Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 6 - Evidence - November 28, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 28, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this morning we will be discussing Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another act.
We have as witnesses Mr. Dan Stamper, President of the Canadian Transit Company, Mr. Skip McMahon, Executive Director of External Affairs, and from Centra Inc., Mr. Matthew Moroun, Vice-Chairman.
Welcome to you, gentlemen. I think you are familiar with the work of our committee, so I will give you the floor and I am sure my colleagues will have questions.
Dan Stamper, President, Canadian Transit Company: Thank you for this opportunity to speak today on the proposed Bill C-3. Let me say that we are disappointed with the intent and the spirit of Bill C-3 as it relates to our company. There are 24 bridges, 22 publicly owned, one of which is in the process of being sold, and one private bridge, the Ambassador Bridge.
Our effort today is to clarify and offer meaningful facts and direction for improving and strengthening the relationship between Canada and the Ambassador Bridge.
We believe the governance of the Ambassador Bridge by Canada was resolved after more than a decade of litigation between the parties with an agreement reached in 1992. Having gone above and beyond the terms of our 1992 agreement, we are troubled by Bill C-3 and question its true intent.
Recent comments by the Ministers of Transport and Finance regarding public-private partnerships make clear that Bill C-3, in combination with the work of the Detroit River International Crossing Project, DRIC, is an effort by bureaucrats to ensure that a public-private border crossing is to be constructed and made profitable, at our expense and that of the taxpayers of Canada.
I will show you three graphs. The first graph demonstrates projected and actual volumes at the Blue Water Bridge, one of our main competitors for truck traffic. Please note the projected volumes that form the basis of building a new twinned bridge and new highway infrastructure on both sides of the border at a cost of billions of dollars to taxpayers. The red line on the graph shows the consultants projections and the blue line is the actual traffic since the bridge was built; there is a significant discrepancy between the two lines. Note the growing gap between actual and projected volumes; actual volumes have remained relatively stable despite the opening of a casino in Sarnia. A private investor would be infuriated by this disparity between projected and actual traffic.
The second graph shows the actual traffic volumes at the Windsor border crossings since 1999. I am disappointed that the Mayor of Windsor would not answer your questions about the tunnel's decrease in traffic of over 40 per cent.
Finally, I want to show you what the DRIC consultants' project as volumes at the Ambassador Bridge compared with our projections. I should tell you that the DRIC consultants have reduced their overly optimistic numbers downward several times. Note especially the huge gap developing over time between the DRIC projections and ours. Where is the justification for spending billions of dollars for another crossing?
Our company is not engaged in some academic exercise in number-crunching at our crossing. We have a responsibility and obligation to ensure that our crossing works to meet the needs of our customers and the region we serve. We are the company that built the business to become the number 1 border crossing in North America. We understand the border better than anyone.
The key elements of Bill C-3 are designed to give the bureaucrats the opportunity to take business away from our border crossing and send it to a government-sponsored new bridge. In our opinion, the creation of a marshalling yard and a new bridge with Bill C-3 will severely affect the financial condition or bankrupt the existing crossings in southwest Ontario. Accordingly, it should not come as a surprise to anyone when we say that we will protect our business.
Let me talk about the DRIC process for a minute. The facts are as follows: We settled outstanding litigation with Canada and invested tens of millions of dollars in improving government facilities in 1992. The Canadian Transit Company publicly began its effort to enhance its facilities in 1993 and has continued to acquire the necessary property and engage consultants and engineers to prepare all necessary documents and approvals to allow the construction of additional lanes over the water.
The ideal for DRIC was hatched in 2001 and has been rushed in an effort to catch up with and replace the Ambassador Bridge's commitment for additional lanes. The same bureaucrats in charge of the DRIC process are the people responsible for approvals of the Ambassador Bridge project. This creates a group of bureaucrats as a competitor of the Ambassador Bridge, at the government-owned Sarnia-Port Huron Bridge, and creates a direct conflict since they are judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the Ambassador Bridge projects.
Let me point out that it was the DRIC team, not us, that said, "However, the Canadian evaluation notes a second span of the Ambassador Bridge would be an expansion of the existing crossing, not a new crossing of the river with new connections to the freeway systems in Ontario and Michigan." DRIC has acknowledged that we were never bound by the DRIC process and are free to pursue our own crossing.
Are we overstating or position? I do not think so, but let me pose this fact situation to you so that you will understand our point of view.
Recently, the DRIC issued a request for quotation. Its purpose was to allow the creation of a truck marshalling yard, which would allow bureaucrats to redirect traffic to the border crossing of their choice. This initiative is necessary for the DRIC and Bill C-3 to accomplish their goals of supporting a new government-sponsored bridge by redistributing traffic and tolls from existing border crossings. DRIC, Bill C-3, the marshalling yard and the expenditure of billions of dollars are not needed if the government would support the current border crossings and operators.
Our position is not difficult to understand. We are willing to compete and have been very successful in doing so. We have strong objection to bureaucratic control of the border crossing marketplace where customers may be driven away by uneconomic tolls and where our business is taken away from us by administrative action. We wish to carry on business the way we have done for almost 80 years, in a successful alliance with the Government of Canada.
As an example of safety and security, immediately after 9/11 the Ambassador Bridge engaged, managed and are paying for 24-hour-a-day armed security at the Ambassador Bridge. Most of the latest security technology innovations are put into service first at the Ambassador Bridge. There is no reason why those sections of Bill C-3 could not be implemented quickly for the benefit of all, and we suggest that this be done. After all, that should be the real driving motivation behind this proposed statute.
Let me speak briefly about the ownership side of Bill C-3 that causes us great concern.
With the stroke of a pen, the Government of Canada is trying to wipe away the strong, long-term relationship we have had with the governments of Canada and United States. Moreover, the bill, as drafted, seems to allow the government to act retroactively. If you look at the slide, the part that makes the bill retroactive has been coloured blue. The historic combination of U.S. and Canadian legislation that have been the controlling statutes for the operation of the Ambassador Bridge must not be unilaterally altered by Canada.
Let me now deal with some of the more onerous terms of the bill that impact our business.
What business person would not object to legislation that allows a public competitor unfettered discretion to decide how it can compete and on what terms? The government, on one hand, competes against us for border traffic at Sarnia and possibly in Windsor, and on the other hand, sits as judge and jury as to the enhancement of our business, or worse, an executioner in Windsor through the DRIC process and now the environmental process for our enhancement project.
