The Ambassador Bridge And How Canada's Foreign Policy Failed

I am rather surprised that our national media have not dumped more on the Government for the disastrous results suffered by Prime Minister Harper at the Three Amigos Summit. Can it be any worse for our relationship with the US when one considers:

• Harper was snubbed by President Obama who met the Mexican PM one-on-one but not our leader
• The President brushed off Harper's big concerns about protectionism as if he did not care, because he did not
• The shortness of the meeting and the lack of any significant results makes a mockery of the Canadian strategy for dealing with the US and suggests again that Ambassador Wilson has more than overstayed his welcome
• The visa fiasco and the Derek Burney approach failed to appreciate the importance of Mexico to the US to our detriment
• NAFTA-gate still rules!

I mentioned to you last week an article in Embassy Magazine.

"Trilateralism Vs. Bilateralism
Should Canada cozy up to the U.S. while angling Mexico out?"

I was annoyed at the Canadian position set out in the article especially when I saw who was involved. I had written about the Report mentioned in it before and had criticized it. I was horrified that this Report was the basis of our policy with the US especially since it seems to be failing with the Obama snub of Harper in Mexico:

• "At the time, few knew whether From Correct to Inspired: A Blueprint for Canada-U.S. Engagement, would have much bearing on the Harper government's approach to North America. A product of Carleton University's Centre for Trade Policy and Law, the blueprint was delivered on the eve of President Obama's inauguration. It counselled the government to exclude Mexico from some policy discussions in hopes of cozying up closer to the United States.
  
  Experts across the continent say the report has made a deep impression on the Harper government's approach to continental affairs, which will be centre-stage this weekend in Guadalajara when Mr. Harper meets Mr. Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon for the annual North American leaders summit. And not everyone is happy with the results.
  
  While it was written with the input of intellectuals from across Canada and the United States, the report was produced by a clique of experienced NAFTA experts, some of whom were directly involved in the treaty's negotiation.
  
  Among them were former Canadian ambassador to Washington Derek Burney, a trusted adviser of the Harper government..."

Accordingly, I Blogged about the article and sent my BLOG to the reporter on the story. He invited me to do a Letter on my thoughts respecting the bridge situation and his article. Here is what I sent. I do hope they decide to publish it. I am sure it will shake up some people. It is exactly meant to do so!

For my new readers, it gives an overview of the border situation from my perspective that, in my opinion, will be the lightening rod for further deterioration in our relationship with our biggest trading partner.

=====================================

The introduction to the article by Jeff Davis (Trilateralism Vs. Bilateralism) intrigued me. Why would he write out of the blue something that only Windsorites care about:

• “The cold January day he received a ready-made policy for engagement with the United States in the age of Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper wore a blue blazer, striped tie and a smile as wide as the Ambassador Bridge.”

The answer is obvious. Harper now has the way that he can try for the fourth time to convince an American President to help him take over the privately owned Ambassador Bridge from its American owner, Matty Moroun. He has tried twice with President Bush and once with President Obama already.

Ever since the Globe and Mail published a 2 ½ page spread on Moroun, the Canadian Government knew that its plan to terrorize him into selling out cheaply failed! Harper would try again at the Three Leaders’ Summit meeting in Guadalajara.

As someone who has been involved in and Blogged about the border file extensively over the last 7 years, this fascination over the Bridge by Canadian Governments has been nothing short of amazing. It would appear that the desire to take over the Bridge has spanned a half a century going back to the time of John Diefenbaker to Mitchell Sharp’s Third Option period to FIRA and now the International Bridges and Tunnels Act time-frames. Can you believe that a Conservative Government adopted Liberal legislation so whole-heartedly!

What is not clear is why. If Moroun was a poor operator of this key commercial crossing, it would be understandable. Except his border crossing was recognized by the US Government as being the best operated and it was supposed to be the model crossing for Canada. Public ownership of an important border crossing …pshaw…it is to be handed to a P3 private partner for a period of as much as 99 years.

The real reason has never been explained publicly as far as I know.

