Would Masse Debate Stamper
After listening to Brian Masse and Dan Stamper fight it out on a Detroit radio station, Brian would not dare! The problem for Brian is that Stamper would challenge him on the facts and would not be afraid to correct his errors.
I get another opportunity to take apart what my NDP MP, Brian Masse, says on the border crossing issue. Below are Masse excerpts from a program on WDET in Detroit involving Brian, Steve Tobocman a Democrat in the Michigan House and Dan Stamper of the Bridge Co.
Thanks to Chris Schnurr for typing out the full transcript of the show. Read it for yourself at
http://chrisschnurr.wordpress.com/2007/05/06/brian-masse-states-huron-church-rd-the-real-issue-in-border-debate/
Brian: Well, I think it’s really important and is that um, this has evolved past the state of ownership by a particular individual and a particular border. [Actually not...Bill C-3 was directed at the Bridge Co. and the ownership of the Bridge] We’re looking at now, you know, new regulations and new ah, types of procedures that are necessary coming out of security and trade issues that have been building up. Not only in terms of our corridor, which is really, the good example of lack of proper planning and foresight that really needs to be coming, to ah, you know, a new model that looks into the future and that’s what really this is about. [The only lack is a road to the bridge; everything else is functioning. And that is a Governmental obligation] And the new legislation, Bill C-3, the International Bridge and Tunnel Act isn’t just about the Ambassador Bridge, it’s about border crossings across the entire country, ah you know, between Canada and the United States, so, it’s important to recognize that aspect and this is what we have, you know, is a difficult problem with regards to it in our region because we haven’t had that modernization that’s so necessary and that’s critical for not just our region, but also across our country. [In effect, Brian has indicted the entire "public" bridge system, public authorities and the lack of Government action! Clearly the "modernization" that he is talking about is the Windsor roads system and the lack of completing the road to the bridge. THAT'S A GOVERNMENTAL FAILURE SINCE THAT IS ITS REPSONSIBILITY! The Bridge Co. has done its job being the best border operator between Canada and the US]
Brian: Yes, essentially there is 24 international bridges and tunnels that have vehicular and trade traffic that goes between Canada and the United States. So of those 24 crossings, 22 are publicly owned and operated and many have what’s called border authorities and actual operation mechanisms related to the legislation that created them, you know so say for example, up the highway there, we have Sarnia where they actually have a border authority there, and Fort Erie and whole series of others, even in Southern Ontario, so we didn’t really have regulations that were standard across the board so this new legislation actually has, and they’re doing the regulations for it, more the details about that now, that has standard procedures and practices that deal with everything from maintenance to the operation and to um, whatever the reporting are going to be, available now to the government and the public. [There is nothing in the Act that says everything will be available to the public. "Confidentiality" is still an issue]
So it’s a real big change, and it really comes for accountability and its about doing that standard procedure across all our border crossings to make sure that they’re going to be good because the border is more than a trade route or a profit zone, it’s really a social conduit between our two countries, and we have to keep that in context. [The Bridge Co. supported all of the safety and security aspects of Bill C-3. There's that ugly word "profit" thrown in. Perhaps now Brian understands that profits are re-invested in a business to keep it #1. Compare that with the Tunnel that had a dividend of almost $7M that has shrunk to about $1M as we last heard even with a toll increase]
Brian. Yes, thank you Amy. Dropping all the conspiracy theories, we actually have facts here. [Some conspiracy theories may prove to be real. We are finding out more as time goes on!] And the facts are the Ambassador Bridge is not only looking just to twin, their actually looking to increase their capacity beyond twinning. So that’s very important to note is that their proposal that they’re putting forward, in front of the public, is one that’s going to increase their current capacity. [Actually, their new processing center has quadrupled capacity of the existing bridge, reduced the need for secondary inspection, means the plaza size need not be increased as at the Tunnel, improves traffic flow on Huron Church and means that Sandwich and Delray need not be destroyed. It is a "bogeyman" to say that the bridge has increased capacity when its volumes have decreased since 1999.] Second to that Amy, is that beyond anything else, they’re, if we actually go ahead with our current model that the Ambassador Bridge is proposing, it’s going