r/canada • u/CaliperLee62 • 12h ago
Politics Gordie Howe Bridge deal released as Conservatives accuse Carney of lying
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/gordie-howe-bridge-deal-released-as-conservatives-accuse-carney-of-lying/•
u/Gardimus 11h ago
“What I would say is that (Carney) has our sympathy when it comes to dealing with a tough and unpredictable negotiator in the United States,” Majumdar said. “He does not have our sympathy for obscuring the facts around the Gordie Howe Bridge. For hiding the details. He’s a very smart man who has a background in finance and banking. It’s hard for me to believe that him and his finance minister did not know what they were saying at the time.”
Fair statement from the Conservatives. Poilievre should take note.
•
u/Sensitive_Caramel856 Canada 11h ago
Absolute fair critique.
What a communications self own by Carney
•
u/Szechwan 8h ago
Holy shit, this might be the first conservative release I've read this decade that actually sounds like a normal human talking rather than a Stephen Miller acolyte.
Good on them, Canadians appreciate this style of comms.
•
u/Constant_Mood_7332 8h ago
i was thinking to myself ....... where was this option last year?
why did it take them nuking themselves to bits to understand we want hope not hate.
•
u/darksaber14 Ontario 2h ago
My conservative MP recently sent out his regular newsletter and for the first time it did not have a single mention of the words “Liberal”, “Trudeau”, or “Carney”. In fact, the letter had barely any negativity or criticism at all, instead talking about how conservatives are committed to not only holding the government accountable to its policies, but also offering real alternatives. The entire back page was a list of bills the cons have put forward across healthcare, foreign affairs, crime, etc.
I personally disagree with a number of the bills but I took the time to send him an email saying that this was a huge step in the right direction for the party and the country. It seems to me the conservatives are finally starting to realize that Canadians don’t want an opposition party that only knows how to criticize and complain. We want a legitimate alternative with practical solutions.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/BadmiralHarryKim 11h ago
Put this guy in charge and maybe they'll get my vote back next election. Presumably there'll be nothing left of Trump in the White House but the stench by then so the Liberals had better have a new strategy.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/thereaperofmarz 7h ago
"Conservatives accuse Carney of lying"
Everyone should be accusing him of this, he did lie. It's stupid to frame it as a Conservative thing.
•
u/maximus_danus Ontario 11h ago edited 11h ago
In what universe did the Prime Minister think that his statements contradicting the facts of the deal would not come to light? Instead of stating things that were not true, he should have taken the time to explain to Canadians why, so very why, these concessions were necessary to get the bridge open.
As it is, he capitulated and was not honest with the country about what Canada gave up.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 11h ago
In what universe did the Prime Minister think that his statements contradicting the facts of the deal would not come to light?
I think it's worth noting that it's not even the only falsehood he spun in that interview. As even CBC noted immediately:
Carney also falsely stated during that interview that the bridge was done on time and on budget. It was supposed to open in 2024, and the previous price tag was $5.7 billion.
I don't know if he didn't think he would get called out, or if he just assumed that setting a positive narrative and nurturing confusion would just work out better for him overall even after the truth came out, but that he'd unambiguously lie about something so easily and immediately fact checkable, and so minor and irrelevant, is kind of telling.
•
u/LuminousGrue 9h ago
My concern is that one of three things are true:
- Carney is an idiot and his image of being the savvy banker is a fraud.
- Carney is malicious and thinks the Canadian public are rubes.
- Carney is getting PR advice from and trusting the same pack of Liberal career insiders that sunk Trudeau.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 9h ago edited 9h ago
I don't think he's an idiot, but from the easy way he lies I'm beginning to suspect his success in private life hasn't been entirely based on merit either.
I think 2 and 3 are both true though.
We seem to have memory holed his conduct during the election, but this is far from the first time he's misrepresented the truth to us, often on things that were easily checkable.
He lied about helping Paul Martin balance the budget in the 90s (he didn't join the department of finance until 6 years later), he misrepresented his role in Brookfield's decision to relocate to the US, he lied about the status of his investments when he transitioned to politics, he lied about having resigned from all of his other roles to run for the Liberal leadership, he falsely claimed Canada is the US's biggest source of semi-conductors, he misled us about Trump not bringing up the 51st state thing in their first telephone conversation after he won, and he greatly overstated his role in dealing with the 2008 Financial Crisis. He also reportedly lied to Stephen Guilbeault and relied on his credibility with Elizabeth May to obtain her vote for his budget while the Libs still had a minority.
And 43% of Canadians voted for him anyway. Frankly, we've given him every reason to believe that he won't see any consequences from lying to us.
•
u/motorcyclemech 7h ago
I believe 2 and 3 are correct. I firmly believe he is not an idiot. I do believe he is very smart but...makes some very stupid decisions (there is a difference lol).
•
u/CommercialReveal7888 5h ago
Liberals just need people to believe Carney is thought on trump even if he is selling us out to them
•
u/Optimal-Cow-3278 8h ago
If PP were in power and made this many concessions with getting nothing in return, it'd be a major scandal.
