Harper Border Attempt #4 To Beat The US

Honestly every day there is a new shocker on the border file. It never stops.

Why is the Ambassador Bridge so damned important to Canada, never mind the billions in obscene profits for which some P3 operators are drooling based on a deal that will be virtually guaranteed by the Senior Governments at all levels on both sides of the border.

He has tried twice with President Bush and once so far with President Obama. Now he will try again at the next summit of the Leaders of Canada, the US and Mexico.

Prime Minister Harper really wants to take over the Ambassador Bridge and needs the US President on his side if he has any hope of doing so. After all, at the least, a new DRIC bridge needs a Presidential Permit and it has been rejected once so far by the US Department of State. Harper knows the Bridge Company's Enhancement Bridge project does not need one.

How do I know it is on his agenda? From an article in Embassy Magazine that starts off this way:

• "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."

Now why would the author mention the Ambassador Bridge since that is hardly something that anyone in Ottawa press circles would think about. And it is NOT mentioned again in the story. Someone obviously talked to him about the importance of the Ambassador Bridge but on a deep background basis ie for his information only but not to be disclosed until the appropriate time.

That policy was in the Report "From Correct to Inspired: A Blueprint for Canada-U.S. Engagement" It was prepared at Carelton University in Ottawa. I wrote about that Report in my BLOG " January 27, 2009 Canada's Plot Against Obama
http://windsorcityon.blogspot.com/2009/01/canadas-plot-against-obama.html

I said in my note:

• "The Carleton Report clarified to me that this entire DRIC process is a joke. It is more than a joke; it is a complete farce. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that everything that DRIC did really did not matter as long as it resulted in the Bridge Company Owner selling out. This is nothing more than getting rid of an American owner of the Ambassador Bridge. It is part of a program that was started under John Diefenbaker and continues today, no matter which party is in power...
  
  Accordingly, one ought not to have expected very much to have been said in the main Report about building a new bridge between Detroit and Windsor since it was not identified as a need by the experts in the background papers.
  
  If that is what you thought, are you ever wrong. Remember, we have a 50 year goal in Canada that we have to reach...
  
  Do you see what I mean? There is no need to spend $5 billion on a DRIC project. A new bridge is not the answer when other steps can be taken much more inexpensively. Even with a DRIC bridge, we would still have the identified problems so what would we have solved?
  
  It is all a joke for Canadian nationalistic reasons only. The take-over desire predates the Moroun family ownership by a decade or more. DRIC is nothing more than a subterfuge to hide Canadian ambitions from the new US President who must issue in the end a Presidential Permit before the DRIC Bridge can be built! His Department of State has refused once already but Canada has to try again with the new incumbent.
  
  It is pretty clear that the Ambassador Bridge Owner is a hindrance to the Governments' plans for Windsor/Detroit and also to sell/lease the Blue Water Bridge and perhaps also the Tunnel. He even impacts the Peace Bridge. His ownership or even his business needs to be eliminated immediately if Canada is to succeed.
  
  There is nothing new in anything that is being said in the Carleton Report. It has been said by business people and government leaders ad nauseum in the past. What is clear is the anti-Americanism.
  
  What an absurd approach by our Government!"

That report caused terrific problems with both the Americans and the Mexicans.

• "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."

Why is trilateralism a problem for Canada and the border in particular:

• "One of the constraints to resolving bilateral issues has been an obsession with trilateral approaches. The dividends have been meagre, largely because Canadian interests and issues are not the same as those of Mexico," the blueprint declares. "Canada can do more bilaterally.... There is much more common ground between Canada and the United States—i.e., 'Upper North America'—than there is between Mexico and either of its northern partners. The best diplomatic description may be 'trilateralism when necessary but not necessarily trilateralism.'"

In other words, nothing would be done at the Canadian border because of the huge problems with the border with Mexico. Moreoever, what was being done in the South respecting security was being applied for Canada too and ruining our economy because of "border thickening." supposedly. Moreover, how could the Americans allow the take-over of an American-owned bridge by Canada in this context. Politically it would be suicidal in the US .

One US commentator suggested that:

• "If Canada and Mexico were to develop a common approach to a wide range of issues, including border management, I believe Canada is far more likely to achieve its objectives than if it continues its unilateral approach." He added that there seems to be a fear up north that Canada will be somehow "tainted" by the violence, disorder and drug trafficking going on in Mexico."

But that approach did not work for the NAFTA-gate people who have still not learned their lessons. Beating up on the US Homeland Security Secretary did not work either. Janet Napolitano still has her job and drones are flying over Canada.

