Destroying Windsor, Clause By Clause
I am rather surprised that neither the City of Windsor nor the Windsor Chamber of Commerce have made submissions yet on Bill C-3. That legislation can do considerable damage to the Windsor economy yet there is no reaction from our political and business leaders.
I am sure that they think it is merely a Bridge Co. issue and why help out that firm. After all, for the City, it is a competitor too so anything that supposedly hurts that Company helps the Tunnel. Never mind that a smooth running border helps create business and brings tourists. It is a piece of legislation that no pro-business Government should ever introduce either and the Business lobby is silent.
Are we that short-sighted in this Community? I have already written how the proposed Tunnel toll increase could hurt businesses, consumers and commuters under Bill C-3.
Are our leaders so blind that they do not see that certain provisions of the Act can direct traffic away from Windsor to Sarnia/Port Huron? Do they forget how they fought to prevent the double-stack rail tunnel from going to Sarnia but lost? Do they want to lose this fight as well?
Have they not heard enough about the East-West corridor to be concerned yet? Do they not understand that an “enhanced” bridge can make Windsor a major distribution centre in North America and that can create jobs and wealth?
I have already commented on the Act but let me do it again from the Windsor perspective as well.
We all know that the Bridge Co. will protect its business. It seems that our political leaders would rather fight with them than talk to them. The Bill C-3 hearings seemed to open up the eyes of some of our MPs to the misinformation being spread around. It did so in Lansing given the budget amendments to stop funding DRIC. However, will it be enough to stop determined bureaucrats who want to put the Bridge Co. and perhaps Windsor as well out of business?
We all know that if the Bridge Co. litigates, it will last for years—we learned the FIRA fight lasted for a dozen years until the Conservative Government settled with the Bridge Co. in 1992. Is that lawsuit being re-opened in effect?
If we have a dozen years of lawsuits here, then kiss our economy good-bye. Is that what we want---hardly! Is that what someone wants---who knows. We do know that the Bridge Co. has the right to build its bridge on both sides of the river. Why are we not talking with them to do a deal rather than sabre-rattling.
Obviously, some think Bill C-3 is the key to “victory.” It may be but it would be a pyrrhic one for Windsorites!
Here are some of the key sections that cause concern:
2. The following definitions apply in this Act.
"alteration" includes a conversion, an extension and a change in the use of an international bridge or tunnel but does not include its operation, maintenance and repair. [What does this mean? Does it mean that one needs Government permission for anything? It is designed to stop DRTP as well so they may litigate too. The private sector was to be stopped at any price it seems!]
"international bridge or tunnel" means a bridge or tunnel, or any part of it, that connects any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, and includes the approaches and facilities related to the bridge or tunnel. [How far does this extend? Is this the way EC Row expressway or the DRTP corridor gets turned into a truck road notwithstanding what we want]
3. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province. [Federal supremacy. Take that Dalton McGuinty and Eddie Francis! No one cares about local interests. We have seen that since the days of the Joint Management Committee and the Nine-Point Plan. By the way, Paul Martin is no longer PM either so who cares what Windsor was told in the past about its role]
5. International bridges and tunnels are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. [See 3 above which means the Federal Government makes the rules constitutionally]
6. No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council. [You cannot breathe without Government permission. And that applies to Eddie’s dreams for the Tunnel too. The Government as your competitor also controls your destiny. What conflict of interest?]
