My Answer To Brian Masse's Guest Column

I should have guessed. First there were two pro-Brian Masse news stories on Bill C-3 in the Windsor Star. Those stories were mere lead-ins to the Brian Masse Guest Column on the Editorial page. The news stories left a lot to be desired frankly. I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Star about the first but it was not published. I did a BLOG about the second [June 30, 2006 "Brian Masse and Star Apology Required"]

Brian's Guest Column demands a response. I did consider sending it to the Star but then again, I have never been successful in getting a Guest Column published by the Star on border issues. So here is what I have to say about the Column by the NDP MP for Windsor West:

Mr. Masse discussed what "[he], joined by Joe Comartin's parliamentary expertise with the full support of the NDP caucus" accomplished with Bill C-3. They actually achieved very little.

The transcripts of the hearings, that are available to everyone including the Star, are clear about what really took place in Parliament and in the hearings. Mr. Masse introduced a considerable number of amendments that he and the NDP wanted and a number which were submitted by the City of Windsor and their legal experts through him. Some "parliamentary expertise!" Most were thrown out as "inadmissible" and he withdrew several others. Windsorites were poorly served by our NDP member.

The wording of the amendment Masse introduced is so weak that it is totally useless. It deals with the Minister consulting with other levels of government and with those with a direct interest. The Minister only needs to do so "if in his opinion such is necessary having regard to all the circumstances." That hardly gives us a voice on border issues when the Minister has so much discretion. Notwithstanding his spin, Masse’s amendment actually gives the Ambassador Bridge the statutory right to have a voice where they had none before!

It is shocking to see the Conservatives following a Liberal Party agenda dealing with Bill C-3. If this Bill is what a "rightist," supposedly pro-business Conservative Party in Government advocates, then the world is topsy-turvy.

Don't you find it amazing that everyone focuses on the "operations" side of what Bill C-3 is all about? No one argued against the safety and security aspects. But there is another more ominous side to the legislation that seems to be conveniently ignored that should send a chill to every business person in this country!

Few discussed the ownership provisions under the Act or that the Act is really directed against one company, the Ambassador Bridge Company, to force them out of business. If it can happen to them, and they are powerful, what about YOUR company? Is it safe from Government bureaucrats who think they know your business better than you?

Don’t worry though. The Government says its purpose with this legislation is pure and wholesome: "The proposed bill has become a high government priority to "protect public interest, safety and security," said Transport Canada.

To be honest, I can well understand the concerns of the Government. As its backgrounder points out, 22 out of 24 crossings are PUBLICLY owned. The Ambassador Bridge and one in Fort Frances, which is for sale, are private.

Given the poor way some of these "public" bridges operate and their weak financial position, no wonder they need oversight. Interestingly, a US Government study stated that the "private" Ambassador Bridge was the best operating border crossing in North America. Now I am NOT picking on the Peace Bridge but wasn't that the model that Brian Masse wanted us to consider for a "public" bridge here. Here is what the study said comparing the two crossings:

• "…at the Ambassador Bridge, the buffer index for inbound truck traffic was just over 65 percent…This indicates that, even with its substantial volume of traffic, operators of the Ambassador Bridge sustained movement across the bridge without imposing lengthy increases in delay times. Contrasting markedly with this was the inbound buffer index at the Peace Bridge of 266 percent…
  
  Crossing times at Detroit's Ambassador Bridge port-of-entry, as noted above, were markedly different from others in the sample. Despite the bridge's dramatically higher volume of traffic, generally shorter crossing times were achieved."
  
  

While it may have some good intentions, Bill C-3 is a very Draconian piece of legislation. When you understand that the key provisions can put the Bridge Co., its real and obvious target, into serious difficulty financially while it builds up their competition at the Bridge Co's own expense, you will know what I mean. The Bill can destroy a business in the name of the "public interest" it appears and without compensation.

Please tell me of one single business person who would stand for this kind of Government action! This legislation goes much further than we ever should allow our Government to go "for the general advantage of Canada" merely "to ensure the efficient flow of traffic."

Here are some examples:

• Any alteration or construction requires Government "approval" with the Government making the rules about what has to be done to obtain that "approval." The Government, who can be your competitor, is now the judge, jury and, possibly, executioner for your project.
  
• If your competitor wants to buy some of your property but you choose not to sell, no worries. Your competitor merely goes to the Government and they do it for them
  
• The Minister may order you to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that the crossing is kept in good condition or dealing with security and safety and at your expense no matter what the cost
  
• The Government can make rules respecting the operation of a crossing, including who can be your customer and how much you can charge
  
• You cannot sell your business without Government approval
  
• The Government can change the rules retroactively notwithstanding what you have done to date based on existing laws
  
  

No wonder others have not directed your attention to these provisions. Think about them but applied to your company or employer. Be honest. Would you tolerate Government intervening in your business in this fashion?

All may not be lost. Bill C-3 still has to be passed in the Senate. Hopefully, the Senators will show their usefulness in providing a "sober, second thought" to legislation that no business person should ever have to tolerate even in the name of public security.

If Brian Masse and the Government truly believe that the private ownership of the Ambassador Bridge is an "anomaly," then they should have the courage of their conviction. All that they need do is open the Government cheque-book and spend billions of taxpayer dollars to buy the bridge. As Matty Moroun, the bridge owner said in his Windsor Star interview, "If the offer is right we would consider it. We would be foolish if we didn't. It's a business deal."

But why do that when they can try to force him to sell out using Bill C-3!