Elbows Down And Hands Up?

In the old westerns, bandits would board trains and demand passengers turn over all their money upon pain of death. Everyone complied, the bandits happy with their take and the passengers relieved to live another day. And even though we are far removed from that time, that equation is still very much in play today, with Canada playing the victim to American banditry in the form of Donald Trump's relentless demands. However, as I have stated previously, most recently about the Gordie Howe Bridge, compliance comes with additional costs: the slow surrendering of our national sovereignty.

On the issue of the Gordie Howe Bridge concessions, Mark Carney, to put it politely, has been misleading:

At an event Thursday in London, Ont., Carney was asked whether the $6.4 billion of investment made by Canada would be collected before profits from the bridge would be split with the U.S. side.

"It's not splitting the tolls of the bridge," Carney told journalists. "It is an agreement for 15 years to split net revenues.

"Any sharing of the toll revenue won't happen until all the debt, all of the debt, is repaid."

A report in The Globe and Mail suggests otherwise: 

A 15-year side deal struck by Canada and the United States on the new Gordie Howe International Bridge will see Ottawa cut Washington cheques that amount to half the toll revenues minus operating costs for the span connecting Windsor and Detroit.

But Canada, which solely financed the $6.4-billion bridge, will not be subtracting any provision to repay debt from the annual payments to the United States, sources say.

A report in Bloomberg News , which has seen a copy of the arrangement, offers these details:

Canada and the US agreed to split the profit from a new bridge between Ontario and Michigan for 15 years — with no provision to cover Canada’s debt-service costs on the project, according to a copy of the pact seen by Bloomberg News.

The agreement in principle covering the Gordie Howe International Bridge appears to contradict earlier public remarks from Prime Minister Mark Carney. And it shows what Canada conceded to get the President Donald Trump’s administration to stop blocking the 1.5-mile bridge over the Detroit River.

[T]he agreement makes no mention of Canada’s interest expenses or debt payments related to the bridge.

Under the original deal, Canada paid the entire C$6.4 billion ($4.6 billion) construction cost on the condition that it would collect all the toll revenue until it was repaid.

Where does the truth lie? That question can only be answered by a full public release of the new agreement. Anything less suggests a Canadian government embarrassed by yet another capitulation, another effort at appeasement, none of which have thus far produced anything more than new demands from the Trump administration. As noted by Andrew MacDougall:

If Howe were the only capitulation, that would be one thing. But it’s not.

Remember the Digital Services Tax? Binned off by Carney after Trump barked. Counter-tariffs to Trump’s? Rolled back, despite Carney’s pledge to go dollar-for-dollar. A revised U.S. trade deal? Still not done. Were these policies ever deliverable? Well, Carney said they were. So where are they? Our elbows are so far down they might as well be our feet.

Apologists will argue that whatever the actual details of this deal, at least the bridge will now open, to which I have just one question: At what cost?

UPDATED: It's Happened Again

 

I'm sad to report that, as per my last post, I seem to have fallen victim yet again to the misremembering syndrome.

Now it involves the Gordie Howe Bridge. This is what I had seemed to remember about the Canadian rates:

The problem with those rates is reflected in this story from the Wall Street Journal, which talks about the 'negotiations' leading to a new opening date of the bridge on July 27th (the original date having been nixed by a mad Trump after the Morouns, the family which owns the Ambassador Bridge and a large donor to Trump, complained about the competition it would pose to them). 

A Canadian official said Washington and Ottawa agreed that half of the net profit the bridge generates would go toward a regional development fund. The official added that the bridge authority would need U.S. approval to increase Gordie Howe tolls by 10% or to cut tolls below levels charged by comparable regional crossings—like the privately held Ambassador Bridge, which already connects Detroit to Windsor.

So the problem would seem to have been the disparity in pricing. Here are the Ambassador Bridge rates:

Were my memory working fine, the problem here would be clear: the Canadian rates would have to rise substantially before Uncle Sam permitted it to open, owing to the Morouns' influence and greed. And sadly, that would mean yet another piece of our sovereignty had been surrendered, without even a token fight. 

UPDATE: For the latest in this sickening drama, click here.