12. If a person requires an interest in land, as defined in section 2 of the Expropriation Act, for the purposes of the construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel and has unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the interest in land, the person may request the Minister to have the Minister of Public Works and Government Services have the interest in land expropriated by the Crown and section 4.1 of that Act applies to that person, with any modifications that are necessary, as if the person were a railway company. [Obviously, everyone knows that the Bridge Co. owns key pieces of property. So just expropriate it for a competitor to make money and, to rub it in, at their expense! And if the City owns land that could be used, say for a new roadway, take that as well]
13. The Minister may order the owner or operator of an international bridge or tunnel to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition. ["Any action"...You have no control or say and YOU have to pay for it too! MPs complained about the Feds acting but not providing financial assistance. Another variation of “downloading” responsibility but without funds]
15. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the operation and use of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations
(a) respecting the use that may be made of international bridges or tunnels by different types of vehicles;
(b) respecting the tolls, fees and other charges that may be imposed by owners or operators of international bridges or tunnels for their use, to ensure the efficient flow of traffic; [The Government can control who your customers are and how much you can charge too. Clearly this is how the Government will put the Bridge Co. out of business by controlling their customers and prices in the name of the “efficient flow of traffic.” This is also how a new Government bridge would be able to compete since financing is to be pro ved by tolls which would be Government controlled. Traffic can be diverted away from Windsor to Sarnia using this section if we take away too much business (especially if the East-West corridor is Government policy.. It can be the end of our economic well-being in Windsor. It is the bureaucracy now and not market forces that rule.]
16. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations
(a) requiring persons who own or operate international bridges or tunnels to develop and implement security plans and establish security management systems; [As above]
23. (1) No person shall, without the approval of the Governor in Council,
(a) purchase or otherwise acquire an international bridge or tunnel; [If you want to retire or sell, good luck in finding a purchaser who will give you a price that equates to the value of your business! As for the owners of the bridge, they may not be able to pass it on to family members now.]
29. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, issue letters patent of incorporation for the establishment of a corporation, with or without share capital, for the purpose of the corporation constructing or operating an international bridge or tunnel. Letters patent take effect on the date stated in them. [What the heck, if the business can make any money, the Government will become your competitor or your operator!]
57. For greater certainty, this Act applies in respect of any proposal for the construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel that has been submitted to any department, agency or regulatory authority of the Government of Canada before the coming into force of this section. [So much for laws not being retroactive. Clearly it is designed to stop what the Bridge Co. has been doing for a decade already]
Clause by clause discussion of Bill C-3 starts on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see what changes if any will take place. My hope is that the “health, safety and security” issues will be passed right away but the rest will take much longer to be proclaimed and not until after serious conversations that take place. If not….
I am sure that they think it is merely a Bridge Co. issue and why help out that firm. After all, for the City, it is a competitor too so anything that supposedly hurts that Company helps the Tunnel. Never mind that a smooth running border helps create business and brings tourists. It is a piece of legislation that no pro-business Government should ever introduce either and the Business lobby is silent.
Are we that short-sighted in this Community? I have already written how the proposed Tunnel toll increase could hurt businesses, consumers and commuters under Bill C-3.
Are our leaders so blind that they do not see that certain provisions of the Act can direct traffic away from Windsor to Sarnia/Port Huron? Do they forget how they fought to prevent the double-stack rail tunnel from going to Sarnia but lost? Do they want to lose this fight as well?
Have they not heard enough about the East-West corridor to be concerned yet? Do they not understand that an “enhanced” bridge can make Windsor a major distribution centre in North America and that can create jobs and wealth?
I have already commented on the Act but let me do it again from the Windsor perspective as well.
We all know that the Bridge Co. will protect its business. It seems that our political leaders would rather fight with them than talk to them. The Bill C-3 hearings seemed to open up the eyes of some of our MPs to the misinformation being spread around. It did so in Lansing given the budget amendments to stop funding DRIC. However, will it be enough to stop determined bureaucrats who want to put the Bridge Co. and perhaps Windsor as well out of business?
We all know that if the Bridge Co. litigates, it will last for years—we learned the FIRA fight lasted for a dozen years until the Conservative Government settled with the Bridge Co. in 1992. Is that lawsuit being re-opened in effect?
If we have a dozen years of lawsuits here, then kiss our economy good-bye. Is that what we want---hardly! Is that what someone wants---who knows. We do know that the Bridge Co. has the right to build its bridge on both sides of the river. Why are we not talking with them to do a deal rather than sabre-rattling.
Obviously, some think Bill C-3 is the key to “victory.” It may be but it would be a pyrrhic one for Windsorites!