to be a man-made disaster. That’s what it’s going to be. Because it doesn’t take away the main problem – that’s going to and from the border crossing in the Detroit-Windsor region and that’s important to note. [If traffic volumes are the same, why is a more efficient and free-flowing new enhanced bridge a disaster? BRIAN IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM. IT'S HIS FAILURE BOTH AS A CITY COUNCILLOR AND AS A MEMBER OF THE PARTY THAT HELD THE BALANCE OF POWER IN PARLIAMENT TO FIX THE ROAD TO THE BRIDGE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE WAS A $300M FUND TO DO SO!] So we have to start looking at the border in much different light. It’s not just a business zone between one location to the other, its very important for our national economies that we actually keep the toll rates as lowest as possible. [Brian keeps forgetting that the Tunnel tolls are higher. Why do truckers choose the Ambassador Bridge as their preferred crossing even though the Blue Water bridge tolls are lower? The answer is easy---they get through the border quicker in Windsor] That’s very important as both Michigan and Ohio, as well as Ontario and Quebec are being pummeled in terms of economic development and loss of manufacturing jobs, it’s a whole series of things like that. And more importantly, is we start to look at continually planning our future. And that’s why I like Mr. Tobachman’s border authority bill that he’s proposed over in the Michigan side and I’m working on one on the Canadian side, and it’s really important to note these are things that are happening in other regions that are not happening in ours. [And isn't it a mere co-incidence that the "private" Ambassador Bridge is the #1 border operator!]
And we have to keep that context. So that’s why the DRIC proposal ruled out the Ambassador Bridge, [No. DRIC ruled out the Bridge Co. based on THEIR criteria and NOT what the Bridge Co. offered as a solution] ruled out the DRTP, and quite frankly I’m tired of having to face private sector opponents buying newspaper ads, TV ads, sending mail to my constituents, promoting their own personal interests as opposed to a public accountable process that’s going on in other parts of our country in Canada and in the United States. [How shocking that "private" intersts dare let the population know their side of the story. Why, they should just let Brian and his friends do all the thinking for us] It’s about time we looked at the benefit of a regional border and the way its done out in the open, accountability and actually has some type of evolution beyond just trying to look at current capacity and our problems. Because its about our environment. It’s about our economy, and its about making sure our friends on both the Canadian and American have strong vibrant relationships and this all changed on 9/11 and that’s why we have to look at a different model altogether. [I have no idea what Brian is talking about, do you? If the "private" model makes Windsor #1, perhaps the other crossings ought to change]
Brian: I don’t think that any listeners going to believe that one map and one drawing eliminated the Ambassador Bridge as the proposal for the twinning as the preferential model for the next, most important border crossing between Canada and the United States. I just don’t think listeners will buy that. [I don't think that Listeners will buy what Brian says if they actually read what DRIC said in their Report about the impact on Sandwich. Here is what US DRIC said: "The X-12 crossing, plaza and roadway options in Canada have more impacts than those in the U.S. Specifically, the existing plaza in Canada at the Ambassador Bridge is approximately 20 acres. A suitable plaza size to meet the requirements of border agencies, accommodate all international truck and auto traffic and connections to a second span of the Ambassador Bridge is 120 acres." The Bridge Co. never offered up a solution for 120 acres and have said that they have already bought all the land required for their enhancement project.] The reality is, is that the current proposal that you’re putting on the table will have significant economic and risk factors that they don’t solve the real problem is to the actual crossing from the 401 and also most importantly, deal with the logistical issues that are necessary in a modern environment and that’s why the proposal of twinning the Ambassador Bridge, and as well, the DRTP, the rail corridor, were ruled out, by the DRIC process. [If the problem is the road, that is Brian's problem and the other politicians at all levels, not the Bridge Co.'s issue. I like how politicians do not acknowledge their responsibility to find a solution even after all of this time!] And this is a process that has four levels of government involved and I think the suggestion is, that if you’re going to hang your hat it on being one drawing, they did all of that to remove it is a weak argument. The reality is we have to look forward and its very much important to recognize the fact that there is accountability in a process. There’s stages in a process. And it was ruled out.
