OTTAWA — The president of the Ambassador Bridge and son of the bridge company’s powerful owner traveled to Parliament Hill yesterday to voice concerns over a government proposal that attempts to take some control of international border crossings, including the private Ambassador Bridge.

Speaking at the House of Commons Committee Hearings, Canadian Transit Co. and Detroit International Bridge Co. President Dan Stamper said he has “concerns with the intent and the spirit of Bill C-3,” — which would allow the government to exercise a level of authority over international vehicular bridges and tunnels and five international railway tunnels linking Canada and the U.S.

Proposed amendments would provide the Canadian government authority to approve or veto the construction or alteration of international bridges and to “develop regulations pertaining to the governance, maintenance, safety, security and operation.” The proposal would also permit the feds to rule on any sales or transfers affecting the ownership of international bridges and tunnels.

Bridge officials blasted Canadian legislators for a bill which
attempts to regulate the affairs of the private company

Stamper, who gave a historic account of how the private company has successfully operated the crossing and promoted efficient trade and tourism since it was acquired by Grosse Pointe trucking mogul Matty Moroun in 1979, suggested to the committee that the governance of the Ambassador was “put to bed” after a decade of litigation — ending with the private company’s right to operate the bridge as it chooses in exchange for new customs facilities solely at the bridge’s expense.

“Having gone above and beyond the terms of our 1992 agreement, we are troubled and question the true intent of Bill C-3,” Stamper said in his speech, which was obtained by Windsor issues activist Ed Arditti and posted to his website at http://windsorcityon.blogspot.com.

Stamper, who was flanked by Moroun’s son Matthew, refuted past suggestions by some parliamentarians that the bill is needed in order to keep the Ambassador on a leash while the governments of Canada and Michigan construct a new bridge just a few kilometers southwest of the Ambassador.

Not only is a new bridge not needed since, as Stamper claims, bridge traffic capacity is only at 50 percent, but in no way is the bridge undermining the binational process of a new crossing as it announced it would go ahead and twin the current Ambassador with or without government support.

It’s Windsor’s outdated infrastructure that causes whatever
bridge traffic problems that exist, says Ambassador boss Stamper

“It is the (binational selection committee) that began in 2001 and has been rushed in an effort to catch up with and replace the Ambassador Bridge’s commitment for additional lanes,” he said. “It is not my desire to be offensive but the truth does need to be told.”

(Ambassador officials submitted to the committee their proposal for twining the current span as a solution to Windsor-Detroit’s border woes, but the plan was scrapped — along with a proposal to convert an existing rail tunnel into a truck corridor — in favor a separate new crossing downriver).

Specifically regarding Bill C-3, the proposal is much too invasive in injecting government into the regulation of bridges as it “unnecessarily puts the Governor-in-Council into a micro-management position by authorizing it to adopt regulations on the operation and use of each bridge,” he says. “Simply stated, there is no problem with the status quo that would warrant this proposed new level of government involvement. Bill C-3 is a solution in search of a problem.”

Adds Mathew Moroun: “There is no meritorious catalyst for additional and burdensome regulation of the Ambassador Bridge at this time. The state of the bridge is strong, its finances are sound, its management sharp and successful, and its track record the best in the industry,” he said. “Additionally, there exists no national or international event, occurring recently or expected that would encourage or attract the invasive fettering of government.”

Perhaps as a reminder of the bridge company’s past legal victories on such matters, Stamper ended his speech with a slight reference to the courtroom: “We are not looking for another drawn out and disruptive legal mêlée. Lawsuits are not productive and are expensive while taking up time and effort that could be used more effectively in accomplishing something positive,” he said. “We want to work with the Governments of Canada, Ontario and Windsor along with those in the United States, Michigan and Detroit to provide the most effective border crossing experience for business and consumers in North America.”

Moroun also advised the government against a call to arms. “We are asking this committee and Transport Canada to please put down their sword,” he said. “Set this legislation aside. Instead, engage in meaningful dialogue not just at a very formal hearing to discuss the legalese of this legislation.”