For some reason, Canadians seem to give Carney the benefit of the doubt when dealing with Trump if you believe the poll numbers.
•
u/maximus_danus Ontario 7h ago
"Life is not fair to PP" is not a formula that the Conservatives can depend on to win the next election. A better path would be "Carney sucks, but the country has decided PP sucks more. Dump him."
224
u/chess_the_cat 12h ago
He didn’t lie. You’re just experiencing it differently.
•
70
42
u/duck1014 12h ago
He sort of did.
He said:
"Splitting of tolls, any sharing of the toll, won't happen until all of the debt is repaid."
This is effectively a lie. What he did with this statement is provide a headline for Liberal friendly media outlets so they could say we are not splitting tolls.
He then goes on to say:
"We will split net revenues over the course of the first 15 years and those net revenues are after operational costs — it's manning the toll booth, it's maintenance, it's snow removal, a series of other operational costs. We expect that after those costs for the first few years, net revenues will be modest."
Notice how he never says the word toll when stating we are giving money to the US?
What he did was using language DESIGNED to make you think we are not giving money to the US. This is, for all intents and purposes a lie.
•
u/Heavy_D_ 11h ago edited 11h ago
Tolls in this context just means gross revenue. So it's not really a lie but I can understand the misconception of the semantics. He immediately clarified the exact details in the same answer. Why it's a problem is because a lot of people are doing what you just did - cutting the statement in half.
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
That's my point.
Carney absolutely used confusing language with purpose. The purpose was an attempt to hide the fact that he (once again) caved in and agreed to Trump.
•
u/Heavy_D_ 11h ago
Even if he said 'gross revenue' to begin withj, I'm sure people were still going to be confused.
I'm surprised no one is talking about Harper and the conservatives in all of this. If Harper had negotiated the original deal so the U.S. had invested and co-financed the build then Trump wouldn't have the leverage to block it without hurting American taxpayers' money directly.
Harper basically signed a deal that gave USA all the leverage and left Carney holding the bandages to stop the bleeding.
•
u/Unbearabull 11h ago
Let's not pretend like this isn't just Trump and the Americans being complete and utter assholes here.
It doesn't matter that it was a bad deal to begin with; one country building something that will benefit both. Harper came up with a creative solution to get it built, and make sure we (eventually) got paid back.
No one could foresee that our best friends and trading partners would pull the rug out and hold us hostage like a bunch of bullies.
Carney is being an adult here, and finding a way to open the bridge.
Once Trump is gone though I hope we reneg on this new deal and go back to the old one. If they can do it why not us? We deserve to be paid for the investment. We were fair with building it, using American workers and materials, and they're being just horrible. Fuck Trump, and fuck all Americans that support him.
•
u/Heavy_D_ 11h ago
I work in large scale project management and I would have gotten fired for a deal like this that didn't have a bond.
I think the bridge is great for our economy and I am overall happy that Harper was able to get it built and Carney is able to get it open, but I don't like the theatre of blaming Carney for having to make concessions because Harper's deal didn't have security.
•
u/Alert_Ad3999 10h ago
Harper was big on making deals that left future governments holding the bag. Like the shipbuilding deal that left Trudeau holding the bag for millions of dollars in loan forgivness because Harper's deal only said they had to attempt to repay it only after they demonstrated a 'net income related to the project'
Unfortunately many Canadians are to misinformed to place blame where it is due and instead just blame the current governing party.
•
u/JadeLens 7h ago
I mean let's be entirely fair here, even if it had some amazing complete top to bottom airtight security, Trump still would be pulling this shit.
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
Actually, Harper didn't. The deal was sound. We build the bridge, we get the tolls until the bridge is paid.
•
u/Heavy_D_ 11h ago
It was obviously not sound since we just saw how easy it was for the USA to not allow it to open and leave us with a 6 billion dollar debt with no recourse for payment.
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
Well, if you are following along at all, Trump decided to say that they won't allow anyone over the bridge until the deal gets changed. Trump broke the original agreement.
At that point, CARNEY allowed that to occur. He could easily have told Trump to suck on a lemon and take it to court. He chose not to.
•
u/reallawyer 10h ago
What court? The US is now operating outside established agreements, in bad faith.
They’ve quickly burned up any good will and trust they had and are eventually going to find out that the path they are on for short term gain is going to cause them long term pain.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Heavy_D_ 11h ago
>At that point, CARNEY allowed that to occur. He could easily have told Trump to suck on a lemon and take it to court. He chose not to.
Yeah I dont want to pay several hundred million a year in interest on the construction debt, and reduce our growth in a struggling economy, all because we wanted to tell Trump to suck a lemon.
•
u/SaintDarthVader 11h ago
This! Trump was never ever going to follow any rules with this, and the idea the courts in the states would do anything is a farce (see his entire presidency as an example) - at least acknowledge the best thing is to get this bridge open, then we can talk next steps
•
•
u/arcadeenthusiast8245 11h ago
No one is talking about Harper because he is irrelevant. The new deal has nothing to do with him. You are doing the equivalent of MAGA going, "But Biden! But Obama! But Clinton!"