Oh, Governments on both sides of the river have spent $60 million on the Detroit River International Crossing study that supports spending billions on a new P3 bridge a mile downriver from the existing bridge. And this is after the US Government, Michigan and the Bridge Company spent $250M on the almost-completed Ambassador Gateway project at the existing bridge which, on its own, can handle twice the volume at the Bridge now without another bridge.

So what if the project, one of the biggest in Michigan’s history, was also designed to accommodate another span as the Bridge Company proposes to build to smooth out traffic flow by adding another lane in each direction for FAST and NEXUS vehicles. So what if a lawsuit has been started over this already, probably the first of many, that can take decades to resolve to the economic detriment of both countries. So what if the DRIC bridge would wipe out the Delray community in Michigan. It’s an American Environmental Justice issue, not ours.

We have heard all the reasons from the need to increase capacity because of the expected doubling of traffic in the next 20 years, to security and then to redundancy. Unfortunately, as often happens with the best laid plans, they do not pan out. Traffic has fallen dramatically so that there is no economic justification for a new bridge and its building could bankrupt other border crossings as each fights for the reduced volumes. Security and redundancy concerns can be easily met by reverse customs (Minister Van Loan’s suggestion of a pilot project at the Windsor-Detroit border mysteriously disappeared). The world economic meltdown has killed the P3 market so it is unlikely the project can be financed as the Minister of Finance had hoped.

My own view is that this really all started as a legitimate economic nationalism concern. There was a need for Canada to have influence over the Corridors and Gateways into the US (as the Transport Canada Policy Paper recognizes). In this way, the Canadian economy can be protected from the periodic US protectionism shocks that take place at the worst possible moments for us. We have Ministers in charge of our Atlantic and Pacific gateways now and it seems that the PM has taken the Central Canada Gateways, which includes the Ambassador Bridge, under his wing.

We don’t talk about economic nationalism much do we? Instead, we focus on “border thickening” as a problem so the Americans think they are in control. However, our Governments work diligently to try to take over the Bridge and the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel, P3 the Blue Water Bridge so both sides can be in friendly hands and now we want again “shared border management” in Fort Erie/Buffalo on the Canadian side of the river.

Toss in excessive profits as a motive to corrupt good intentions too---there are billions for a P3 operator to make in a “concession-type” deal. This can no longer be a true P3 deal because of the credit crisis. It will turn into some kind of a Government guarantee or financing arrangement such as that being proposed for the multi-billion dollar DRIC road to the bridge that will make the successful bidder a fortune over its term.

Now we know why Moroun has to go. In each area, his bridge and his proposed one in Buffalo/Fort Erie have proven to be a block to the Government’s road to success.

Back to the Davis article. Its Derek Burney inspired theme is to toss out Mexico from the Trilateral talks as the Carleton University “From Correct to Inspired: A Blueprint for Canada-U.S. Engagement” Report proposes so Canada and the US can discuss their important issues without Mexican hindrance.

Not a word about the border or the Ambassador Bridge specifically. But just read into the Davis article our border file as part of the PM’s hidden agenda. The approach would be to achieve a bilateral solution between Canada and the US, say by taking over the Ambassador Bridge to "control" the border more effectively, and then use that precedent in Mexico by later "inviting Mexico to join once the foundation has been laid."

We are such clever people. Keep on trying to sucker Obama. Keep on rubbing his face in it by reminding him of NAFTA-gate. Haven’t we learned our lesson yet? Beating up on the US Homeland Security Secretary did not work. Janet Napolitano still has her job and drones are flying over Canada as we have to show our passport to enter the US.

Wouldn’t it make sense for our Government to talk to Moroun and work with him to improve our border for the advantage of everyone rather than to expect that an American President and Congress would allow a foreign Government, even Canada, to control its commercial entrances and exits. Doesn’t anyone at our Washington Embassy remember the Dubai ports controversy?

Let’s keep it up. Let’s make one tiny, little bridge between Canada and the US our new softwood lumber dispute with the US by the time this is over.