Kantor Interview Transcript

You think I am overstating the case by saying that certain Canadian politicians and bureaucrats have jeopardized our Free Trade relationship with US over the Ambassador Bridge issue. Then read on and weep. Tell me why they should not be removed from their posts immediately for stupidity!

In my opinion, Transport Canada Deputy Minister Louis Ranger who chaired the group that created Canada's Ultra Secret American Playbook on how to lobby the Americans--- "Advancing Canadian Interests in the United States"--- needs to run some refresher courses. Mind you, he is conflicted. His Department is the leader in trying to squeeze out the Ambassador Bridge Company while pretending NOT to do so!

Do you remember what I wrote before [BLOG: March 07, 2008 "Obama issue: Canada's Ultra Secret American Playbook]

• "Did Canada interfere in the US Presidential Election? Has the Obama issue now raised itself to the highest political office in Canada...
  
  Just wait until I show you how Windsor fits into all of this, believe it or not...
  
  If you think the story ends there, wrong again. Guess who else is in the group with Mr. Ranger. The group is multi-Departmental from the Canadian Government. But there is also one other person on there who intrigues me: Right Hon. Herb Gray, International Joint Commission. Yes, Windsor's own Herb!
  
  Do you see where I am going with this? In my opinion as I have said before there is an overriding agenda on the border file that probably has to do with economics and trade and the desire of Canada to maintain its access to the US market. Fundamental to this is controlling corridors and gateways into the United States as well as to and from Asia and Europe.
  
  Which Gateway is the most important gateway into the United States, the Gateway over which most of our trade goes into the United States... the Ambassador Bridge. Who was involved in the FIRA fight with the Bridge Co. years ago? Who in my opinion is deeply involved against the Bridge Co. now? Interesting that they are both on the same Committee that deals with Canada/US relationships."

Prime Minister Harper needs to widen the investigation over the NAFTA-gate incident that impacted the US Democratic primary elections to include who leaked the absurd story to Radio-Canada over the DRIC Bridge. He needs to clear the air and fire some people to try to regain credibility in the US.

Think I am kidding again? For those of you who want to read what Mickey Kantor, Former US Secretary of Commerce, had to say about the DRIC bridge news story, here is the transcript of his interview.

Based on what he says, I am astounded that the Conservative Harper Government could be so dumb. The key line in the news story quoted by Beckmann is:

• "Prime Minister Harper in Canada is looking to seal the deal before President Bush leaves office early next year."

What does this really mean:

1) Canada is in real trouble if a Democrat, especially Barack Obama, is elected President. He has said:

• "Q: Would you scrap NAFTA or fix it?
  
  A: I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada [GULP...how little Obama knows of us!] to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street."

Canada insulted him already with the Government's leak that cost him dearly in the primary elections that

• "that Obama's call to reopen the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free-trade deal was merely political posturing."

Now we are insulting him even more by in effect saying he is not trustworthy and that we have to do a deal before he becomes President. What the Government is also saying is that he was NOT "posturing" over NAFTA so that the Government leak was a huge "fib."

2) Canada is insulting the Republicans too now. With friends like Canada, who needs enemies McCain should think. Canada is saying, in effect, that McCain will NOT be elected President

John McCain is a big supporter of NAFTA

• "Q: Do you support the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?
  
  A: Yes."


• "McCain suggested that Obama's and Clinton's threats to walk away from the treaty unless U.S. demands are met would have far-reaching ramifications.
  
  "If we announce that we're going to unilaterally change a treaty or suspend it … obviously that I think it can affect Canadian public opinion adversely; in fact, I've been told that by my Canadian friends and colleagues," he told reporters after a town hall meeting at the corporate headquarters of Dell Inc.
  
  "The Canadians are now supplying brave young Canadians to the fight in Afghanistan. One of our priorities is to try to get more cooperation from our allies throughout the world.
  
  "All these things are interconnected," he said, suggesting such a demand would influence Canadian public opinion, which "could have an adverse effect on the situation with regards to their commitment to Afghanistan, which we all know is a matter of controversy among the Canadian people."

Canada is saying that its good friend who supports NAFTA has little chance of becoming President so that is why they need a deal signed with President Bush now.

And as far as George W. is concerned, Canada is telling him that we can pressure him to do a deal before the US law permits him to do so. Yea right! As if Canada has been his best friend that he should stick out his neck for us politically.

Will your head hurt as a Canadian as mine did after you read this from Mickey Kantor's interview:

• "The Canadian government bless their souls are going to try and push this and push this for one because they don’t like a private bridge that’s been there for 80 years, they would like a public bridge that’s probably a philosophical position the Canadians take.
  
  And the second is their bureaucrats have committed themselves emotionally to this thing but we shouldn’t be pushed around by the Canadians.
  