There are numerous pieces of legislation governing the Ambassador Bridge, not only in Canada but in the U.S. as well. This legislation in both countries has been created and together governs the Ambassador Bridge as an international border crossing. Any unilateral change may disrupt the meaning and application of these international agreements. If changes are needed, we are ready to work closely with the government to develop meaningful legislation that continues to protect the public and creates an environment that not only allows for, but motivates, the border crossing owner operators, whether public or private, to invest in and manage safe, secure and efficient border crossings for the good of Canada and the United States. We are not a new company starting out, but a legitimate border operator that has done its best for the good of this country and its American neighbours for over 75 years.
I do regret having to state that notwithstanding many attempts to meet with the minister, he has refused to meet with us. May I respectfully ask that this committee request a meeting with the minister? Frankly, I would have hoped that many of the issues we are discussing today could have been resolved in a more expeditious manner had there been such senior level conversations.
Mr. Brian Hicks, Director, Bridge Policy and Programs, Department of Transportation stated, "The Americans have a presidential permit process and the U.S. federal government steps in when a bridge is going to be constructed or if there are major alterations on the bridge."
The presidential permit process in the U.S. specifically states that this act shall not be construed to adversely affect the rights of those operating bridges previously authorized by Congress to repair, replace or enlarge existing bridges.
There is a copy in the next slide of a letter that we, the Ambassador Bridge, received from the State Department in a request to let us know if we need a presidential permit. That exact quote is highlighted in the letter from the State Department to us. It says specifically that, "This act shall not be construed to adversely affect the rights of those operating bridges previously authorized by Congress to repair, replace or enlarge existing bridges."
That is not what Transport Canada told this committee. They told this committee, and us, that their bill is to harmonize with the U.S. bill. It does not do that.
In our view the actions of Canada under this bill are out of step with those of the United States. That should be troubling to you because Transport Canada has said that one of its objectives is to make the process in Canada similar to that of the process in the United States.
The Ambassador Bridge twin span was the highest performing alternative and least expensive span to construct on the U.S. side according to the DRIC study. The Ambassador Bridge already owns the necessary property for our second span, preventing costly condemnation or expropriation in another neighbourhood.
The Ambassador Bridge Gateway Project anticipated a twin span at this location for more than a decade. The Ambassador Bridge, as an existing crossing, already has clearance from the U.S. Department of State whereas any other DRIC crossing would require a new presidential permit.
With respect to our enhancement projects, we have already spent about half a billion dollars for our project. This is our money, not that of any government, used for engineering, design and purchasing the properties necessary for the construction for our enhancement project. We anticipate spending at least another half billion dollars of our money to build the twinned span. If that does not demonstrate positively our commitment to the region and to the efficient flow of people and goods then nothing will.
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. Once the new structure is completed, the existing Ambassador Bridge will be taken out of service for some period of time to effect repairs deemed necessary. Once any necessary repairs are complete, the existing structure would be used to provide redundancy and backup support when necessary to ensure the free flow of traffic between Windsor and Detroit at all times. In other words we will not be destroying the communities of Sandwich in Ontario or Delray in Michigan or both as the DRIC plan would do.
Moreover, our actions are similar to the twinning of the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia. We would like to invite any and all members of the Senate to visit the Ambassador Bridge for a tour, either as a group or as individuals. We would be pleased to host such a tour of the entire facility so senators are able to see first-hand that it is a total international piece of infrastructure not just two halves being operated separately.
In conclusion, we respectively ask for the following amendments. That Bill C-3, at clause 2, be amended by replacing line 18 with the following: International bridge or tunnel means a publicly owned bridge. If you look at the screen you see what we are proposing in red; two words added to clause 2.That Bill C-3, at clause 4, identifies the schedule that forms part of Bill C-3 and that said schedule should be amended by (a) deleting item 34, an act to incorporate the Canadian Transit Company S.C.1921, c.557.
That Bill C-3, at clause 57, be amended by replacing line 23 with the following: — and this is using the exact words of the presidential permit of the U.S — "Of the Government of Canada specifically, this act shall not be construed to adversely affect the rights of those operating bridges previously authorized by Parliament, to repair, replace or enlarge existing bridges."
We recognize that there are necessary approvals to complete this project and they are currently underway beginning with the environmental assessment.
We fully acknowledge that we are not legislative drafters; however we hope that your legislative drafters could help assist by reviewing and properly revising the amendments required to fulfill this intent.
Recognizing that we are one of two privately-owned commercial international bridges, we face similar but also many different challenges from the other 22 publicly owned international bridges. Bill C-3, as it is currently drafted, in our opinion does not reflect this.
My ultimate message is that the Ambassador Bridge Company wants to work cooperatively with the government and those others involved for the good of both citizens and the economy. Do not allow Bill C-3 to unilaterally destroy the collective historic legislation between the United States and Canada that has produced the most efficient border crossing in North America.
We are pleased to entertain any questions and Mr. Moroun may have comments.
Matthew Moroun, Vice-Chairman, Centra Inc.: I have just a few comments. Although I was not here, I read the transcript of Mr. Garlock from the operators association. I think it is very important to emphasize exactly what he said in response to many of your questions. While he is the president of the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association, he is the president of an association made up of all government-owned bridges, except one.
Bill C-3 is contrived in the Department of Transport to regulate and add new burden and give more authority to the Minister of Transport. I know this is an oversimplification, but if you are the leader of transport for the government, and 99 per cent of all the bridges and tunnels are government owned, just tell them what you would like them to do. You do not need to pass a new law to tell the people that work for you what to do.
The reason I would like to emphasize this point is that makes it very clear that the entire intent of Bill C-3 is to pass a law specifically for the Ambassador Bridge. After all, you do not need a law to tell your subordinates what to do. That said, why, after 78 years of successful operating history of the only real private border crossing between the United States and Canada, is it necessary to pass a new law and over-regulate the Ambassador Bridge?
Let me explain one of our company's largest fears. Right now, our company is trying very hard to spend our money as hard as we possibly can to build a new span right next to our existing bridge. We want to build it because we believe in a bright future for our company. For many years, we have grown our bridge without building a new span. We have added acres upon acres of paved plaza and inspection area so we can increase the number of inspection booths in the United States. At the beginning, we only had five booths and probably three acres of inspection area. How many do we have now, Mr. Stamper?
Mr. Stamper: We have 25 booths and 25 acres of inspection area on the U.S. side.