Brian: No I’m not, in fact the Canadian government has finally moving forward with actually making sure our custom’s official will have sidearms, we’ve implemented programs. In fact, there’s new standards, as you know, with Bill C-3, which your company fought so viciously against, up here, in Ottawa, for you know, your own particular interests, will bring accountability, not just in terms of your particular crossing but crossings in the entire country. [That is not true about about what the Bridge Co. said in Ottawa. The Bridge Co. made it clear that their objections were not “health, safety and security” issues but “ownership” issues and “micro-management” issues of a bureaucrats telling them how to operate their business on a day-to-day basis] And that’s important. And it’s not just about your particular issue, and your particular crossing, this about standards and procedures which are necessary for all us. And you are right, the Ambassador Bridge does some very very good things. And there’s some good people working there, and there’s some, you know, some important things that you’ve done procedurally that can be used in other areas. The bottom line at the end of the day is, it will be, it is an unmit, it is a very much a disaster in terms of Windsor and the economy if we just twin the Ambassador Bridge and we don’t deal with the real problem is that it is in the wrong location for the wrong time. [No, the real problem is that the politicians did not do their job over the years and are now trying to pin the blame for their failures on the Bridge Co. The bridge has been there for 80 years. Highway 3 was made the road to the bridge. Politicians allowed the area to be built up without make a connection to Highway 401. They are afraid to make the decisions required for fear of being tossed out of office. It is much easier to blame someone else, to oppose, and not offer up a realistic alternative that does not destroy Sandwich and Delray!]
Brian: Yeah, well we’ve fought many times to try and get those enhancements, and I’ve been pushing for that as a non-government member, [He had his opportunity when the NDP held the balance of power in Parliament and what did he accomplish for us!] we wanted those improvements, but the reality is that a provincial and a federal government decided not to finish the highway to the Ambassador Bridge and I’m not going to penalize the churches, the schools, the houses, the businesses with economic degradation as well as, because on top of that trucks are sitting in front of them just for the profits of the Ambassador Bridge to twin. What we need is a new model and solution… [So punish the Bridge Co. for politicians' failures! Bizarre!]
Brian: Well, I think that it’s important to note that there is only one other private crossing and it’s the International Bridge in Fort Francis and it also has some of the highest rates, as well for crossings. This is very important. So when we’re looking at why would we want to add another layer of profit on top of the actual crossing that we have. It’s important because it is going to affect where businesses are going to locate. It’s going to affect the infrastructure in perpetuity and that’s why I believe we deserve what every part of the country between Canada and the United States is virtually getting is that public ownership and accountability. [See above re tolls and profits. Using Brian's logic, public crossings should be the #1 operators but they are not.] And that’s important. And that’s not, there’s nothing sinister about the Ambassador Bridge wanting to make profit between the trading conduit that we have between our two countries. That’s the way it works there and that’s fine.
Brian: We actually want lower tolls. [See above re the Tunnel tolls] We want to actually have accountability for the future and investment. And that’s, who knows who’s going to own the Ambassador Bridge in ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, I mean, Mr. Stamper’s offered it up for sale ah… [No he did not. If this is what Brian believes, then he should set out how much he thinks the Government ought to be prepared to pay to buy it. I am sure that he will suggest a fair price won't he!]
Brian: Well, it’s very much, the plan that they are proposing is very hostile to the community and its one that has been rejected openly. [Not it seems by many people who have seen the actual plan] What they propose is that they will live with a border crossing to the west of them. We are looking at legislation that could have an economic zone as part of the new border crossing. [Oh, just like the promises to the people in Delray such that when push came to shove, MDOT said that the people in Delray would have to partner with others!] John was correct in terms of talking about redevelopment and opportunity. That’s why we have to do something different as we’ve done before. The Canadian government as well has indicated, that the Canadian side will be publicly owned and there will be funds available for that as well and they’ve indicated that in the most recent budget. So, when we’re looking at the situation between the DRIC process, where we actually have a procedure that is rolled out there, as opposed to the Ambassador Bridge proposal. [The bridge proposal has a legal procedure that it is following as well eg EA requirements on both sides of the river] There is the proper logistics, financial and other support to do that. The big issue is still getting to the border crossing… [And what is Brian's real and practical solution that works and will please everyone?]