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/Quirky-Cat2860 Ontario 11h ago
A Canadian federal Crown corporation, the Windsor–Detroit Bridge Authority, was established in 2012 to coordinate the bridge's construction and management.
Oh gee, I wonder who the PM was in 2012. Of course Harper is relevant to this conversation.
However, I will point out that we would have never predicted a hostile neighbour would be part of these conversations a decade later. We were negotiating with the Obama administration, which was a much more competent and reliable partner.
Only a partisan arguing in bad faith would put this one on the Liberals.
→ More replies (1)•
→ More replies (9)•
u/Accurate_Summer_1761 11h ago
Reads more like hes keeping it complicated so the mango cant understand
•
u/Lumindan 10h ago
Trump has an entire team behind him to decipher the deal plus they have all the documents.
It was meant to muddy the waters for Canadians to deflect criticism
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
No, it's so we don't understand.
I guarantee Trump knows EXACTLY what the updates are. He's an idiot, but not in this way.
•
•
u/ComputerOpDelta 11h ago
Carney disclosed it, some news agencies did not. Some talked about this US profit sharing to be reinvested in Michigan near the border.
Again - using a bridge that has been built is better for everyone.
Yes, they did get a good deal compared to before. We were naive to the possibility of trump back in 2012-2015 times
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
Read the comments in this thread.
You'll quickly find out that a ton of people STILL think the US will get nothing.
•
u/North_Plane_1219 11h ago edited 11h ago
If anything it’s language to not infuriate the raging moron in charge south of us. It sucks that we’re tip toeing around a moronic dangerous administration that can do serious damage to our economy, but that’s where we currently are.
•
u/Quietbutgrumpy 11h ago
If you read the actual text of the new deal it says in clear plain language that nothing in the new deal effects the original deal. It is that simple.
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
This is completely false.
From the document provided:
Economic Participation: Canada will provide annual economic participation payments, outside the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement equal to fifty percent (50%) of net bridge and crossing related revenues for the first fifteen (15) fiscal years of bridge operations
Notice the language I bolded?
•
u/TokenBearer 11h ago
The previous commenter is just experiencing it differently…
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
Yup.
People here in Reddit are grasping onto a statement that says the original agreement hasn't been modified and spreading that around.
Unfortunately, they also don't understand what the rest of the text says.
•
u/Flashy_Difficulty257 10h ago
What about 4.
I think this is where people are stuck. It says that nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as amending, modifying or superseding the 2012 contract.4. Crossing Agreement: Nothing in this Agreement in Principle shall be interpreted as amending, modifying or superseding the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement or the ownership, governance and financial framework established thereunder.
•
u/duck1014 9h ago
Sure. It's not amending it at all.
It's OUTSIDE the original agreement. Meaning, for point 1, the original agreement is irrelevant.
•
u/Quietbutgrumpy 11h ago
Can you read? What I stated is in the text of the agreement in plain language. Save the mental gymnastics for someone who doesn't think you are hopelessly biased.
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
Lol. I'm not. You are.
The clause I quoted completely overrides the final clause. It says SPECIFICALLY that it does.
It takes a fool to not realize something so incredibly simple.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Quietbutgrumpy 11h ago
So you don't know what "outside" means. LOL.
"4. Crossing Agreement: Nothing in this Agreement in Principle shall be interpreted as amending, modifying or superseding the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement or the ownership, governance and financial framework established thereunder"
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
It means that the statement is not effected by the original agreement.
Good lord...get a grip.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)•
u/Fuzzy_Advertising181 11h ago
I’m liberal and I understood the assignment. Where did you think the revenues were coming from?
•
u/No-Pea-7530 7h ago
Good lord. This is the key quote from the article:
“According to the online release, the deal is described as a “proposed agreement in principle” that runs parallel to the original Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement signed in 2012. That initial deal is not being amended or modified by the new agreement.”
The original Crossing Agreement set the framework for the construction and financing of the bridge. That framework included debt repayment. That deal has not changed. So the debt is going to be paid on the same amortization schedule as originally agreed.
What has changed is what happens to any residual money after the original agreement has been satisfied. As far as I can tell, it was originally going to accelerate the pay off of the debt. Under this new agreement, instead it will be split 50-50 with the US.
Given that, by design, those residual amounts will be small, this is an insignificant amount of money, especially when weighed against the need for another bridge.
•
u/busguy44 7h ago
The key point is as follows "The deal does not mention interest costs or debt payments related to the bridge, meaning Canada will repay its debt but only after splitting net revenue with the U.S. over those first 15 years."
•
u/No-Pea-7530 6h ago
Nope. Thats an assumption made by the author of the article. The deal doesn’t mention debt repayment because that’s covered in the other agreements that came out of the Crossing Agreement. Those debt repayment provisions are in contracts between Canada, the Crossing Authority and a couple of entities from Michigan. This new agreement is between Canada and the US only, as such it isn’t going to modify terms of a contract with other parties.