Mr. Moroun: We have really added capacity because, again, you must also understand it is not necessarily the lanes over the water that control the capacity of a border crossing, but how many U.S. Customs inspection booths you have to process the vehicles on the other side. If you do not have enough of those booths, then all the bridge ends up being is a very high parking lot suspended over the river. Imagine going to the grocery store on an extremely busy day with only one checkout clerk. It does not matter how big the grocery store is, you cannot get through the cash register to get out of the place.
We have expanded the bridge by adding this additional inspection plaza and booth. We built a brand new customs facility for the Canada Border Services Agency in Windsor on the Canadian side. How much did we spend on that office building?
Mr. Stamper: We spent about $35 million on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Moroun: We did that in 1992 through 1994. We are an American company, and when the bridge was originally authorized by the United States and Canada, the statutes were very similar in each nation. The U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. half of the bridge and Parliament authorized the Canadian half of the bridge. In the legislation on both sides, that act that Transport Canada wants to eradicate from the 1920s says that both of these companies — a U.S. company and a Canadian company — are to join together to make the bridge.
When our company acquired the bridge in the late 1970s, Canada had the Foreign Investment Review Act. At the time, we wound up in litigation with regard to whether an American company could own the Canadian half of the Ambassador Bridge. We were in court in the U.S and we were in court in Canada. It was not good for either side. We got together and made a good settlement for both parties in 1991, after having started a fight in 1979. For almost a decade, we did not find a resolution and then we started getting somewhere. That is when we spent $35 million to build brand new inspection facilities for Canada Border Services. Then we built a brand new off-site commercial inspection facility. How many acres do you think that is, Mr. McMahon?
Skip McMahon, Executive Director of External Affairs, Canadian Transit Company: That is at least 20 to 25 acres.
Mr. Moroun: Twenty-five acres of 12-inch concrete and more trucks than you can shake a stick at. We have done our part to continue to grow our business and work with the Government of Canada, especially the Canada Border Services Agency.
We cannot even hope to get away from the government. In our business, unlike many other businesses, we have hundreds of government employees and inspectors working on our premises every day. We have to work with the government and I think we do a very good job of working with the government. We have continued to expand and we have alleviated many of the backups. Now there is a wonderful free flow of goods from Canada back into the United States, despite the heightened inspection after 9/11.
We built extra booths in the U.S. to alleviate the backups into Canada from the trucks leaving Canada coming into the U.S. after 9/11. You have to understand, going back to that grocery store analogy, after 9/11, it did not take one minute to pay for groceries and get out of the checkout lane in the U.S., it took five minutes, so our existing infrastructure did not work. We had to add more to it, and we have done that; we have grown our business. We work the busiest border crossing, as far as traffic goes, when we first acquired the bridge; but we have grown it to that.
What we are worried about with Bill C-3 — because it is only for us, it cannot be for the public bridges that are already controlled by Transport Canada — is that it gives the Minister of Transport the authority to say Ambassador Bridge, we are going to put a ceiling on your business. We are going to cap your growth and decide that we are not going to allow you to build a new span across the river; your future is over. Instead, we are going to authorize a new span across the river less than a mile away that we control as Transport Canada, your brand new competitor — nice to meet you. Then we are going to set up marshalling yards; or, by decree, now that we have our new Bill C-3, tell all the commercial vehicles that they have to go to the new bridge and not your bridge anymore. After all, we have the authority to do that now under Bill C-3. We have the ability to cut off your growth, ruin your future and start a new competitor bridge right next door because we are the players on the field and the referee at the same time.
Transport Canada will tell you that is not their intent, but you only have to watch a few movies to know that when someone pulls a gun on you and you are on the receiving end of the barrel, it is very likely that they are going to shoot, so be prepared. That is the position we feel we are in today.
To emphasize one last point Mr. Stamper made, time and time again folks from Transport Canada have said we need this law because Canada needs to have a law just like the United States developed a new law in the 1990s or 1980s with regard to its presidential permit process with regard to bridges. We need a law just like the United States. Well that is absolutely not true because their new law proposes scratching all the old legislation that bridges have been operating under and passing this new proposed legislation called Bill C-3. The U.S. does not have anything like that. The U. S. law says the opposite. It says to leave intact all the old and prior legislation and respect the ability for those older bridges and tunnels to grow, expand and alter their businesses. Then, for any new entrants to the market, apply this presidential permit process. The Americans are the opposite. They say that they want the same system.
Mr. Stamper is effectively asking you do is to take them for their word. If they want the same, then give them the same. Respect the old laws that we have operated under for all these years and exempt our bridge from the new law with regard to brand-new bridges and businesses being built along the border. Leave the existing laws intact that we have operated under for 78 years.
I am happy to do my best to answer any of your questions.
The Chairman: In the House of Commons, amendments were passed to change section 15 in order to ensure that a certain level of consultation is possible, and you mentioned consultation, Mr. Stamper, when the government is exercising its regulation-making power. The amendments are the result of a compromise but do you think that the proposed section 15(1) and section 15(2) provide an adequate response to the need for more extensive consultations expressed by stakeholders?
Mr. Stamper: We believe that section 15 was an issue that the Bridge Tunnel Operators Association had taken up in the House, and we did not spend a lot of time on that issue. Our goal was to let the BTOA deal with the toll structure as it affected the ability to bond and to mortgage its current toll structures. We think that the whole bill is an over management of border operators. Every part of this bill puts the minister and the bureaucrats in a position to micromanage what happens at the border.
The Chairman: I can appreciate that one of your concerns with Bill C-3 is related to the question of ownership change but one question remains: Should or should not the government have the right to oversee private matters related to bridges and tunnels in the name of the general interest of the country?
When your enterprise became involved in this business, you were certainly aware that this business is largely operated in the public domain. The Ambassador Bridge is one of only two exceptions to publicly-owned bridges.
Are you truly surprised to see the federal government, under Bill C-3, confirm and even reinforce its authority in respect of international bridges and tunnels?
Mr. Stamper: No. We agree that the international bridges, tunnels, railroads are all for the good of Canada and should be governed by the federal government, not by the province and not by the municipalities. We all saw last week with the mayor's presentation that having municipalities with veto power is not good at all for Canada in these kinds of issues.
We believe that the federal government should be the governing party. As well, we understand the historic nature of international bridges is that the federal government in the U.S. and in Canada issued proposed legislation for governing statutes and set up how the bridges operate.