Canada could NOT allow the Americans to focus on Mexico at all. Canada needed to accomplish its hidden agenda now. So the Report approach needed to be maintained and a new and better justification provided. Here is the person who did it and how:

• "Derek Burney, one of the report's principal contributors, hesitated to say the degree to which the blueprint has influenced government policy. He said he has perceived some "echoes" of it in the government's demarche, but he questioned its traction as a few major recommendations—such as annual bilateral meetings between Canadian and American executives—have not been achieved.
  
  Mr. Burney defended the report, making clear that trilateralism has it place in the blueprint, and that "resuscitating bilateral discussions...doesn't mean we throw the trilateral concept out the window."
  
  He argues, however, that Canada and the United States share not just bilateral, but global interests that the Mexicans simply do not. He provided Afghanistan, the Arctic and the G8 as examples of issues that are simply "not on the radar" in Mexico.
  
  "We understand that there are some issues in which there is a trilateral dimension, but there's a whole host of issues where Canada's interests and Americas interests intersect, but Mexico's don't," he said. "Just as there are issues between Mexico and U.S. that are not very relevant to Canada, whether its immigration or drugs."
  
  Due to the trilateral format, in which all must appear to agree on issues of common concern, many of Canada's top issues can be passed by in the name of trilateral agreeability.
  
  "Inevitably, at these trilateral meetings, the focus tends to shift to things on which they can agree, rather than ones on which they cannot agree," Mr. Burney said. "Leaders have limited time in their agenda, so the more time spent on trilateral concepts that don't take us anywhere, the less time is going to be spent on either resolving some of the bilateral issues where there is friction, or positively, in moving forward on a constructive bilateral agenda."
  
  Reflecting on the history of continental policy development, Mr. Burney points out that, historically, Canada and the United States have forged ahead bilaterally, later inviting Mexico to join once the foundation has been laid. He points to the NAFTA as an example. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1988, he said, laid the essential groundwork for the NAFTA, which followed some six years afterward.
  
  Likewise, a "bilateral-first" approach should be taken to continental climate change policy, he said. The ongoing Canada-U.S. Clean Energy Dialogue could lead to a cap-and-trade emissions regime that best suits the integrated and similar economies of the two countries. Once this is established, he said, Mexico would be free to follow.
  
  Mr. Burney called his opponents' arguments "flimsy," and said they just need to look at the pudding to find the proof.
  
  "My answer to those in Mexico and the U.S., advocates of the trilateral as opposed to the bilateral approach, my message is very simple: Show me the proof," he said. "Where is the evidence a trilateral approach to North American relationship has actually achieved something?"

Not a word about the border or the Ambassador Bridge in particular. But just read into it our border file. Very clever these people. The approach would be to achieve a bilateral solution with Canada, 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."

Just a bit of deeeep background information for you and how it ties into the border that might give you, dear reader, some insight into the border file.

The Chancellor of Carleton University where the Report was produced is Herb Gray who lead the FIRA fight against the Bridge Company.

He worked with former Transport Canada Deputy Minister Louis Ranger in preparing Canada's Ultra-secret Playbook about how to deal with the US.

Louis Ranger worked on the border file for years and retired at around the same time as the new Minister, John Baird, brought out into the open finally Canada's hostility to the Bridge Company.

Derek Burney, O.C., of Ottawa is Chairman of Canwest, the parent of the Windsor Star, the paper that is anti-Bridge Company as well in a City whose Mayor is head of a Tunnel Commission who is the Bridge Company border competitor and who just sold land for a DRIC plaza to the Feds for an outrageous amount. The Editor of the Star signalled his "messenger" role too: "A strategy of demonizing the mayor and shooting the messenger."

Burney is also senior strategic adviser to the law firm of Ogilivy Renault. Interestingly, former Senator Michael Fortier is a partner there and he had responsibility for the border file when he was in the Conservative Government. Former PM Brian Mulroney is a partner there too and while he was PM, the FIRA litigation against the Bridge Company was "settled" or rather, as is now clear, merely put into limbo until Bill C-3 could take its place under Harper. Note how significant that piece of legislation was to the Government by its number!

Burney was also Canada's Ambassador to the US and served as Chief of Staff to Mulroney.

The magazine also described Burney as a trusted adviser of the Harper government.

Fortier's former law partner knows about "shadow tolls" for roads like the DRIC road since...... Oh this can go on forever.

I am sure that this brief snippet shows you how hard Canada is working, how many people within and outside of Government are involved, how much money must be being spent outside of the millions around DRIC and the strategic thinking to beat Matty Moroun and some of the ties that bind this all together.

However, the real shocker to me is that the Canadian Prime Minister would put this country at risk for one tiny, little bridge. Why?