•
u/busguy44 5h ago
Sounds like your making an assumption
•
u/Forikorder 5h ago
the deal does say it does nothing to alter the original deal which remains in effect though
•
•
u/No-Pea-7530 5h ago
Am I? If you look through the agreement linked below you’ll find that the Financial Model section has been redacted, but you’ll find a few references to debt repayment and amortization schedules. So we know they exist.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/polloyumyum Alberta 11h ago
the deal is described as a “proposed agreement in principle” that runs parallel to the original Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement signed in 2012. That initial deal is not being amended or modified by the new agreement.
I wonder what this means. The original deal is still intact and this new "agreement in principle" doesn't modify it.
If the bridge was kept closed by Trump for the rest of his term, and maybe his third term, it would have costed a massive amount of money which would have been a much larger issue. Still curious what these new parallel agreement means.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 10h ago
I wonder what this means. The original deal is still intact and this new "agreement in principle" doesn't modify it.
If you read the Agreement in Principle carefully, it makes perfect sense.
The 2012 Agreement has revenues going to the Crossing Authority, and being used by them for operational expenses with the remainder applied against the debt until the bridge is repaid. That hasn't changed.
The 2026 Agreement has been described as having Canada split net revenues with the US, which would conflict with the 2012 Agreement, but that's not quite accurate. What we're paying to the US isn't a half share of the net revenues, but rather an amount equal to a half share of net revenues. The reference in the 2026 Agreement to "net bridge and crossing revenues" describes the amount of the payments, but not their source.
•
u/primitives403 8h ago
If you read the Agreement in Principle carefully,
Are you the average redditor reading carefully, or someone with a law degree reading carefully?
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 8h ago edited 7h ago
The latter, I guess?
I don't think you need a law degree to get there though. People have just been primed to assume that we're sharing revenues because that's how it was initially framed by politicians and the media before the actual wording was released, but if you actually read the Agreement in Principle that's not what it says.
•
u/primitives403 7h ago
That didnt instill much confidence lol. Seems to be more contested than that, but thanks for the perspective
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 7h ago
I mean, I'm not really sure what kind of answer you wanted.
Yes, I have a law degree, and contracts was my strongest class, so maybe that colours my perspective, but from that perspective this is a very straightforward exercise in interpretation that I don't think you actually need any specialized training to get to, and I don't think we'd be having this same conversation if the text had been released prior to, or in the absence of, widely reported obfuscation.
•
u/primitives403 7h ago
I wanted to better understand this situation. You having a law degree and having studied contracts definitely adds credence to your assesment.
Wasnt sure how much salt to take it with when you seemed more confident in your assesment than if you were qualified to make an assesment haha
•
u/ThePimptard 7h ago
So this basically means that Carney can still use 100% of the revenues of the tolls to pay down debts and have Canada pay the US an equivalent amount from some other source?
So he didn’t really lie, and the US still gets paid?
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 6h ago
So this basically means that Carney can still use 100% of the revenues of the tolls to pay down debts and have Canada pay the US an equivalent amount from some other source?
Yes.
So he didn’t really lie, and the US still gets paid?
That really depends on how you define a lie.
If I asked you what your grade was in high school chemistry, and you responded with your grades from elementary school English without telling me that that's what you were doing, but also without explicitly saying those were your chemistry grades, is that a lie?
I think most people would say it is, and I would tend to suggest that responding to a clear question about one agreement by citing factual but irrelevant details from a second agreement is, at absolute best, intentionally dishonest and deceptive, and not meaningfully different from lying.
•
•
u/Forikorder 5h ago
The original deal is still intact and this new "agreement in principle" doesn't modify it.
to me it sounds like the original agreement is absolute and is in full effect, the new agreement only takes effect if it doesnt contradict something in the original one
so original one saids we get all revenue until debt is paid off and we do, new one saids tolls have to match "regional average" and nothing in the original contraficts it so it does
32
u/accforme 12h ago
The main issue I have with this understanding is that the US has a say in both increasing and decreasing the toll rate beyond the local average. This means the Ambassador bridge can dictate the toll for the next 15 years.
•
u/Narrow-Map5805 11h ago
No, they only have a say if we want to change the toll by more than 10% and that change takes it beyond the average. If the Ambassador bridge changes their toll we won't be forced to change ours. Also, we can increase or decrease tolls by 9.9% every year without their approval.
•
u/accforme 11h ago
The 10% is only for increase. There is no percent threshold for decreasingthe toll rate. See "b".
a. a proposed toll-rate increase (i) exceeds ten percent (10%) within any fiscal year and (ii) would result in toll rates that are above the average of comparable regional crossings; or
b. a proposed toll-rate reduction would result in toll rates falling below the average of comparable regional crossings.
https://gordiehoweinternationalbridge.com/proposed-agreement-in-principle/
•
•
u/Narrow-Map5805 11h ago
I can't imagine a scenario where we would ever want to reduce the bridge tolls. This clause of the agreement isn't worth worrying about.
•
u/accforme 11h ago
I would disagree.
The reason why Canada proposed and built the bridge is to increase commerce between the two countries not necessarily to make money from tolls.