On the issue of ownership, most of the border crossings were originally built with private dollars. It went bankrupt and the government took them over, including their liabilities. The Ambassador Bridge was built with private dollars only and it went bankrupt in 1937-38. The governments refused to take over the Ambassador Bridge and put any money into its reorganizing. The owners had to reorganize on their own and bring the Ambassador Bridge out of bankruptcy. Luckily, it has been successful since then.
Most of the other border crossings were built by private investors who put money in and lost. Luckily, we have been able to succeed. Are we surprised that Bill C-3 reaffirms federal control over border crossings? No, not at all. We support that. Are we surprised that they are trying to micromanage an industry that has done pretty well for Canada? Yes.
The Chairman: With section 14, regarding regulations on maintenance and repair, it seems that you have concerns with the protection of confidential information that you may provide to Transport Canada. You suggest that the previous incarnation of Bill C-3, the former Bill C-44, would have formed part of the existing Canada Transportation Act, which protects the confidentiality of information provided to the government.
Officials from Transport Canada told us that they had the opportunity to meet with you on several occasions to discuss Bill C-3. I can appreciate that you have not met with the minister but with senior officials. What was their answer with regard to your concern on the protection confidential information that you may provide.
Mr. Stamper: My personal interpretation of those discussions is that it was an oversight on someone's part. Our concern and I think the whole industry's concern with confidentiality relates to security plans and security proposals. If we are obligated to supply those plans and proposals to Transport Canada, then they should be kept confidential. I believe that Transport Canada made an error in not including confidentiality in Bill C-3, whereas it was included in Bill C-26 and in Bill C-44.
Senator Eyton: Your presentation was certainly candid. Obviously, you have some legitimate concerns and we are here to try to understand them and to incorporate them. I have a little trouble with some of your assertions. You have referred to what I will translate as a kind of conspiracy of bureaucrats to affect a certain purpose. Can you give me any evidence of that, other than the bill with which you disagree?
Mr. Stamper: As of last week, there was a request for quotations on the marshalling yard on behalf of Ontario and Canada — the Detroit River International Crossing study. The exact same people running this study and the environmental process for a new competing bridge in Detroit-Windsor are exactly the same people who are supposed to be processing our application for our projects. We were promised an answer in May as to a scoping document. We received it about one and a half weeks ago. If this committee wishes, we would be glad to put together a one-page briefing document on all the points that have come out over the last four years in reference to what you call "conspiracy" and what we call a "bureaucratic plan."
Mr. Moroun: Perhaps the words, "obvious and severe conflict" is more appropriate than "conspiracy." Please, we are not advocating a conspiracy theory. Rather, we are advocating a severe conflict. It is difficult when the other team also controls the referees, when, clearly, they trying to beat you and to run up the score on you. All the penalties are called on us.
Senator Eyton: You tend to look at the Canadian side of this and describe it as a kind of unitary ownership that one authority owns all of the bridges. In fact, there is quite a diversity of ownership in that federal, state, provincial, and municipal levels of government are involved. It is not fair to say that because they are not judge and jury. There are different and separate bodies involved. This proposed act is an attempt to try to give some consistency and framework for managing the international crossings of one kind or another.
The Ambassador Bridge is, of course, the biggest and best and vital to Canadian interests. My understanding is that bridge by itself accounts for 25 per cent of the goods traded between Canada and the U.S.
As soon as you say that, I know as a broken-down lawyer that there is no question about the legal or constitutional right of the Government of Canada to deal with international bridges and tunnels. In fact, it is a wonder to me that the federal government has been so slow. There have been previous attempts at this bill in various manifestations, but it is a wonder to me that it has taken so long to get here.
The bill tries to deal with security, efficiency, competition, safety and ownership, all of which, it seems to me, are legitimate concerns of the federal government.
On the other hand, I can see, and I think we should recognize here, the Ambassador Bridge has behaved well and done well under certain agreements. I personally support the purpose of the act and, in general, the provisions relating to the factors I just mentioned. However, I would like somehow to obtain some suggestion from you as to how the act can proceed. Some of your suggestions call for an exemption of the Ambassador Bridge. We have done a good job; we had the old legislation, leave us alone. However, I do not think that is in the cards.
The question is: What can we do with the act so that your concerns are fairly and properly treated? In particular, what can we do to ensure you are not penalized because you have invested a considerable amount of money trying to improve the bridge and now, in the middle of that process, a new process is being suggested under the act itself?
I am trying to obtain a de minimis suggestion from you as to how we can amend the bill in a way that would be fair and seemly of the Ambassador Bridge but still preserve the right of the federal government to manage the elements that exist. I do not think an exemption or exclusion is in the cards.
Mr. Stamper: We would be glad to look at each individual clause of the bill.
We have gone on record in the House and with the Senate as saying we support the health and safety issues in the bill. We try, in simplest terms, to provide minimal amendments to achieve our goals.
If you would like us to look at the whole bill and propose amendments just to the sections we think do not apply to us, we would be glad to do that and work with Transport Canada.
We did not have problems with the health, safety and security issues of Bill C-26. You did not hear anything from us in that regard. Bill C-44 was a security, health and safety bill. Bill C-3 went way beyond that in the issues that concerned us. This bill is not the original security bill that was on the table prior to this government coming into power.
If you are asking us to look at it and say we will be part of the bill — we do not have any problems with the safety and security issues — we will be glad to do that and make recommendations to amendments that accomplish that.
The amendment in clause 57 to harmonize the U.S. process with the Canadian process is very important to us. It is the only way that we can be treated equally in the U.S. and in Canada. Our legislation from the early 1920s and all the amendments since then in the U.S. and Canada have recognized that the two countries' legislation are moulded together to create an international crossing, not half a bridge, but a complete international crossing. We do not want to see that destroyed, altered or unilaterally removed.
Senator Eyton: Would your concerns be satisfied if you could be assured that there was a timely and open consultation relative to the factors that are in play, followed by fair, timely and effective decision-making? Can the process be one that satisfies your needs?
Mr. Stamper: Are you referring to the regulation process or the statute itself?
Senator Eyton: I am referring to the administrative decision-making under the bill as proposed.
Mr. Stamper: With the way the bill is presently proposed, we have a problem with the retroactive intent of clause 57. That one line was written for our proposals that are in front of the government. We have a real issue with clause 57 not being amended to match the U.S. legislation. We do not have a problem with the other issues in the bill that apply to us.