Brian: Well, at the end of the day if you believe all that, and it works the way it is supposed to work you still have the problem of the trucks and the cars can’t get to the 401. And that, at the end of the day, that’s the real problem. [AGREED. it's about the only thing that I can agree with in all of what Brian said. Now if he will only admit that he and other politicians at all levels have failed on this problem, we can get somewhere] That’s why there’s been such discussion in our community over the years to come up with a, something that’s going to be healthy for the local area, as well as, the flow of the traffic through our region and that is important for the rest of the United States and the rest of Canada, but also is important for our regional economy. And once again, that’s why the Ambassador Bridge twinning or twinning plus in terms of this proposal is one that doesn’t work. [The Bridge works, the road does not. Fix the road and you fix the bridge!] It’s also one, that even, I know there’s been Senate hearings that have identified this as a security risk. [Why hasn't Brian advocated for reverse customs that solves the problem entirely without spending billions] It also doesn’t provide for redundancy in the future in terms of any of the things that can be thrown out on us, [The old bridge provides the redundancy] so, once again it just comes down to the bottom line of how do you get to the through traffic from the 401 that needs to go there and also capacity for local businesses and also more importantly, to our commuters. And that just won’t be successful under twinning or twinning plus as proposed. [Bald assertions do not make it so!] And that’s why I think we need another capacity west of the current proposal and we’ll just see where it goes from there. [Yes, shall we destroy Sandwich or Delray or both] The Ambassador bridge is going to try and continue to move forward, but there is a process on the Canadian side and it’s one I think they are going to have trouble with, because once again you need to have a spot you need to launch from and you have to have a spot to land to. [They have both spots: their existing plazas]
Brian: Well I think we have to look forward to the 21st century and the fact of the matter is that we are in a region entitled to the same type of practices across the country and that’s for greater accountability, its for lower tolls and its for a future that looks at the border as not just a conduit for the economy for the nation, but locally as well to and socially and culturally. And that’s why I believe that we need a new border authority, we need a new border offering redundancy and quite frankly we need to look at new solutions and trying to shoe-horn an old proposal unto old an old environment isn’t enough for the region. [Whatever that all means! Why I can just hear this being said when the election is announced. Obviously, Brian is getting the message out early. Sloganeering rather than offering a concrete and realistic solution!]
Thanks to Chris Schnurr for typing out the full transcript of the show. Read it for yourself at
http://chrisschnurr.wordpress.com/2007/05/06/brian-masse-states-huron-church-rd-the-real-issue-in-border-debate/
Brian: Well, I think it’s really important and is that um, this has evolved past the state of ownership by a particular individual and a particular border. [Actually not...Bill C-3 was directed at the Bridge Co. and the ownership of the Bridge] We’re looking at now, you know, new regulations and new ah, types of procedures that are necessary coming out of security and trade issues that have been building up. Not only in terms of our corridor, which is really, the good example of lack of proper planning and foresight that really needs to be coming, to ah, you know, a new model that looks into the future and that’s what really this is about. [The only lack is a road to the bridge; everything else is functioning. And that is a Governmental obligation] And the new legislation, Bill C-3, the International Bridge and Tunnel Act isn’t just about the Ambassador Bridge, it’s about border crossings across the entire country, ah you know, between Canada and the United States, so, it’s important to recognize that aspect and this is what we have, you know, is a difficult problem with regards to it in our region because we haven’t had that modernization that’s so necessary and that’s critical for not just our region, but also across our country. [In effect, Brian has indicted the entire "public" bridge system, public authorities and the lack of Government action! Clearly the "modernization" that he is talking about is the Windsor roads system and the lack of completing the road to the bridge. THAT'S A GOVERNMENTAL FAILURE SINCE THAT IS ITS REPSONSIBILITY! The Bridge Co. has done its job being the best border operator between Canada and the US]
