I have no problem saying that Harper failed. If you make an agreement like this one and build something this massive that starts in one country and ends across the border in another country, I’d say you better have all your legal details tied up beforehand. I’d even risk suggesting that Harper, being the Chairman of the IDU, had the forethought to undermine Canadian interests, or at least ignore ramifications that could potentially put us at risk.
Bo, another interesting aspect that nobody's talking about: Just as Washington controls (their side) as to whether the bridge opens -- specifically, border crossing, etc. -- Ottawa has the same leverage, but with the Ambassador Bridge!
If they jerk us around more with Howe, couldn't Canada just say "well, we're concerned about safety of the Ambassador Bridge, and are hereby closing it to traffic until the owners repair it."
Further side note: I hope the Bridge Authority does whatever it can to keep the tolls as low as possible. Puts financial pressure on the Ambassador Bridge, drives more traffic to Howe, and guarantees (for the first several years at least) no money given to the US-Controlled "Economic Development Fund" (which you can bet is going to be used for Ambassador Bridge upgrades).
In fact, if we're splitting the "net" 50/50, and if there's a LOSS (which is expected for at least the first two years, if not longer), then doesn't the US actually OWE Canada money (50% of the loss)? (Okay, we won't see any money from them -- but to me, that means the Economic Dev Fund starts off with deficits, so that any future "profit" has to cover those losses first).
My frustration with this issue is the lack of clarity in the reporting and analysis. There was a lot of agenda driven commentary from the outset. I looked for à clear statement of the original arrangement. Ditto for the sequel. At best Carney’s was vague but bordering on misleading, and others took advantage. Time and measured assessment such as yours and others have finally made this situation clear. I think Canadians have a realistic assessment of what we face with the current Trump regime and the broader long US objectives for its relationship. We need however truth and clarity to support the difficult decisions federal and provincial governments must make in the adversarial world.
I expect in the medium term, this fuss will fade away. What remains is that Canada cannot trust the United States. Carney’s agenda to disengage from the US and substantial diversify trade and other relations remain an existential priority.
I have no problem saying that Harper failed. If you make an agreement like this one and build something this massive that starts in one country and ends across the border in another country, I’d say you better have all your legal details tied up beforehand. I’d even risk suggesting that Harper, being the Chairman of the IDU, had the forethought to undermine Canadian interests, or at least ignore ramifications that could potentially put us at risk.
Bo, another interesting aspect that nobody's talking about: Just as Washington controls (their side) as to whether the bridge opens -- specifically, border crossing, etc. -- Ottawa has the same leverage, but with the Ambassador Bridge!
If they jerk us around more with Howe, couldn't Canada just say "well, we're concerned about safety of the Ambassador Bridge, and are hereby closing it to traffic until the owners repair it."
Further side note: I hope the Bridge Authority does whatever it can to keep the tolls as low as possible. Puts financial pressure on the Ambassador Bridge, drives more traffic to Howe, and guarantees (for the first several years at least) no money given to the US-Controlled "Economic Development Fund" (which you can bet is going to be used for Ambassador Bridge upgrades).
In fact, if we're splitting the "net" 50/50, and if there's a LOSS (which is expected for at least the first two years, if not longer), then doesn't the US actually OWE Canada money (50% of the loss)? (Okay, we won't see any money from them -- but to me, that means the Economic Dev Fund starts off with deficits, so that any future "profit" has to cover those losses first).
Guess we'll see at some point.
You make a good point about future deals.
My frustration with this issue is the lack of clarity in the reporting and analysis. There was a lot of agenda driven commentary from the outset. I looked for à clear statement of the original arrangement. Ditto for the sequel. At best Carney’s was vague but bordering on misleading, and others took advantage. Time and measured assessment such as yours and others have finally made this situation clear. I think Canadians have a realistic assessment of what we face with the current Trump regime and the broader long US objectives for its relationship. We need however truth and clarity to support the difficult decisions federal and provincial governments must make in the adversarial world.
I expect in the medium term, this fuss will fade away. What remains is that Canada cannot trust the United States. Carney’s agenda to disengage from the US and substantial diversify trade and other relations remain an existential priority.