We appreciate the comments that Transport Canada has made about ownership and its concern with respect to al Qaeda owning the bridge. We understand that. We do not have a problem with that.
This bill has such broad language for the discretion of the minister that, as Mr. Moroun pointed out; it is a loaded gun that would be used against us.
Mr. Moroun: Just to emphasize that, again, we are not advocating there is a conspiracy here. The Minister of Transport is firmly in support of a government or P-3 type bridge less than a mile away from our bridge, and his people at the ministry are working very hard to build and design that bridge.
At the same time, we have before the minister and before his Transport department an environmental application requesting the environmental clearance for us to build our new span next to our existing bridge. That conflict wakes you up in the morning.
In that respect, if there could be a change made to the process that you are discussing that would eradicate a conflict of interest, theoretically we could support that.
Senator Eyton: That is the sort of answer I was looking for. Thank you.
Senator Mercer: I am a little conflicted here because the bill is introduced by a Conservative government who is pro- business. I am a left-wing Liberal, and I seem to find myself on the side of defending the private enterprise, which is okay. I find it an interesting juxtaposition.
I am confused. This has become a much more complex and acrimonious process from when I first read the bill. They are talking about building a new span less than a mile away.
Mr. Moroun: Correct.
Senator Mercer: I have been to Windsor and to the beginnings of your bridge by the University of Windsor while I was speaking there. I have taken a tour of the neighbourhood. One of the major problems in Windsor is the fact that the crossings are not connected to the highways on the Ontario side. I know there has been some discussion with the Province of Ontario dealing with the Government of Canada about rectifying that situation.
Will that bridge be towards downtown or further out?
Mr. Stamper: The new bridge will be further west.
Senator Mercer: Away from downtown?
Mr. Stamper: That is correct.
Senator Mercer: Where is the link between Highway 401 with a crossing of the Detroit River?
Mr. Stamper: The plan for the government-proposed bridge is to finish Highway 401 to the new bridge, not to our bridge. That is a continued way to take traffic away from the Ambassador Bridge. As I said earlier, I would be glad to put together a one-page briefing note about this for this committee. This is not just pie in the sky. These things have been going on for a long time.
Senator Mercer: That being said, as I have read, you are well down the road in your plans to build a replacement for the Ambassador Bridge on property that you currently own with your own money, with zero dollars from the Government of Canada and with zero dollars from the Government of the United States or the State of Michigan or Province of Ontario dollars; is that correct?
Mr. Stamper: That is correct.
Senator Mercer: When you build that bridge, and I assume this as a tourist looking at the bridge, that that new bridge will be to the west of the current bridge.
Mr. Stamper: That is correct.
Senator Mercer: It will be closer to wherever Highway 401 connects to the Detroit River.
Mr. Stamper: That is correct.
Senator Mercer: I am confused about having the presidential warrant in the documents you have presented. Here is a letter from the United States State Department, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. I love the titles the Americans come up with. Better known as the Canadian desk I suppose.
The part I wish to note, which is the part that you have conveniently highlighted for us, is:
Specifically the House Report provides that the International Bridge Act `should not be construed to adversely affect the rights of those operating bridges previously authorized by Congress to repair, replace, or enlarge existing bridges.'
If we are supposed to be putting in place legislation that is complementary to the presidential warrants, which is the stated desire by Transport Canada, this does not work for me. This does not seem to be complementary. Am I correct in my assumption?
Mr. Stamper: Are you asking whether the current Bill C-3 is complementary to the U.S.?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Mr. Stamper: No, not at all. It is opposite of the U.S.
Senator Mercer: At the hearing of this committee when Minister Cannon kindly came and testified, one of my questions to him, and I think one of Senator Phalen's questions to him, was about his meeting with the owners of the Ambassador Bridge, who are you people. He said at that time that he would meet with representatives of the Ambassador Bridge at any time as time would permit, but he still has not done that; right?
Mr. Stamper: We have sent two letters to the minister since that hearing and have not received a response, other than one of our consultants talked to a Transport Canada individual who said he is not interested in meeting until the DRIC study is complete; until the competing bridge process is finished, he is not interested in meeting with us.
Senator Mercer: You may not know this, but you are more of an expert in constructing bridges than I am. What is the approximate cost of the new bridge?
Mr. Stamper: According to the study itself, $1.3 billion for the Canadian half and $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion for the American half.
Senator Mercer: Are those Canadian or U.S. dollars?
Mr. Stamper: I am referring to the dollars of each country.
Senator Mercer: Are we talking roughly $2.5 billion that will be funded by the Government of Canada and by the Government of the United States?
Mr. Stamper: I think, based on the most recent newspaper articles quoting Minister Cannon, some type of a P-3 relationship where the Government of Canada puts money in and a private company puts money in.
Senator Mercer: What about the government of the United States?
Mr. Stamper: The Government of the United States has not made any comments about its intent to put money in or not put it in.
Senator Mercer: What about the State of Michigan?
Mr. Stamper: The State of Michigan has passed legislation, after holding hearings like this, which stipulates that no additional money can go into the DRIC study.
Senator Mercer: If we are to have a P-3 bridge — I am not against the P-3 concept entirely, although I do have some problems with it — where would the rest of the money come from? If it is $1.3 billion for the Canadian half of the bridge, we cannot build the bridge halfway across the river, and it is $1.2 billion for the American side and the State of Michigan has said no, and the U.S. government does not have a history of putting money into bridges, if I understand correctly, how does the other half of the bridge get built?
Mr. Stamper: I believe the hope is that a private party will step up, put the money in and pay the bonds through toll collection. For a competing bridge to spend $3 billion and pay the amount of debt on that $3 billion, the tolls at all the border crossings will go up considerably because that bridge's future is tied to taking part of our business, part of the Detroit Tunnel business and part of the Blue Water Bridge business to make it successful. We have run the numbers and supplied the information to the State of Michigan, and I would be glad to supply it to this committee. The cost of building this bridge will drive the toll structure up at least three times to pay the bonds on a new bridge.
Senator Mercer: In your best guess, what would the tolls have to be on the new bridge to meet those obligations?
Mr. Stamper: Three times what they are now.
Senator Mercer: Where are they now?
Mr. Stamper: Car tolls today are $3 U.S. and $4 Canadian, so it will be three times that just to pay the bond payments.
Senator Mercer: That would be on the new bridge. What are the tolls on your bridge?
Mr. Stamper: On our bridge they are $3 and $4. If we lose half of our business, our tolls will have to go up to pay our expenses.