Brian: Yes, essentially there is 24 international bridges and tunnels that have vehicular and trade traffic that goes between Canada and the United States. So of those 24 crossings, 22 are publicly owned and operated and many have what’s called border authorities and actual operation mechanisms related to the legislation that created them, you know so say for example, up the highway there, we have Sarnia where they actually have a border authority there, and Fort Erie and whole series of others, even in Southern Ontario, so we didn’t really have regulations that were standard across the board so this new legislation actually has, and they’re doing the regulations for it, more the details about that now, that has standard procedures and practices that deal with everything from maintenance to the operation and to um, whatever the reporting are going to be, available now to the government and the public. [There is nothing in the Act that says everything will be available to the public. "Confidentiality" is still an issue]
So it’s a real big change, and it really comes for accountability and its about doing that standard procedure across all our border crossings to make sure that they’re going to be good because the border is more than a trade route or a profit zone, it’s really a social conduit between our two countries, and we have to keep that in context. [The Bridge Co. supported all of the safety and security aspects of Bill C-3. There's that ugly word "profit" thrown in. Perhaps now Brian understands that profits are re-invested in a business to keep it #1. Compare that with the Tunnel that had a dividend of almost $7M that has shrunk to about $1M as we last heard even with a toll increase]
Brian. Yes, thank you Amy. Dropping all the conspiracy theories, we actually have facts here. [Some conspiracy theories may prove to be real. We are finding out more as time goes on!] And the facts are the Ambassador Bridge is not only looking just to twin, their actually looking to increase their capacity beyond twinning. So that’s very important to note is that their proposal that they’re putting forward, in front of the public, is one that’s going to increase their current capacity. [Actually, their new processing center has quadrupled capacity of the existing bridge, reduced the need for secondary inspection, means the plaza size need not be increased as at the Tunnel, improves traffic flow on Huron Church and means that Sandwich and Delray need not be destroyed. It is a "bogeyman" to say that the bridge has increased capacity when its volumes have decreased since 1999.] Second to that Amy, is that beyond anything else, they’re, if we actually go ahead with our current model that the Ambassador Bridge is proposing, it’s going to be a man-made disaster. That’s what it’s going to be. Because it doesn’t take away the main problem – that’s going to and from the border crossing in the Detroit-Windsor region and that’s important to note. [If traffic volumes are the same, why is a more efficient and free-flowing new enhanced bridge a disaster? BRIAN IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM. IT'S HIS FAILURE BOTH AS A CITY COUNCILLOR AND AS A MEMBER OF THE PARTY THAT HELD THE BALANCE OF POWER IN PARLIAMENT TO FIX THE ROAD TO THE BRIDGE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE WAS A $300M FUND TO DO SO!] So we have to start looking at the border in much different light. It’s not just a business zone between one location to the other, its very important for our national economies that we actually keep the toll rates as lowest as possible. [Brian keeps forgetting that the Tunnel tolls are higher. Why do truckers choose the Ambassador Bridge as their preferred crossing even though the Blue Water bridge tolls are lower? The answer is easy---they get through the border quicker in Windsor] That’s very important as both Michigan and Ohio, as well as Ontario and Quebec are being pummeled in terms of economic development and loss of manufacturing jobs, it’s a whole series of things like that. And more importantly, is we start to look at continually planning our future. And that’s why I like Mr. Tobachman’s border authority bill that he’s proposed over in the Michigan side and I’m working on one on the Canadian side, and it’s really important to note these are things that are happening in other regions that are not happening in ours. [And isn't it a mere co-incidence that the "private" Ambassador Bridge is the #1 border operator!]