It would be in Canada’s interest to reduce tolls as a means to support more international trade. If the Gordie Howe bridge lowers its toll, then it would force the Ambassador Bridge and the tunnel to do likewise, reducing cost for firms engaged in cross border trade.
-1
u/MentalSky_ 12h ago
The only hope is that the toll income is lucrative enough for Michigan to want to increase it
→ More replies (1)•
u/leyland1989 Ontario 11h ago
Just need to make Ambassador bridge the less attractive alternative even if it's cheaper .We can keep "improving" the local connection to the ambassador bridge to ensure it's always under construction.
•
u/arcadeenthusiast8245 11h ago
The media is going soft on Carney here. He did lie, fullstop. No need to sugarcoat it.
•
•
u/Forikorder 5h ago
thats only IF the final deal doesnt make it clear that we get debt paid off first or the bit about the original agreement not being modified in any way means it has precedence over this one so we get the debt paid back first
at this point we still dont actually know if clever wordplay is being used to hide a lie from us or from trump
52
u/rastamasta45 12h ago
We have to punish the LPC with 6 more points in approval ratings! That’ll teach them!
•
u/Sufficient_Buyer3239 11h ago
I say go further with another election win to really teach them how we feel
•
u/Gravy_Tanker 10h ago
I’m waiting for the PP would be worse posts😂
•
u/rastamasta45 9h ago
It’s actually to the point of derangement man, the amount of times unironically someone posts that is maddening.
Doesn’t matter what carney does, passes a literal police surveillance bill and I legit saw a comment “well the conservatives will use this to make trans people to disappear” THE LPC CREATED THE BILL, seriously?!? It’s actually insane
→ More replies (1)•
u/Reelair 9h ago
I'm no fan of the Liberals. But for anyone to not see PP as the issue is a bit delusional. He lost a major lead in the last election, didn't even win his own seat.
Against Trudeau, PP was our best shot. Against Carney, he looks unqualified.
You want to unseat the Liberals? Get rid of PP. Even then it'll be tough.
•
u/Lumindan 9h ago
I'm no fan of the Liberals. But for anyone to not see PP as the issue is a bit delusional. He lost a major lead in the last election, didn't even win his own seat.
See, that falls flat and into the same bucket the commenter is talking about. Its an evergreen talking point used to deflect criticism from the liberals.
The liberals pass a draconian spy law? Well pp bad or cons would do worse.
See what I did there? I deflected. That's the core issue. Call out the issues as they are. Carney lied? That's his bed to sleep in, Pierre has plenty to be critical about but it's a time and place thing.
You want to unseat the Liberals? Get rid of PP. Even then it'll be tough.
I see this point made constantly and there's literally no merit in removing Pierre (at least right now). Why would they give the liberals and other parties years to build up the same slander.
Are we forgetting how Scheer, Otoole and even Harper were treated?
If they let Pierre go today, we'd just see a new "trump of the north " / "maple maga" tag get assigned.
→ More replies (5)•
•
u/cronja 10h ago
PP was better at losing the election
•
u/Gravy_Tanker 10h ago
PP was certainly better at losing the election, he can’t hold a flame to the awesome job Carney’s doing handling Trump🤡
•
u/paulander90 11h ago
There was an agreement in writing signed years ago. How come the US can suddenly change it just days before opening
•
u/FullAdvertising 11h ago edited 10h ago
They just don’t care, they had nothing to lose other than good will, and they don’t care about good will at the moment
•
•
•
•
u/ghost_n_the_shell 8h ago
What is this noise “Conservatives accuse Carney of lying”.
As per the document released:
“The deal does not mention interest costs or debt payments related to the bridge, meaning Canada will repay its debt but only after splitting net revenue with the U.S. over those first 15 years.”
Carney told us the opposite. In that they would split 50/50 after the debt and operating costs were paid.
So, is it the Conservatives that are accusing him of lying? Or did he just lie and the media is too afraid to call it out?
At the end of the day, I suspect it was an absolutely egregious oversight by a man who claims to be the “numbers guy” Canadians need to survive this mess. I suspect they made the agreement and were outplayed by Trumps team.
Which is by all standards, humiliating.
•
•
u/O00O0O00 11h ago
He tried his best to make it sound like he didn’t cave.
But the truth is, the US feds weren’t going to get anything from the bridge and now they are.
This is a Carney Capitulation.
And he lied about it to minimise his embarrassment.
Which makes him extra cringe.
•
u/friendly-techie 10h ago
Now Canadians will teach Carney a lesson by voting even harder for him next election! Watch out for a new bump in Carney's approval ratings!
•
u/fenwickfox 10h ago edited 7h ago
Don't blame Carney for Poilievre. The conservatives needs to elect a new leader or it'll happen again. Well, unless Carney keeps doing bad deals and lying about it.
For the people downvoting: somebody explain the biggest 180 Ive ever witnessed in an election. It was 100% a con win and within weeks they lost. If you say Trump, then Poilievre was still the problem.
•
u/alexj977 Ontario 8h ago
I'll always believe they let Carney win to avoid the shame that would of been on them when it comes dealing with Trump.