Mr. Moroun: That is where Bill C-3 comes in because up until now the Transport Minister has not had the authority to dictate what the tolls will be at all the border crossings. One of the ways that helps keep the dream alive for a competitor bridge down the road from us is the fact that now they can say: Well, Ambassador Bridge, your new tolls for this will be that, and the new tolls at the new bridge will be this, and the new tolls at the other existing bridges and border crossings will be that, because without that assurance the bondholders will not buy the bonds. They need the assurance for the new bridge.
Senator Mercer: Would you not have to issue bonds to finance the new Ambassador Bridge?
Mr. Moroun: Yes, we will.
Senator Mercer: Do you have a record of bond issuing?
Mr. Moroun: We have financial consultants and we have the ability to finance our project with our existing tolls and existing traffic volumes.
Senator Mercer: I still do not understand why we have this proposed legislation.
The Chairman: We will have the senior officers back at one of our meetings.
Senator Tkachuk: We had the Mayor of Windsor attend here last week and we saw pictures of traffic backup well into the city. It looked like a disaster. We do have traffic issues and backups, obviously. Were those old pictures?
Mr. Stamper: Those were old pictures with snow on the ground, and we have not had snow in Windsor this year. Those pictures are at least two years old. We did not have that kind of problem in Windsor after we built additional booths for U.S. Customs and opened them at the end of 2004. The mayor tried to present you with an old reality; it is not the current reality at the border today.
Senator Tkachuk: Just so that committee members understand the process, is there anything stopping the government from building a new bridge under the present legislation? Could the government build a bridge in competition with you?
Mr. Stamper: No. Let me say this: We compete with the government now in Sarnia and Detroit.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not my question. If the government wishes to build a new bridge down the road there is nothing under the present legislation to stop the government from doing so.
Mr. Stamper: That is correct.
Senator Tkachuk: How will this legislation change that situation?
Mr. Stamper: Mr. Moroun can speak to this. It allows them to control where the traffic goes.
Senator Tkachuk: Under the present legislation, the government cannot determine the traffic flow.
Mr. Stamper: That is correct. We can compete if it is a fair, level competition. Bill C-3 creates an environment for Transport Canada to decide what the toll structures will be, where the traffic will go, what traffic each bridge can handle or from which bridge the traffic will be restricted. Micromanagement in that bill allows the government to compete with us in a very conflicted way. It gives the government the legal ability to direct the traffic and set the toll charges.
Senator Tkachuk: You cannot do that now with a separate piece of legislation. In other words, at present, the government could not decide to build another bridge exclusively for trucks.
Mr. Stamper: Under the present legislation that would be considered an expropriation of our business. The government is trying to pass a law that gives it a legal right to ensure that a government-sponsored bridge can survive by taking away traffic and tolls from the other existing border crossings. That is the intent of Bill C-3.
Mr. Moroun: Right now, how does a customer choose a border crossing? There are number of reasons for the customer's choice. How much does it cost to cross? What is the toll? What is the mileage differential between my point A and my point B if I pick this crossing or that crossing? How long is the wait at the border crossing? In other words, how much has that border crossing invested in inspection plaza, booths and facilities for Canada customs and U.S. Customs so that I can get over the crossing in a fast and expeditious way? What other kinds of facilities does that border crossing have? Does it have a rest stop, bathrooms, and a place to get out of the car and let the dog out, take the baby out of the car seat, and grab a cup of coffee, what have you? Those are all part of the normal decisions that the travelling public and commercial transport carriers make in deciding which border crossing to use. That is the way it has been forever.
Bill C-3 gives the Minister of Transport the ability to infringe on that normal decision-making process. Imagine the Minister of Transport deciding that at the London, Ontario junction of Highway 401 and Highway 402 all trucks flow into the truck marshalling yard managed by Transport Canada. "Let me see your bill of lading. Oh, you are going to the north side of Detroit; you take the Blue Water Bridge. You head down Highway 402 to Sarnia. Oh, you are going to Toledo, Ohio; you take the new bridge less than a mile away from the Ambassador Bridge, because that is a little closer to Toledo by about 300 feet. You are a car, so we will still allow you to use the Ambassador Bridge; go ahead."
That type of power and edict is contained in Bill C-3. I understand that the government might not us that power, but again, when someone pulls a gun, you have to assume that you will get shot. If you do not, you are liable to end up dead. Those are our concerns with Bill C-3. Up until now, the decision-making process by which customers decide on which border crossing to choose has been a decision made of their own free will.
Senator Tkachuk: You talked about the permit process, and you mentioned that the United States permit process was for new operations. In other words, the previous border crossings already administered were under old legislation, and the permit process was for new operations. Are most of the U.S. border crossings public-private partnerships, or are they private, or are they mostly public facilities?
Mr. Stamper: The U.S. border crossings are mostly public today, similar to what is happening in Canada and for the same reasons. Those border crossings went bankrupt, and the governments took them over, save only the Detroit- Windsor tunnel.
Mr. Moroun: The U.S. half is privately owned.
Mr. Stamper: 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 the 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 micromanage the whole border. We want to be able to dictate trucks travelling from Toronto to Chicago." The mileage to go through Port Huron and the Ambassador is almost identical, and people make up their minds based on service and all the other things that Mr. Moroun said. Transport Canada is trying to say, "We do not want that to happen any more. We want to manage the whole border and do things in a micromanagement way according to how we see fit to do it." That is fine when the government owns the facilities and can subsidize them, but no one has ever subsidized the Ambassador Bridge. Everything we have ever done has been with our private dollars, including coming out of bankruptcy. We are saying, "Put us on a level playing field, and we will compete with the government. Do not give the government the right to dictate every play on the board, including ours, and then compete with us."
Senator Tkachuk: A border is a different situation. The border crossing that you manage is a trade border crossing, so you have massive amounts of trucks moving goods back and forth across the border.
Mr. Stamper: And cars, I would like to add.
Senator Tkachuk: As well as a tremendous amount of automobiles. Governments control traffic all the time. They control where the railroads go. There are signs on the roads that say, "Trucks use this road," and trucks have to use that road. I know what it is like travelling in a vehicle where there are so many trucks that you fear for your safety half the time because you are very concerned about these huge vehicles, and maybe we should not worry about it, but people obviously do.
Of course, the trucks have problems at borders crossings that cars do not. We can get in the car and go to Detroit to see a baseball game. Trucks are going for commercial reasons, so what is wrong with routing trucks one way and cars another? For safety and security reasons and for moving passenger traffic quickly, that would be the best solution.
