there are differences and there are very real differences between the two countries and I think part of that gets beyond my lane and gets into other departments in terms of negotiations as well."

Instead of blaming the US, is Canada the problem:

[From above] Sec. Napolitano: I am meeting regularly with my colleague -- my counterpart on the Canadian side -- as to what is necessary for security... There are certain things that need to be done and need to be accomplished. But there are differences and there are very real differences between the two countries

Sen. Klobuchar: Exactly. I'm actually going to mostly focus on the Secure Watch issue and some of the terrorist watch lists and the misidentifications on those lists but I wanted to start with one quick question about the Canadian baggage rescreening, and this is something that affects my state. We have a state-of-the-art airport and the requirement that checked luggage at appropriately-cleared Canadian airport facilities be rescreened before the transfer to a U.S.-based connecting flight it has frequently caused delayed connections for our passengers arriving (since?) Canada because their baggage has to be physically transported from the arrival. And I know that TSA has been working with Canadian authorities for well over a year to reach an agreement that could put in place new technologies for Canadian baggage screening that would meet our own United States security standards, and I wondered if you have any sense of when that agreement will be reached.

Sec. Napolitano: I know about the issue, I know about the discussions, and I don't know when they will come to a conclusion. But if, Senator, if you're asking me to see if I can prompt them to hurry up, I'll be happy to do so.

Bye, bye DRIC Bridge. A border is a border and there is a need for increased attention to the Canadian border the Secretary said, remember. The US Ambassador got his border crossing information from CBP, part of Janet's Department

"Sen. Hutchison: Thank you.

I wanted to go back to the border wait times. This is something that I know you are familiar with as well, having been the governor of Arizona. And my question is how can you address the border wait times; because there are trucks backed up for miles, taking hours to get through? Because it does make a difference in commerce, and people being willing to come across. How are you going to address it keeping security in mind as well as efficiency of commerce on our land borders?

Sec. Napolitano: Well, a couple of things. First of all, between Fiscal Year '08 and Fiscal Year '09, we actually saw a reduction in wait times, according to the data I have, a 12.3 percent reduction. And the wait times for commercial trucks, and I think that's what you're focused on, Senator, went from in '08 10.6 minutes to 9.3 minutes on the U.S. side of the border.

Where the wait times can add up is on the Mexican side of the border. And so, working with Mexico, they are now establishing their own customs capacity on that side of the border, which I think will do a great deal to resist. Because as you know, when you go through a land port, you're actually going through two borders. You're going through the Mexican side and the U.S. side. So the U.S. side, the wait times have gone down; and I think will continue to go down with our greater use of technology.

Sen. Hutchison: I really am referring to the Mexican side, because that affects so many of our border retailers. And it's commercial, but it's also people who will shop --

Sec. Napolitano: In those areas, indeed. And so, Mexico is now developing its own customs agency and deploying them to the border, which they really had not had before. As well as, as we build out our ports on the northern side of the border, we are working with them to build their infrastructure to match our ports so that they're paired up appropriately.

Sen. Hutchison: So, we do have an ongoing effort to work, to coordinate better the Mexican side with our side. So that we can get some of those wait times down for commerce.

Sec. Napolitano: Yes.

Sen. Hutchison: Okay. It's a big deal on our border. It must have been in Arizona as well. Because border retailers on our side, get a lot of business from that land traffic. And if you have to wait an hour or two, or more sometimes, it's a problem.

Is there something we need to do to increase further customs and also coordination because there has been a complaint that's ongoing for a long time of coordination of just working hours between DEA, Customs and Border Patrol? So that sometimes, one group is off in a coffee break, while the other group is on, but you have to have all of them. And is there an effort in your department to address that kind of coordination to better utilize our resources?

Sec. Napolitano: Senator that coordination should already be occurring, under the direction of who ever is the manager of the port. If you have a specific instance or a specific port where you are getting reports that that is not happening, I hope you would let me know about it; and we will follow-up.

Edgar's airport repair facility plan may be in jeopardy too now

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate you holding the hearing open until I had a chance to get here. I was over in Armed Services as we were dealing with the president's speech on Afghanistan last night and it took awhile for me to get my questioning done there.

I wanted to briefly bring up with you, Secretary Napolitano, something that I have been working on for a number of years now and that is foreign repair stations as it relates to airline maintenance.

I know this is not necessarily in your lane, but in the long run, it needs to be on your radar -- pardon the pun --

Sec. Napolitano: Mm-hmm.

Sen. McCaskill: Because we have increasingly in this country turned to foreign repair stations for not just kicking the tires, but significant maintenance and repair work for our domestic airline industry.

FAA -- it is from the many different hearings in this room we have figured out we're not really sure we certify certain repair stations, that we allow non-certified repair stations to do the work. We're not really sure why we don't have the same kind of standards at foreign repair stations in terms of background checks, in terms of perimeter security.

And I bring it up to you, because I think this is something that we could benefit from you -- your people taking a look at this. We have foreign repair stations doing significant work on some of our airlines in countries that were on the State Department's terrorist watch list.

So meanwhile, I -- with a smile on my face -- get wanded every time I get on an airplane, because I have one artificial knee and they go through my mom's stuff, because she has two artificial knees. We have repair work -- significant repair work being done in places around the globe where I don't think the American people would be comfortable with the level of security and oversight that we're providing them.

And I wanted to bring it up to you, because it's something that I'd worked on and I know we haven't had a chance to visit about it before, but would like your reaction to that and whether or not you think that some of your obligation, as it relates to homeland security, could reach out to at least do an assessment, in your view, whether or not this is something we should be worried about.

Sec. Napolitano: Well, thank you, Senator. And the foreign repair issue really reveals something, which I say often, which is that homeland security does not begin at the borders of the United States. You really have to think of it in a global context and then bring it home, so to speak.

On November the 18th of this year -- so just a few weeks ago -- we issued an actual notice of proposed rulemaking on foreign repair stations. And it builds on the certification requirements that the FAA uses. But it would require such things as making -- requiring that they be open to audits by the Department of Homeland Security on a random and surprise basis. It requires certain types of recordkeeping. It requires certain types of -- other types of checks in the stations themselves.

The comment period on the notice, I think, closes -- I want to say the third week of January. So it is something that has occupied our attention and we're moving forward in that fashion.

Sen. McCaskill: That is terrific.