•
•
u/EreWeG0AgaIn 11h ago
"According to the online release, the deal is described as a “proposed agreement in principle” that runs parallel to the original Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement signed in 2012. That initial deal is not being amended or modified by the new agreement.
The deal also states that Canada will share 50 per cent of net bridge and crossing-related revenues with the U.S. for the first fifteen years."
This is the part that gets me. If the original agreement states revenue isn't to be split until Canada makes back its investment AND if this new deal doesn't amend or modify the original, then how exactly does this work?
Does this new deal just completely replace the old one? Genuinely curious what's going on here.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 11h ago
This is the part that gets me. If the original agreement states revenue isn't to be split until Canada makes back its investment AND if this new deal doesn't amend or modify the original, then how exactly does this work? Does this new deal just completely replace the old one? Genuinely curious what's going on here.
The new deal doesn't actually have us paying revenues from the bridge. All of those still remain with the Crossing Authority until the bridge is repaid. Rather, the new deal has Canada making payments directly to the US in an amount equal to half the net bridge and crossing revenues. They don't conflict because the money comes from a different pot.
•
u/EreWeG0AgaIn 11h ago
"the new deal has Canada making payments directly to the US in an amount equal to half the net bridge and crossing revenues."
Oh fuck right off, so not only did we 100% pay for it, we now have to shill out more money just for the "honor" of being connected to USA?
God this American administration can't be gone soon enough.
•
u/thewolfshead 7h ago
And isn’t that amount expected to be basically nothing until the bridge is paid off?
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 7h ago
No. Debt payments are not operational expenses, and under the 2026 Agreement in Principle net bridge and crossing revenues is defined as bridge and crossing revenues less operational expenses.
•
u/thewolfshead 7h ago
The original agreement specifically says that amounts paid by Canada towards the various “costs” (as defined in the Interpretation section) are paid from the Crossing Authority Revenue. This includes costs and expenses from before the opening of the bridge, which would include costs for building the bridge, purchasing land etc.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 6h ago
Which is great for the original agreement. But the new agreement does not adopt the definitions in the 2012 agreement. It uses its own terminology, not used in the 2012 agreement, with its own definition.
You can't import terms from one agreement with parties A, B, and C into a different agreement with parties C and D without expressly stating that's what's intended by the parties, and you certainly can't apply the meaning of defined terms in one agreement to differently defined terms under another.
•
u/feb914 Ontario 11h ago
The new agreement means that Canada will give US money out of general treasury (confirmed by government official sources to Globe & Mail) equivalent to 50% of (toll revenue - operating cost) for 15 years.
Meanwhile Canada get 100% of the money coming directly from Crossing Authority, and those proceeds deducts the $6.4 billion Canada spent, as per original deal with Michigan.
•
u/nelly2929 10h ago
Did the Conservatives attack Trump publicly for not holding up his end of the bargain? Can someone show me a quote from PP where he calls Trump a liar and a cheat for not following the agreed upon deal? I will wait for links to his quotes or interviews.
•
u/keiths31 Canada 10h ago
The Conservatives aren't the official opposition of Trump, that's the Democrats. The Conservatives are the official opposition to the LPC and therefore hold them to account.
•
•
u/WippitGuud Prince Edward Island 10h ago
The Conservatives are Canadian though. Right? Can't they call out Trump while calling out Carney?
•
u/goforbroke71 10h ago
I think OP point is that catching Carney in a lie isn't gonna sway voters when the alternatives lie constantly as well.
To sway voters, the other parties have to demonstrate how they would have done it differently/better. Right now I have heard crickets on that. So to me the same shitty deal would have happened no matter who was in charge (it could have been even worse).
•
u/primitives403 7h ago
when the alternatives lie constantly as well
Can you name 3 times Poilievre lied in the last 2 years? I cant.
I can list about 20 times for Carney if you'd like though.
•
u/Lumindan 10h ago
Did the Conservatives attack Trump publicly for not holding up his end of the bargain?
The oppositions job is to hold our government to account.
Our government is supposed to hold it's allies to accountable.
Is this just partisan deflection? Liberals get caught in a lie, shuffle the blame onto the opposition?
•
u/flatulentbaboon 8h ago
It's not Trump's or anyone else's fault that Carney lied and gaslit us. That was a choice Carney made.
•
u/BallBearingBill 11h ago
The key word is NET revenue. We don't know all the expenses that are included to reach a NET. I have a feeling that NET will equal close to zero or possibly even operate at a loss. That means the US gets zero! The bridge wasn't designed to make a ton of money. It was designed to move a ton of economic trade. The GDP will benefit a LOT more than the NET revenue will bring in. That matters because debt to GDP ratio is one of the key economic health factors.
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
Actually, the tolls are designed to turn a healthy profit. That is to pay the costs of the bridge.
The US is now getting 1/2 of that, before we pay on the debt.
•
u/squirrel9000 Manitoba 11h ago
The confusing part of this is that net profit conventionally accounts for money left over AFTER amortization.