What is wrong with governments making those decisions? They make such decisions for highways. In the city of Saskatoon, there are truck routes. Trucks can only go a certain way; they cannot go downtown. They have to take the ring road to go to Edmonton. What is wrong with doing that for the Ambassador Bridge?
Mr. Stamper: They have a right to do that under statute regulations under certain conditions today. They are asking for additional rights in Bill C-3 at the discretion of the minister, rather than to create truck lanes or truck routes as the current legislation provides. Bill C-3 takes it out of the legislative process and gives the minister the discretion to do whatever he wants.
Senator Tkachuk: That is because it is a border.
Mr. Stamper: It is because Bill C-3 gives them the right to make those decisions.
Senator Tkachuk: A minister of highways can do that in a province, too. He does not need legislation to do that.
Mr. Stamper: There is legislation that sets out how to do that.
Senator Tkachuk: This bill gives the same right to the Minister of Transport that a minister of highways in Ontario has to stipulate which highways will be used by trucks and which by cars. That is a normal ministerial power.
Mr. Moroun: First, our business is owning the road. Trucks are currently allowed to use the Ambassador Bridge and have been since its inception. Since our business is owning the road, taking that away would be an expropriation. The government can do that but it will need to compensate us for taking away our business.
Second, on the U.S. side, three major interstates — Interstate 94, Interstate 96 and Interstate 75 — connect directly to the foot of the Ambassador Bridge, and that is where the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration want the trucks to go. Theoretically, they could do it, but practically it does not make any sense.
Senator Tkachuk: Neither the previous government nor this government have made any decisions about what they will do. You are concerned that if this bill passes they will make decisions that would be inherently bad for your business.
Mr. Moroun: Absolutely.
Senator Tkachuk: Governments can make all kinds of policy decisions on trade, tariffs, duties and health that would impair your business by stopping the normal flow of traffic. That is part of the risk you take when you get into bed with the devil, which is the government itself.
Mr. Moroun: Please do not quote us as saying that.
Senator Tkachuk: That is part of the risk when you operate a monopoly. Governments can do things like this.
Mr. Stamper: There is a current statute regulation process for doing those things. Bill C-3 takes it out of that process and says that the minister, at his discretion, can do those things. There is a process that a municipality must go through to put up "No Parking" signs on streets. There is a process to create and to eliminate truck routes. Bill C-3 would take it out of the process and give the minister the discretion to do what he wishes at his whim or the whim of bureaucrats.
I do not think this bill was created by the current minister. After hearing his testimony, I do not think that we have a problem with the minister. This is a bureaucratic effort that has been going on for a long time. It has gone through a number of submissions in law and failed, and it continues to get worse.
We did not object to Bill C-44 and Bill C-26. We agreed with them. We object to taking the kinds of changes you were just talking about out of the legislative process and putting them at the discretion of the minister, given that we compete with the government. We do not think it is morally right or fair. We do not think it is good public policy to put micromanagement discretion in the hands of a minister.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not anti-free enterprise; far from it. I want you to know that. I am just trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying to ensure that we examine this carefully. I am not opposed to amendments at any time on any government bill.
Mr. Stamper: We appreciate your attitude.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for appearing before us today. Senators Mercer and Tkachuk talked about presidential permits. I want to come at it from a different angle because I am still confused about this.
In a letter that you sent on November 3 you indicated that the clause in Bill C-3 governing the alteration of an international bridge or tunnel is inconsistent with legislation in the United States where presidential permits are only required for new crossings and not for the upgrading or replacement of existing infrastructure.
First, on a point of clarification, both the United States department that issues these permits and the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority have indicated that presidential permits do in fact apply to substantial modifications of existing crossings of the international border for which a definition with three criteria exists.
Would the Windsor-Detroit crossing project not be considered a substantial modification and therefore be subject to the presidential permit system?
Mr. Stamper: I will put the State Department letter back up for us to see. That department was asked that question, as it is the correct jurisdiction to answer it. The answer was no, because the presidential permit process is not intended to alter the rights to maintain, to twin or to expand current bridges. Those are the State Department words, not mine.
I do not know where the statement you have came from. We are quoting the statutes that govern presidential permits.
Mr. Moroun: And the letter they sent to us.
Senator Zimmer: You expressed a concern that the proposed legislation will create a serious impediment as well as delays to the project. I understand that as it stands currently the Canadian government can give its approval for alterations to existing structures by way of a special act and that alterations are governed on a case-by-case basis without a formal approval mechanism.
In practice, what currently happens when someone wishes to undertake such a project?
Mr. Stamper: We have filed an application with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and all the other agencies, including Transport Canada. We finally received a scoping document from Transport Canada. We have to do an environmental study and report, and then we have to get our building permits. That is the process we are going through in Canada and that is the process we are going through in the United States.
Senator Zimmer: Can you provide examples of how the new provision would impede or delay your project?
Mr. Stamper: By its own words, section 57 is retroactive.
Section 57 says any proposals made to any department of government will be governed under this law even though they were proposed before this law takes effect.
We see that as saying to us, and Transport Canada has not denied it, that we will be held up until regulations are completed. That could take a year or could be two years from now. Our process that has been in works for years could be held up until regulations are written based on terms of Bill C-3 as it is ultimately passed by this body and the House.
Mr. Moroun: The rules could change after the game has already started.
Senator Zimmer: That was basically my point.
Finally, Transport Canada has stated that any confidential corporate information provided under the proposed act, for an example as a result of clauses 14, 15 and 16, would be protected under the Canadian Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
What are your concerns about the adequacy of this legislation as compared to the protection of information as was proposed in Bill C-44 and cited in your letter?
Mr. Stamper: Mr. McMahon may know more about the details of Bill C-44, but I think it was specifically stated under the Canada Corporations Act.
Mr. McMahon: Bill C-26 and Bill C-44 both had a clause that talked about the Canadian Transportation Act. I think it was section 52, although I am not exactly sure. However, it dealt with the confidentiality issue. Our issue with confidentiality is simple. We have no concerns about sharing information with the Canadian government dealing with safety and security aspects of what is going on at our facility.
In Bill C-3, we believe it was just an omission; I do not believe it was intentional. I believe in retrospect that the bureaucrats will indeed include some language dealing with confidentiality. Our concern is we share the information with whoever has the right to it. As long as that information is kept confidential, I do not think you will hear anything different from my bosses saying that we will be happy to share that information with the respective agencies in the Canadian government. Who has the right to that information is our concern and I believe should be everyone's concern.