UPDATED: An Exercise We Should Be Avoiding At All Costs

While I am all for exercises that help keep us healthy, supple and mobile, as Canadians there is one that we should never undertake: bending over for bullies. The flexibility it engenders is bad for our national reputation.  Unfortunately, however, it is looking increasingly like our federal government's exercise of choice in pursuing its relationship with the U.S.

Consider the 'suppleness' we have shown thus far: removal of most of the retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.; removal of the digital services tax; the pending removal of the CRTC's order for streaming giants to start paying 15% of their Canadian revenues toward productions in this country.

For all of this, what have we gotten from the U.S. and The Beast that leads it? Nothing, coupled with a claim of indifference to renewing the CUSMA agreement, and a demand to be 'compensated' for the new Gordie Howe bridge before it can open, despite the fact that it was built entirely on our dime.

These exercises in submission, a far cry from the elbows up we were urged to practise for so long, have yielded nothing but more American disdain, and it has undeniably gravely hurt our national reputation, as well as our national pride.

Columnist Mark McQueen offers his thoughts on what we have done to ourselves viv a vis the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge, which was to be officially opened today:

When asked for a reaction, the White House threw a wrench in the works, saying that the “president’s position on the Gordie Howe Bridge has not changed. The Administration remains committed to securing the best possible deal for the American people.”

One could take that statement to mean either that the bridge would be opening, despite the president’s prior objections. Or, ominously, that Ottawa’s announcement didn’t have the support of the U.S. Administration.

On Wednesday, the trump card was quickly laid, with the president telling reporters that he is “not looking to renew” the CUSMA. Period.

Sound a bit like The Beast's famous dealing? Guess it worked:

Terrible poker players that they are, the federal Liberals folded immediately. Early yesterday, Ottawa formally rescinded its invitations [for the opening].

What the feds could have done, according to McQueen, was something quite different.

 If Ottawa wanted to give life to its “Elbow’s Up” campaign, it would have been poetic to unilaterally open Howe’s namesake bridge. The president clearly wasn’t on board with the opening in the absence of a broader trade deal, meaning that Ottawa proceeded without Trump’s consent.

That was a valid, NHL Enforcer-like strategy, had the Liberals just stuck to it.

One of two things would have happened: Washington would have acquiesced, recognizing the economic benefits of improved border flows might help Republicans prevail in key Senate races in Michigan and Ohio this fall.

In the alternative, Washington was within their rights to keep their U.S. Customs plaza closed tight. But that wouldn’t have stopped Carney from capitalizing on the summer tourist season by opening the bridge to U.S. vacationers and truckers looking to take Gordie Howe into Canada.

Instead, Canada’s new ambassador to Washington, Mark Wiseman, allowed the worst of all scenarios to play out: Ottawa kicked the president in the shins, only to immediately capitulate, yet again.

And what final form that capitulation will take is the thing that troubles me most. Instead of keeping all the tolls until the bridge is paid for, will Carney try more appeasement? Will he offer half the bridge to the Americans? Will he agree that the Americans should get all the tolls? The possible scenarios are many, all with the same result: more national humiliation.

UPDATE: If you subscribe to The Globe, I'd suggest you read this article. If you don't, here are a few salient points:

The existing century-old Ambassador Bridge is privately owned by the billionaire Michigan-based Moroun family, who charge vehicles at least double the rate paid at publicly owned crossings in other parts of Ontario.

Despite having a monopoly for many years, the Morouns want more:

United States Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra are trying to negotiate a deal that would save the Moroun family from losing too much money once they have to compete with the publicly owned Gordie Howe bridge, The Globe reported.

The Moroun family, which also owns a trucking empire, has fought for years to shut down any competition to the Ambassador, pouring tens of millions of dollars into federal and state politics along the way. That includes donating more than US$1-million to a campaign group supporting U.S. President Donald Trump. The family had also employed a lobbying firm – Ballard Partners – well-connected within the Trump administration, counting Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, and his ex-attorney-general, Pam Bondi, among its former employees.

A commentator on the site suggested closing down the Canadian portion of the Ambassador Bridge, citing drug and gun traffic. That'll never happen, of course, but anyway, one can dream of a government with spine, eh?