And we have to keep that context. So that’s why the DRIC proposal ruled out the Ambassador Bridge, [No. DRIC ruled out the Bridge Co. based on THEIR criteria and NOT what the Bridge Co. offered as a solution] ruled out the DRTP, and quite frankly I’m tired of having to face private sector opponents buying newspaper ads, TV ads, sending mail to my constituents, promoting their own personal interests as opposed to a public accountable process that’s going on in other parts of our country in Canada and in the United States. [How shocking that "private" intersts dare let the population know their side of the story. Why, they should just let Brian and his friends do all the thinking for us] It’s about time we looked at the benefit of a regional border and the way its done out in the open, accountability and actually has some type of evolution beyond just trying to look at current capacity and our problems. Because its about our environment. It’s about our economy, and its about making sure our friends on both the Canadian and American have strong vibrant relationships and this all changed on 9/11 and that’s why we have to look at a different model altogether. [I have no idea what Brian is talking about, do you? If the "private" model makes Windsor #1, perhaps the other crossings ought to change]
Brian: I don’t think that any listeners going to believe that one map and one drawing eliminated the Ambassador Bridge as the proposal for the twinning as the preferential model for the next, most important border crossing between Canada and the United States. I just don’t think listeners will buy that. [I don't think that Listeners will buy what Brian says if they actually read what DRIC said in their Report about the impact on Sandwich. Here is what US DRIC said: "The X-12 crossing, plaza and roadway options in Canada have more impacts than those in the U.S. Specifically, the existing plaza in Canada at the Ambassador Bridge is approximately 20 acres. A suitable plaza size to meet the requirements of border agencies, accommodate all international truck and auto traffic and connections to a second span of the Ambassador Bridge is 120 acres." The Bridge Co. never offered up a solution for 120 acres and have said that they have already bought all the land required for their enhancement project.] The reality is, is that the current proposal that you’re putting on the table will have significant economic and risk factors that they don’t solve the real problem is to the actual crossing from the 401 and also most importantly, deal with the logistical issues that are necessary in a modern environment and that’s why the proposal of twinning the Ambassador Bridge, and as well, the DRTP, the rail corridor, were ruled out, by the DRIC process. [If the problem is the road, that is Brian's problem and the other politicians at all levels, not the Bridge Co.'s issue. I like how politicians do not acknowledge their responsibility to find a solution even after all of this time!] And this is a process that has four levels of government involved and I think the suggestion is, that if you’re going to hang your hat it on being one drawing, they did all of that to remove it is a weak argument. The reality is we have to look forward and its very much important to recognize the fact that there is accountability in a process. There’s stages in a process. And it was ruled out.
Brian: No I’m not, in fact the Canadian government has finally moving forward with actually making sure our custom’s official will have sidearms, we’ve implemented programs. In fact, there’s new standards, as you know, with Bill C-3, which your company fought so viciously against, up here, in Ottawa, for you know, your own particular interests, will bring accountability, not just in terms of your particular crossing but crossings in the entire country. [That is not true about about what the Bridge Co. said in Ottawa. The Bridge Co. made it clear that their objections were not “health, safety and security” issues but “ownership” issues and “micro-management” issues of a bureaucrats telling them how to operate their business on a day-to-day basis] And that’s important. And it’s not just about your particular issue, and your particular crossing, this about standards and procedures which are necessary for all us. And you are right, the Ambassador Bridge does some very very good things. And there’s some good people working there, and there’s some, you know, some important things that you’ve done procedurally that can be used in other areas. The bottom line at the end of the day is, it will be, it is an unmit, it is a very much a disaster in terms of Windsor and the economy if we just twin the Ambassador Bridge and we don’t deal with the real problem is that it is in the wrong location for the wrong time. [No, the real problem is that the politicians did not do their job over the years and are now trying to pin the blame for their failures on the Bridge Co. The bridge has been there for 80 years. Highway 3 was made the road to the bridge. Politicians allowed the area to be built up without make a connection to Highway 401. They are afraid to make the decisions required for fear of being tossed out of office. It is much easier to blame someone else, to oppose, and not offer up a realistic alternative that does not destroy Sandwich and Delray!]
Brian: Yeah, well we’ve fought many times to try and get those enhancements, and I’ve been pushing for that as a non-government member, [He had his opportunity when the NDP held the balance of power in Parliament and what did he accomplish for us!] we wanted those improvements, but the reality is that a provincial and a federal government decided not to finish the highway to the Ambassador Bridge and I’m not going to penalize the churches, the schools, the houses, the businesses with economic degradation as well as, because on top of that trucks are sitting in front of them just for the profits of the Ambassador Bridge to twin. What we need is a new model and solution… [So punish the Bridge Co. for politicians' failures! Bizarre!]
