Why The Transport Minister Refuses To Come To Windsor

Try and answer this question because I cannot.

If I were an executive of the Bridge Co., I would wonder why the Transport Minister has not seen fit to visit the facilities or even to talk to the owners to pretend at least that there is an interest in understanding their position or in working with the Bridge Co. as expressed in the hearings at the House of Commons and Senate. Ontario Minister Cansfield at least has had a session with them I believe so her butt is covered.

But that has never happened with Canada. Why not?

We know that the Ambassador Bridge is the most important trade corridor between Canada and the US as we are told by every politician for the last millenium but no Minister Cannon.

We know that the Ambassador Bridge is the best operator but no Minister Cannon.

We know that the Ambassador Bridge is the "private" partner in the public/private partnership that has taken place at the Bridge for almost 80 years but no Minister Cannon.

I would like to see the Minister's schedule over the past year or so to see with whom he has met. Perhaps a Federal FOI or equivalent might be fun. Before I do that, I'll just ask and see what the answer is.

Didn't the Feds get what they wanted in Bill C-3? Oversight. One could argue that the Minister did not want to speak to a party that could be subject to the Act until after it was passed. A silly position for a Minister but at least defensible.

Now that the Act has been passed, what is the excuse?

Well, dear reader, the truth is now out. The Government of Canada never intended to deal with the Bridge Co. and does NOT want to talk with the Bridge Co. They want to litigate. They are daring the Bridge Co. to sue so they can try to put them out of business. It is one of the surest sign of bad faith that I have ever seen.

Frankly, it should result in the resignation of the Minister. Too bad if it comes before an election and too bad that he is a key Government Minister for Quebec.

Here is the signal. One of the main witneses for Tranport Canada during the hearings on Bill C-3 was Brian Hicks. His title was " Director, Bridge Policy & Programs"

Well Brian got a new job: Director, Bridges Legislation and Litigation

Hmmmm let me think what that means. All of the bridges in Canada are effectively "public" so why would they sue. The private Fort Frances bridge is going to be sold so why would they sue. Hey that leaves one bridge left---the "private" Ambassador Bridge! And note also that Brian has no involvement with Tunnel litigation.

I tried to find out when his title changed. That would be interesting too. Did he get his reward AFTER Bill C-3 was passed? Imagine if he appeared with his new title before the Parliamentary committees!

Matthew Moroun wasted his breath it seems. The Government did not take up his offer:

• "We are asking this committee, and especially Transport Canada, to please put down your sword, set this legislation aside, and instead engage in meaningful dialogue, not just at a very formal hearing to discuss the legalese of this legislation, but rather to discuss and brainstorm and cooperate with one another toward an even more successful Ambassador Bridge for the advantage of the operation, the government, and the public."

And so much for what Transport Canada said to the legislators! Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon has no alternative but to leave the Cabinet immediately.

PS...the following was sent to me by Transport Canada

• "Mr. Arditti: I would like to clarify one of your comments in your blog of March 23, 2007. You are correct, the current job title for Mr. Brian Hicks is "Director, Bridges Legislation and Litigation". The change in Mr. Hicks' title better reflects his responsibilities as the Transport Canada official responsible for the implementation of the rules and regulations for the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, and his involvement with the ongoing litigation by aboriginal groups in Cornwall. The change in title in no way suggests that Mr. Hicks, nor Transport Canada is preparing for potential litigation as regards to any of our projects in Windsor."