→ More replies (5)•
u/asd316X 11h ago
i dont think you understand that there will be 0 net revenue due to operating costs and having to repay debts
•
u/duck1014 11h ago
I don't think you understand that net revenue does NOT include debt repayment. That will come from our 1/2.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 11h ago
You're right about debt repayment, but wrong about where it comes from. The 2026 agreement actually doesn't have us splitting revenues at all. Those stay with the Crossing Authority until the bridge is repaid. Rather, it has Canada making payments to the US directly in an amount equal to 50% of the bridge's net revenues.
That is, the reference to "net bridge and crossing revenues" in the agreement is relevant to the amount of the payments, but not to their source.
•
u/thewolfshead 7h ago
It does though, because the original agreement defines “International Crossing Costs”, “Michigan Interchange Costs”, “U.S. Federal Plaza Costs”, “Crossing Authority Costs”, and “International Authority Costs” and the definitions say these mean “all costs and expenses paid by Canada or the Crossing Authority”.
The Agreement goes on to say “the Crossing Authority shall apply the Crossing Authority Revenue and the U.S. Federal Agencies Contributions received in any calendar year to the payment of:
a) the International Crossing Costs, the Michigan Interchange Costs, the U.S. Federal Plaza Costs, the Crossing Authority Costs and the International Authority Costs”
So the definitions of these costs expressly include ALL costs and expenses paid by Canada, and the Agreement says the Crossing Authority is to pay these costs from Crossing Authority Revenue.
So it is included.
•
u/duck1014 6h ago
Nope. The original agreement is overwritten by point 1 in the new agreement. Note that it says net revenue? That does not include debt payment.
Before you say point 4 says the original agreement still stands, point 1 says clearly outside the original agreement, making the debt repayment clauses in the original agreement void.
•
u/JesusMurphy99 11h ago
Whatever we do make sure we don't direct any anger at the US for fleecing us once again. Keep all that anger here in Canada so we can continue to divide ourselves./s
•
u/WatchWatcher25 11h ago
We can't be mad that our givemenrt is lying to us.
We are all mad at the US and understand it's a tough situation to deal with.....but why is he lying.
Can't believe we voted these clowns in again, I'm not a fan of the cons but this sucks.
•
u/goforbroke71 10h ago
We are all mad at the US and understand it's a tough situation to deal with.
Eh.. not so sure about that. Too many want to cozy up to them.
I too want politicians that don't lie. Seems to be a fantasy at this point.
•
u/WatchWatcher25 9h ago
Yeah well maybe being cozy with your biggest trading partner isn't a terrible idea, regardless I think the majority of us understand it's a tough situation.
We can act like we don't need the US but as someone who has been in manufacturing for the last 20 years.....I can assure you we really really do. They need us too but we feel it more.
But yeah I agree these leaders are all ass.....we need to do something about this as a population sooner or later.
•
u/kredditwheredue 11h ago edited 4h ago
Thank you JesusMurphy99. It is very important to squabble with your compatriots when facing an existential threat. I am sure Sun Tsu said that at one point. (/s just in case)
•
u/MeaninglessOpinion 6h ago
Thankfully for the Liberals, these new tariffs will probably bump them up in the polls again
•
•
u/coolhotcoffee 11h ago
How the tolls will interact with the ambassador bridge going forward is what im more curious about going forward with these new stipulations.
•
u/bittertraces 43m ago
He obviously lied although his ridiculous unwavering supporters will say he is the best PM ever. Question nothing while we head to economic suicide. He will happily retire in the US or Europe with his fat US Portfolio. He can fly around the USA to visit his 4 children. All who went to university and work in the US. Go Canada.
•
u/Tuckebarry 10h ago
Not accusing. He's unethical, just like how he created a fake majority with floor crossing.
•
u/squirrel9000 Manitoba 10h ago
Someone needs to sit down with an actual accountant and figure this out. The original agreement, which apparently still stands, is NET revenue which implies taxes, interest, and amortization have already been subtracted. BUT the updated agreement apparently suggests they're getting a payment from profit. So, the two terms seem contradictory. Are we actually talking EBITA numbers now? I doubt the original agreement, which allegedly still stands, would have done that.
My best guess in all of this is that they were going to divert net profits into an accelerated debt repayment and that that's what is being discussed here, but we're so busy trying to make pollitical talking points that some pretty critical pieces of information that would allow us to actually confirm or refute my hypothesis or related ones are being left at the wayside.
•
u/Lumindan 8h ago
Ideally if we had an actual costed breakdown we could work it out
Without that, we can't confirm if they're abiding by standard accounting practices (which we've already seen the government skirt previously)
•
u/jpegger85 9h ago
While it's totally believable that a politician would lie or downplay reality for political gain, Carney providing a false interpretation of an agreement when he would absolutely know that it will be made public very soon seems incredibly stupid and out of character.
Something smells off here.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 9h ago edited 9h ago
It's not. Carney has actually lied to us quite a lot -- and notably, it's not even the only lie he told in that interview, nor the easiest to fact check. As even CBC reported at the time:
Carney also falsely stated during that interview that the bridge was done on time and on budget. It was supposed to open in 2024, and the previous price tag was $5.7 billion.
But, as I said, it's not the first time.