Brian: Well, I think that it’s important to note that there is only one other private crossing and it’s the International Bridge in Fort Francis and it also has some of the highest rates, as well for crossings. This is very important. So when we’re looking at why would we want to add another layer of profit on top of the actual crossing that we have. It’s important because it is going to affect where businesses are going to locate. It’s going to affect the infrastructure in perpetuity and that’s why I believe we deserve what every part of the country between Canada and the United States is virtually getting is that public ownership and accountability. [See above re tolls and profits. Using Brian's logic, public crossings should be the #1 operators but they are not.] And that’s important. And that’s not, there’s nothing sinister about the Ambassador Bridge wanting to make profit between the trading conduit that we have between our two countries. That’s the way it works there and that’s fine.
Brian: We actually want lower tolls. [See above re the Tunnel tolls] We want to actually have accountability for the future and investment. And that’s, who knows who’s going to own the Ambassador Bridge in ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, I mean, Mr. Stamper’s offered it up for sale ah… [No he did not. If this is what Brian believes, then he should set out how much he thinks the Government ought to be prepared to pay to buy it. I am sure that he will suggest a fair price won't he!]
Brian: Well, it’s very much, the plan that they are proposing is very hostile to the community and its one that has been rejected openly. [Not it seems by many people who have seen the actual plan] What they propose is that they will live with a border crossing to the west of them. We are looking at legislation that could have an economic zone as part of the new border crossing. [Oh, just like the promises to the people in Delray such that when push came to shove, MDOT said that the people in Delray would have to partner with others!] John was correct in terms of talking about redevelopment and opportunity. That’s why we have to do something different as we’ve done before. The Canadian government as well has indicated, that the Canadian side will be publicly owned and there will be funds available for that as well and they’ve indicated that in the most recent budget. So, when we’re looking at the situation between the DRIC process, where we actually have a procedure that is rolled out there, as opposed to the Ambassador Bridge proposal. [The bridge proposal has a legal procedure that it is following as well eg EA requirements on both sides of the river] There is the proper logistics, financial and other support to do that. The big issue is still getting to the border crossing… [And what is Brian's real and practical solution that works and will please everyone?]
Brian: Well, at the end of the day if you believe all that, and it works the way it is supposed to work you still have the problem of the trucks and the cars can’t get to the 401. And that, at the end of the day, that’s the real problem. [AGREED. it's about the only thing that I can agree with in all of what Brian said. Now if he will only admit that he and other politicians at all levels have failed on this problem, we can get somewhere] That’s why there’s been such discussion in our community over the years to come up with a, something that’s going to be healthy for the local area, as well as, the flow of the traffic through our region and that is important for the rest of the United States and the rest of Canada, but also is important for our regional economy. And once again, that’s why the Ambassador Bridge twinning or twinning plus in terms of this proposal is one that doesn’t work. [The Bridge works, the road does not. Fix the road and you fix the bridge!] It’s also one, that even, I know there’s been Senate hearings that have identified this as a security risk. [Why hasn't Brian advocated for reverse customs that solves the problem entirely without spending billions] It also doesn’t provide for redundancy in the future in terms of any of the things that can be thrown out on us, [The old bridge provides the redundancy] so, once again it just comes down to the bottom line of how do you get to the through traffic from the 401 that needs to go there and also capacity for local businesses and also more importantly, to our commuters. And that just won’t be successful under twinning or twinning plus as proposed. [Bald assertions do not make it so!] And that’s why I think we need another capacity west of the current proposal and we’ll just see where it goes from there. [Yes, shall we destroy Sandwich or Delray or both] The Ambassador bridge is going to try and continue to move forward, but there is a process on the Canadian side and it’s one I think they are going to have trouble with, because once again you need to have a spot you need to launch from and you have to have a spot to land to. [They have both spots: their existing plazas]
Brian: Well I think we have to look forward to the 21st century and the fact of the matter is that we are in a region entitled to the same type of practices across the country and that’s for greater accountability, its for lower tolls and its for a future that looks at the border as not just a conduit for the economy for the nation, but locally as well to and socially and culturally. And that’s why I believe that we need a new border authority, we need a new border offering redundancy and quite frankly we need to look at new solutions and trying to shoe-horn an old proposal unto old an old environment isn’t enough for the region. [Whatever that all means! Why I can just hear this being said when the election is announced. Obviously, Brian is getting the message out early. Sloganeering rather than offering a concrete and realistic solution!]
posted by JoeBlog at 9:30 a.m.
<< Home