Senator Zimmer: What amendments to these clauses would help protect such information?
Mr. Stamper: Picking up the language that was in Bill C-44 with the confidentiality as expressed in the original act would be very helpful and I do believe that was an oversight. I do not believe that was intentional.
Senator Mercer: When would you start construction of the new bridge in absence of this bill or of regulations?
Mr. Stamper: As soon as we get our environmental clearance. It could be as short as six months.
Senator Mercer: Are you in the middle of that process now?
Mr. Stamper: Yes.
Senator Mercer: Could you break ground before mid-2007?
Mr. Stamper: Yes. We have done a lot of preliminary work, all the soil testing and the surveying of the property. We have had an environmental consultant on board for two years, going through all the preliminary steps. We met with all the Canadian agencies in early May. We were promised a scoping document by the end of May, which we received in November.
Senator Mercer: I will be pessimistic and say that you do not break ground until January 2008, which is six months later than you have talked about. When would the new bridge be ready for operation?
Mr. Stamper: Thirty months is the schedule.
Senator Mercer: Just to put it in context of the new bridge — and I recognize you do not speak on behalf of the new bridge and that you may not put it in its best light because of the competition — if they do not have a design or approval, how many years away is that?
Mr. Stamper: I would not want to try to answer that question. I think their estimates and their study have been in the year 2013.
Senator Mercer: Is that to begin or to complete?
Mr. Stamper: I do not want to answer that question. I just remember reading 2013 as a milestone.
Senator Mercer: Would that be 2013 as opposed to 2010?
Mr. Stamper: That is correct.
Senator Dawson: At the beginning, when this bill came in we were led to believe, and I am not saying there was any bad faith, it was going to be a bill that would pass easily as opposed to the division on a bill that had been proposed in the past, and it went through the House of Commons without practically any major discussion.
All of a sudden we understand that there is an adverse effect for one of the strong participants in the bill. I was told last week by someone from the Department of Transport that Bill C-11 is now in the House committee and we should be expecting it here so we should be going on as fast as possible with Bill C-3. I want to be sure that as we process this bill through this committee that we understand it is not the same as Bill C-44 and it is not the same as Bill C-26. This proposed legislation seems to have an adverse effect on a player that had not been identified and, from what we have been told, has not been listened to reasonably by the department and not listened to at all by the minister. I want to be sure we understand that I hope we do not think we will be fast tracking this bill.
Above and beyond the interests of the Ambassador Bridge, this government and governments will be going forward with PPPs in the future. We are hoping that more public-private partnerships will exist to share the responsibilities between the public and the private enterprise, whether it is Highway 50 or Highway 30 in Quebec or other bridges to be built. If we are not going to have respect for private projects that exist and that have been going well for 60 years or 70 years, how can we expect private investors to risk, whether it is the "competing" project or the "existing" projects?
I want to be sure that we can try to see how an amendment can be put through to address some of these issues. I am not asking a question as much as addressing the committee members and saying somewhere down the road we will have to sit down and discuss this issue. I went through the House committee proceedings and before it came here, I felt this bill would be easy and interesting but fast. However, I am now preoccupied that future projects and existing projects can be impeded by the fact that this legislation is not satisfactory at this time. I just want to be on the record on that, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: That is why I said we would meet again with the senior officers of the department and if you feel that you have some amendments to put forward, you can work with our legal counsel.
Senator Munson: I wish to echo the sentiments of Senator Dawson and Senator Mercer. This seemed to be slam dunk before. I am just curious about something though. You said there has been a bureaucratic process at play for a long time. Was there a vested interested and was it about giving the minister more power, or was it about having the same regulation for everyone? If this has been bureaucrats that have been pushing this envelope, with various ministers from different government, I do not know how they got this far.
Mr. Stamper: I will answer that by saying the bureaucrats built another bridge in Sarnia-Port Huron. They built freeway connections to that bridge, in Canada, Highway 402 and on the U.S. side Interstate 69. They did many things and invested billions of dollars of taxpayers' money with the hope that the traffic would move to that crossing.
Mr. Moroun: Could we look at that slide?
Mr. McMahon: I think it was slide 1.
Mr. Stamper: The bureaucrats projected the traffic growth at the Blue Water Bridge by taking it away from the corridor in Windsor-Detroit.
Mr. Moroun: Do you see that pink or violet coloured line? That is what the transport bureaucrats, consultants said traffic would do at the Blue Water Bridge before they got the government to spend the money for Highway 402, before they got the government to spend the money for the brand-new span, before they got the Michigan Department of Transportation to spend the money on I-69 and better connections to I-94. "Wrong" is a grave understatement.
Senator Tkachuk: The top line is what they got?
Mr. Moroun: That is correct. That is what the consultants and the bureaucrats at the highway department thought. The little, squiggly blue line is what actually happened.
Senator Tkachuk: This is not abnormal, though. This happens with every bill that comes before us. "That is all it is going to cost." I remember the $80 million for the gun registry. It will be $2 billion now.
Mr. Moroun: An interesting anecdote is that the twin span of the Blue Water Bridge has yet to have as much traffic as the single span had on it in a given year.
Mr. Stamper: The problem in Windsor, as someone said earlier, is the road. Highway 401 stopped 11 kilometres from the border because of the City of Windsor. The city is now trying to rectify that problem. Ontario and Canada need to fix the road and finish Highway 401 to the border. We are willing, able and prepared to invest our money to fix the border, the road across the river and all the facilities needed by the governments on both sides.
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 Chairman: Thank you very much. We learned a lot today.
Mr. Stamper: Let me add that we are prepared to come back, if you want us to, and give additional testimony.
The Chairman: I think we should meet with the senior officials first to hear their answers to our questions. In the meantime, feel free to send us any additional information you feel would be helpful.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not know if Senator Dawson was here when you mentioned we will be meeting.
The Chairman: We are meeting on Tuesday, December 5, with Teamsters Canada, and we will meet on Wednesday, December 6, with the senior officials of the department. I hope you will have all your questions ready for them.
Senator Tkachuk: We will not be going to clause-by-clause next week, but we will propose it for the following Tuesday.
The Chairman: You can check your amendments with the legal counsel if you have them ready at that time. We will be meeting with the senior officials first to answer our questions.
The committee adjourned.