Did The Governor-General Kill DRIC

If you read the Speech from the Throne carefully, she may have done it. Or rather she read the words in her Speech prepared and written by the Government:

• "Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on results. Grants, contributions and capital expenditures will be placed under the microscope of responsible spending. Departments will have the funding they need to deliver essential programs and services, and no more. Our Government will engage Parliament and encourage members to take a more active role in scrutinizing spending and suggesting areas for restraint...
  
  Public infrastructure is vital not only to create jobs for today, but also to create the links between communities and regions to help generate jobs for the future. Our Government is committed to expediting our Building Canada plan to ensure that projects are delivered as quickly as possible...
  
  Our Government will continue to invest in expanding gateways on our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in vital border corridors such as the Detroit River International Crossing, to ensure that Canadian goods and services can reach markets in Europe, Asia and the United States...
  
  Our Government will review all program spending carefully to make sure that spending is as effective as possible and aligned with Canadians’ priorities."

Compare this language with that of the Ministers of Finance for Ontario and Canada in a letter published in the Toronto Star:

• "There is a significant and long-standing trade partnership between Ontario and Michigan, and Canada and the United States, representing a key source of prosperity for all sides...
  
  We recognize that both our economies depend on the efficient flow of cross-border traffic. This requires that we have modern border crossings, including the construction of a new one between Windsor and Detroit. Canada is thus actively participating along with the United States, Michigan and Ontario in the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) study.
  
  Significant planning work has been completed to date and we look forward to constructing the new crossing as quickly as possible."

If one reads the Ministers' statement, there seems to be a commitment to building a DRIC bridge. Of course, as I have said before, this statement disrespects the process and may give rise to an apprehension of bias.

However if one reads the statement very closely, even then there was no firm commitment to DRIC since the language could mean the Enhancement Project too. It seemed that the Governments were hedging their bet.

Go back again to the Governor-General's speech. The interesting aspect to most of what she is saying is the devotion to fiscal restraint in this time of economic crisis. That is consistent with the Government's plan to take a look at the disposal of assets. How one can be fiscally responsible and yet at the same time spend an excessive amount of money on a DRIC project seems illogical to me, especially when the existing private operator is prepared to build a bridge at his own expense.

Look at the exact language again

• "Our Government will continue to invest in expanding gateways on our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and in vital border corridors such as the Detroit River International Crossing."

Of course, mention is made of DRI Crossing so that may make Transport Canada happy but not of the project itself or even the bridge. It is the "border corridor" that is important. The Government will invest in expanding gateways on both coasts but only in expanding the corridor here.

To me, this sounds more like the DRIC road rather than the DRIC bridge. The Government is prepared to spend money on building a road because they have already set aside $400 million to do so but may no longer be eager to spend money on a bridge or even on a P3 bridge.

The use of the word "corridor" is very interesting as well. That term was used by Dan Stamper in his Senate testimony:

• "The enhancement would include a new six-lane cable stay bridge located in the same corridor near the existing Ambassador Bridge. Consistent with the approved and on-going gateway project, this bridge would tie directly into the existing plazas in both Canada and the United States without modification to their currently approved and permitted configuration.
  
  The bureaucrats projected the traffic growth at the Blue Water Bridge by taking it away from the corridor in Windsor, Detroit...
  
  This attempt at Blue Water failed mainly because they built everything but what was needed, which was additional inspection booths for customs. The attempt now by the bureaucrats, if they could not move the traffic from Detroit-Windsor corridor to Sarnia-Port Huron, is to build a bridge in the Windsor corridor and compete with us, but they cannot do it on a straight-up competition, and they know it. They have to have Bill C-3 to take our away business legally...
  
  The permit process has developed in the U.S. by saying, "We will issue a permit for the corridor. We want to know that the corridor is in the right geographical area for the good of the U.S. We want to know that that corridor is needed. We want to know that that corridor will not affect an existing corridor.” The presidential permit being issued says, "We the U.S. have looked at that and said the corridor is good." That is why the current presidential permit process says, "We are not going to affect or remove rights that a current corridor has because we issued that right to be there."
  
  Canada, with Bill C-3, is trying to say, "We are not just concerned about the corridor, but we want to micro-manage the whole border."

Just so that you understand what the term "corridor" means in the context of the Ambassador Bridge, there is a very strong legal argument in my opinion that the Company has a protected "corridor" that a DRIC bridge would violate. Has the Government recognized that by their language in the speech?

To be direct, I am probably reading too much into what was said in trying to be hopeful that perhaps that there is a signal being given that the Government of Canada want to talk seriously with the Bridge Company.

Let us hope at least that they will speak since there is a new Minister involved. Perhaps there can be a resolution before we face a decade of litigation that does nothing to help this region economically.