Here are some of the key sections that cause concern:
2. The following definitions apply in this Act.
"alteration" includes a conversion, an extension and a change in the use of an international bridge or tunnel but does not include its operation, maintenance and repair. [What does this mean? Does it mean that one needs Government permission for anything? It is designed to stop DRTP as well so they may litigate too. The private sector was to be stopped at any price it seems!]
"international bridge or tunnel" means a bridge or tunnel, or any part of it, that connects any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, and includes the approaches and facilities related to the bridge or tunnel. [How far does this extend? Is this the way EC Row expressway or the DRTP corridor gets turned into a truck road notwithstanding what we want]
3. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province. [Federal supremacy. Take that Dalton McGuinty and Eddie Francis! No one cares about local interests. We have seen that since the days of the Joint Management Committee and the Nine-Point Plan. By the way, Paul Martin is no longer PM either so who cares what Windsor was told in the past about its role]
5. International bridges and tunnels are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. [See 3 above which means the Federal Government makes the rules constitutionally]
6. No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council. [You cannot breathe without Government permission. And that applies to Eddie’s dreams for the Tunnel too. The Government as your competitor also controls your destiny. What conflict of interest?]
12. If a person requires an interest in land, as defined in section 2 of the Expropriation Act, for the purposes of the construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel and has unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the interest in land, the person may request the Minister to have the Minister of Public Works and Government Services have the interest in land expropriated by the Crown and section 4.1 of that Act applies to that person, with any modifications that are necessary, as if the person were a railway company. [Obviously, everyone knows that the Bridge Co. owns key pieces of property. So just expropriate it for a competitor to make money and, to rub it in, at their expense! And if the City owns land that could be used, say for a new roadway, take that as well]
13. The Minister may order the owner or operator of an international bridge or tunnel to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition. ["Any action"...You have no control or say and YOU have to pay for it too! MPs complained about the Feds acting but not providing financial assistance. Another variation of “downloading” responsibility but without funds]
15. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the operation and use of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations
(a) respecting the use that may be made of international bridges or tunnels by different types of vehicles;
(b) respecting the tolls, fees and other charges that may be imposed by owners or operators of international bridges or tunnels for their use, to ensure the efficient flow of traffic; [The Government can control who your customers are and how much you can charge too. Clearly this is how the Government will put the Bridge Co. out of business by controlling their customers and prices in the name of the “efficient flow of traffic.” This is also how a new Government bridge would be able to compete since financing is to be pro ved by tolls which would be Government controlled. Traffic can be diverted away from Windsor to Sarnia using this section if we take away too much business (especially if the East-West corridor is Government policy.. It can be the end of our economic well-being in Windsor. It is the bureaucracy now and not market forces that rule.]
16. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations
(a) requiring persons who own or operate international bridges or tunnels to develop and implement security plans and establish security management systems; [As above]
23. (1) No person shall, without the approval of the Governor in Council,
(a) purchase or otherwise acquire an international bridge or tunnel; [If you want to retire or sell, good luck in finding a purchaser who will give you a price that equates to the value of your business! As for the owners of the bridge, they may not be able to pass it on to family members now.]
29. (1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, issue letters patent of incorporation for the establishment of a corporation, with or without share capital, for the purpose of the corporation constructing or operating an international bridge or tunnel. Letters patent take effect on the date stated in them. [What the heck, if the business can make any money, the Government will become your competitor or your operator!]
57. For greater certainty, this Act applies in respect of any proposal for the construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel that has been submitted to any department, agency or regulatory authority of the Government of Canada before the coming into force of this section. [So much for laws not being retroactive. Clearly it is designed to stop what the Bridge Co. has been doing for a decade already]
Clause by clause discussion of Bill C-3 starts on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see what changes if any will take place. My hope is that the “health, safety and security” issues will be passed right away but the rest will take much longer to be proclaimed and not until after serious conversations that take place. If not….
posted by JoeBlog at 12:06 p.m.
<< Home