  I’ve negotiated over the years when I was the United States treasurer in dealing with Canadians, you got to stand up once in awhile for our country and say this in not in our interests."

Grab a coffee and a few aspirin tablets. Here is the interview transcript for your reading pleasure:

• Interview of Former US Secretary of Commerce, Mickey Kantor,
  WJR AM 760, Thursday , May 8th, 10:50 a.m.
  
  Former Secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton, Mickey Kantor is interviewed on WJR regarding Radio-Canada’s coverage of the DRIC bridge announcement. Because of audio difficulties, transcription is incomplete in places. Chris Schnurr provided the transcription from the tape provided to me.
  
  Frank Beckmann: I believe it says by the Canadian Press – it looks like London Free Press, I’m not sure which and I apologise if I have not correctly identified the original source. You people have worked so hard on this story and I’ll try to give you credit and I’ll try my best to sort that out from the dispatch we have.
  
  The United States and Canada will reportedly build a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit. Citing unnamed sources, Radio-Canada reports that the bridge will be built at a cost of $5-billion alongside the existing Ambassador Bridge.
  
  Of course this has been discussed for quite awhile by the State of Michigan which spent millions of dollars to investigate whether it is necessary, who should run it.
  
  The French language network of the CBC says the site for the Canadian side of the bridge has already been picked and an official announcement will be made by mid-July with Prime Minister Harper in Canada is looking to seal the deal before President Bush leaves office early next year.
  
  A 15 KM freeway will also be built … (inaudible).
  
  Let’s get to the bottom of all of this from our side of the border with Mickey Kantor the former Secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton on the other end of our line.
  
  Hello, good morning.
  
  Mickey Kantor: Good morning, Frank, how are you?
  
  Mr. Beckmann: Good – nice to have you with us, Mickey.
  
  Mr. Kantor: My pleasure.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: Can you confirm, deny the report? Are they premature? What’s the story?
  
  Mr. Kantor: It looks as though our Canadian friends, I believe, they’re trying to shove and push. Last time I looked, a sovereign country, the United States into doing something that we are not even close to making a decision on.
  
  The Draft Environmental Impact process under the National Environmental Policy Act is still going on, has not been completed. Then you need a final Draft Environmental Impact statement to be approved by Transportation.
  
  The White House has made no such decision – no one has – nor could they under the law.
  
  And so our Canadian friends are trying to push us into spending a billion and half dollars from the US and Michigan for a bridge that is not necessary with traffic flows going down every year since 1999 – the existing Bluewater, the Ambassador Bridge, the Detroit-Windsor tunnel and other are adequate – more than adequate and can handle what’s happening now and far into the future.
  
  So, as much as our Canadian friends would like us to spend our good money after we’ve invested so much in the Gateway project to link up the Ambassador Bridge to the 75, which you’re well aware of, it seems a bit premature – it’s almost silly at this point.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: I thought the Morouns, Matty Moroun and Dan Stamper would have been in favour of a second span here.
  
  Mr. Kantor: To build a second span at the Ambassador Bridge – yes – in order to repair the 80-year-old span that carries 30% of all the trade between the US and Canada would make great sense. And it’s to be paid for with private money so we save a billion and half dollars. Private money is 800 million dollars in order to build with private money. Then the US government will match that 4 to 1 so Michigan can use the extra dollars to build badly needed infrastructure projects, highway projects, all over Michigan.
  
  The point is, we don’t need a new bridge. The crossings right now are more than adequate, they’ll be adequate for a long time. And why would we have to spend all that US money just to satisfy Canadians who would like a different route to another bridge.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: I’m a little confused here, Mickey, I must be honest. You said we don’t need a bridge and yet we should build one privately?
  
  Mr. Kantor: Yes. I should really apologise I’m probably not articulate enough. The existing Ambassador Bridge is 80 years old. It will need repairs, as we should do to protect the health and safety of all our people in trucking that use that bridge. In order to repair it we’re going to have to shut it down. In order to do that you need to build a new bridge.
  
  Now the question is in building a new bridge would you rather a private party pay for it with the Detroit International Bridge Company, who have done this for 80 years and run this private bridge to carry 30% of the trade between the US and Canada, and have them repair it, and then build a new bridge. So the US government and taxpayers spend a billion and half dollars for a bridge that’s not necessary. That is what I am referring to.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: Sorry, but I’m still confused here. We do need a second span…
  
  Mr. Kantor: Maybe you’re not understanding me. In order to build the second span, which they have to in order to repair the first one. And you build also, this new so-called DRIC proposal bridge – the Canadian sponsored bridge. If you build that you add one more bridge to the Bluewater, the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit Windsor-Tunnel…
  
  Mr. Beckmann: Alright, I see what you’re saying now, Mickey. You’re saying that this would be a third span and not the second one with what you’re trying to do. The way I pictured this, and this is where it was confusing for me and I apologise for that. I pictured this US-Canadian government bridge to be the original span – not the one the Ambassador Bridge Company wants to construct.
  