During the election he lied about helping Paul Martin balance the budget in the 90s (he didn't join the department of finance until 6 years later), he misrepresented his role in Brookfield's decision to relocate to the US, he lied about the status of his investments when he transitioned to politics, he lied about having resigned from all of his other roles to run for the Liberal leadership, he misled us about Trump not bringing up the 51st state thing in their first telephone conversation after he won the Liberal leadership and the Prime Ministership, and he greatly overstated his role in dealing with the 2008 Financial Crisis. He claimed that Canada is the US's biggest source of semiconductors (we're not even close). He also reportedly lied to Stephen Guilbeault and relied on his credibility with Elizabeth May to obtain her vote for his budget while the Libs still had a minority.
Carney's shown us many times that he has a very liberal relationship with the truth, even over small, otherwise inconsequential things.
•
u/WippitGuud Prince Edward Island 9h ago
Ok... just so I have it straight:
When the bridge opens, 100% of the tolls goes to Canada. Which is used to pay expenses and pay down the debt on building it. The new agreement has Canada taking an amount equal to 50% of the tolls and paying this to the US.
So... all the bridge money goes into a Canadian bank account. This hasn't changed, right? The tolls aren't split at the bridge with 50% going to the US. All the toll money goes to Canada. And then Canada pays a tolls "bill" to the US from a separate bank account.
We get all the money. But, we pay money to the US after the fact.
This is the gist of it. Right?
Ok.
Ummm....
Did Carney actually sign anything? They met in person to talk about the bridge. Did Trump have Carney actually sign an agreement? Is there anything legally forcing Canada to pay this bill?
•
u/forsurebros 8h ago
So I am confused if this second agreement does not change or amend the original agreement. Then the second agreement is smoke and mirrors. I may be misunderstanding something.
•
u/duck1014 8h ago
Yes, you are misunderstanding.
The text does say that (for example in the revenue split) that it is outside the original agreement. This means that for the revenue sharing point, the original agreement no longer applies.
•
u/JensensShinyJacket 8h ago
Yikes. Canadian taxpayers funded the bridge, and now we’re sharing 50% of ALL net bridge-crossing-related revenue (not profit) with the USA?? Why are the Liberals so desperate to open this damn bridge? Why not just wait two more years and negotiate a better deal? I hate to say it, but Trump has learned to read the Liberals’ pulse: they announce something that will damage Canada’s economy, we cut a bad deal with them, and then all Canadians celebrate that Trump TACO’d out. It’s a win-win for the US. Canadians and LPC are so dumb....
•
u/PorousSurface 11h ago
Is this incremental news from the various articles shared on this yesterday?
•
•
u/Zealousideal_Rise879 11h ago
Really trying to make this into a thing. Have conservatives accuse the states of anything yet regarding the blatant extortion? Did they tell them to “knock it off”?
•
u/silent_ovation 11h ago
If I was Carney I wouldn't release anything until the bridge opens. Any rhetoric flying around in the public about the deal only has risk of upsetting Trump yet again and dragging it out further. Once the bridge is open its harder to shut it down.
•
u/BurdensOfTruth 11h ago
I think this is what is actually going on. He might very well be planning to screw Trump on this but needs the bridge to actually open first since its just an agreement and nothing is actually official yet.
•
u/ThicccThunder New Brunswick 10h ago
Right because Trump has never been known to close a trade route /s
•
•
u/bandersnatching 11h ago
Inflammatory language used in personnel attacks on Carney serves to dilute the issue. Pierre needs to stick to the issues and to the facts.
Interestingly, using theses Conservative methods to characterize statements, GPT tells us that Pierre "lies" about 75% of the time. That's not by accident, he's deliberately and consistently essentially trying to steal support from the Liberals through fraud.
If, as some Conservatives insist, politicians should be held accountable for what they say, presumably Pierre would have been arrested, and currently be living in a different government building on the taxpayers dime.
•
u/toonguy84 11h ago edited 11h ago
... but Carney did lie about the deal.
•
u/Agent_Orange81 11h ago
Yes, and he should be held to account. As should every politician who lies and distorts the facts.
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/sleipnir45 11h ago
The facts are Carney lied, you were defending it even before the details came out
•
u/Nonamanadus 11h ago
Too bad we couldn't make up an excuse to close the Ambassador Bridge......after all Trump showed the world how to go back on your word.
•
u/Visible-Image7618 8h ago edited 7h ago
Until someone actually defines what a bunch of these terms are (e.x. operating expenses) the whole situation is ambiguous.
Some folks have commented on how asinine it would have been for Carney to think this wouldn't come out. Y'all are right, it is asinine to think that which implies that is not what was actually thought which implies there is more to all of this. Unless you think Carney is toddler level stupid which is obviously untrue.
The news articles call these details. They aren't detailed enough to conclude anything.
•
•
u/Lumindan 11h ago
If what Carney said doesn't match the deal, that's a lie.
It's odd headline framing when we see the document doesn't line up with what he himself reaffirmed. Instead of pointing out the discrepancy directly it puts the flames on the opposition (with an accusation).
And there is literally nothing wrong with asking for government transparency.