  Mr. Kantor: What’s interesting Frank, it really fascinates me, it’s like bureaucratic momentum gone wild here, especially on the Canadian side. Since 1999, the truck and car traffic across Bluewater and Ambassador and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel has gone down every year – not gone up.
  
  And why we need the third bridge, as you have described it correctly, is beyond my imagination. But in the meantime, because this Draft Environmental Assessment Impact is going forward, under US law, obviously, no-one in the US government can make any decision whether or not we should support this Canadian sponsored bridge across the river. In other words – the third span you and I have agreed to talk about.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: So, do you still want that second span (inaudible) would Canada have an interest in that bridge? Would the United States government have an interest in that bridge or would you build it privately?
  
  Mr. Kantor: (inaudible) …for 80 years that bridge has carried 30% of all the trade between the US and Canada across that bridge – that’s critically important. Two, the US of course has an interest in and co-operates with the Detroit International Bridge Company to make sure trade is secure (inaudible)…of course that is a major facility and very important to our economy and also to our security.
  
  So of course the US government has an interest but here is what fascinates me.
  
  Why not have a private company willing to build the bridge that’s necessary rather than have the US government and taxpayers spend a billion and half dollars on a bridge that is unnecessary?
  
  I keep scratching my head in some amazement over this.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: Well obviously it’s a very lucrative money making operation and government, and you know this from your time in government, Mickey. If any government – state, local, national sees a money making operation and they can somehow get involved in that and they see that as the way to go ahead of private enterprise. And if they can take that business away from you, they’re not going to flinch.
  
  Mr. Kantor: That’s why we all have to, you know when we were in government, much to everyone’s surprise, (inaudible) more jobs than anyone in American history had done, we tried to make sure that private activity was sponsored and promoted as much as possible. And government did only what was necessary to do. And that’s what we (inaudible).
  
  And the second thing if you put another bridge across the river, all that’s going to do is cannibalize the current traffic running over the Bluewater, the Ambassador and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, and make them less viable…It is really is non-sensical at this point
  
  Mr. Beckmann: It puts Government in competition with private enterprise
  
  Mr. Kantor: Exactly. Not only private but also, the Federal Government just spent a few years ago, $400-million on expanding the Bluewater Bridge. 400 million more dollars than the Michigan Department of Transportation (inaudible) just to build another bridge to make it less viable doesn’t make a lot sense.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: Could the governments of US and Canada, go ahead with this project and what sort of hurdles will they still face. You mentioned the environmental study, is that it?
  
  Mr. Kantor: They take the environmental study; they take the growing concern in Congress of the expenditure of unnecessary dollars – the money for the new bridge, of course, is not even close to being appropriated, and there’s going to be a fight over this because I think wiser and cooler heads are going to say… wait a minute, we just spent $230 million of federal and state dollars on the Gateway that’s to build the new plaza at the Ambassador Bridge and the connections to 75. We had to close down 75 to finish the…and frankly the Ambassador Bridge just spent another $108 million on top of that. Then we have this huge investment in a viable Ambassador Bridge and viable Bluewater bridge we spent $400 million and yet we want to build another bridge that’s not necessary?
  
  If traffic was going up and if there was a problem with capacity, which there’s not – that’s another question. But there’s not a problem with capacity.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: Well good luck in trying to fend them off. I don’t know how you’re going to do that if they’ve got their minds made up with government (inaudible).
  
  Mr. Kantor: I got to tell ya. I think there’s some doubt in Washington, including I hope at the Department of Transportation and the Bush administration and certainly in the congress, (inaudible) … saying wait; let’s stop and think and be rational here; let’s not do something that isn’t necessary at a time when we’re going to have a $410 billion deficit – (inaudible) .. I think that question is starting to be asked.
  
  Mr. Beckmann: I hope so on behalf of all us. There’s too much (inaudible) .. and it looks like we could be heading for more if this indeed does go through. But the bottom line is, this is premature, you don’t think we’ll going to see an announcement by mid-July do you?
  
  Mr. Kantor: No, no, no. This is a long way from…what I’d call it (inaudible)…The Canadian government bless their souls are going to try and push this and push this for one because they don’t like a private bridge that’s been there for 80 years, they would like a public bridge that’s probably a philosophical position the Canadians take.
  
  And the second is their bureaucrats have committed themselves emotionally to this thing but we shouldn’t be pushed around by the Canadians.
  
  I’ve negotiated over the years when I was the United States treasurer in dealing with Canadians, you got to stand up once in awhile for our country and say this in not in our interests.