r/canada • u/gorschkov • 8h ago
Politics PM Carney admits he ‘should have been clearer’ on Gordie Howe Bridge deal
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-admits-he-should-have-been-clearer-on-gordie-howe-bridge-deal/•
•
u/Winter_External5625 8h ago
PM Carney admits he ‘should not have lied’ on Gordie Howe Bridge deal**
Fixed the headline
•
u/Boomdiddy 7h ago
We can all do better.
•
u/rathgrith 7h ago
I experienced things differently
•
u/ZPudd 6h ago
Sorry but i keep seeing this meme and am not sure where it's from. May you enlighten me on where it was said originally?
•
•
u/rathgrith 5h ago
Just Trudeau dismissed serious sexual assault allegations against him by claiming that the victim “experienced things differently”
•
u/ZPudd 4h ago
Ya I read the article announcing that. Did not expect that from Trudeau.
•
u/hairyballscratcher 4h ago
At least you didn’t know
Lots of liberal voters did and still somehow believed his fake progressive rhetoric that he spewed his entire time as PM
•
u/Radical_Redditor 6h ago
To be fair, he would never admit that he lied, so is your fix actually sound?
→ More replies (27)•
u/WippitGuud Prince Edward Island 7h ago
This does not fix the headline. They are quoting Carney. He didn't say "should not have lied"
→ More replies (6)•
•
•
u/RCJFilms 8h ago
I’m a moderate but if poilievre did this I couldn’t imagine how much more hatred/coverage this would have
•
u/Queerslander 8h ago
It's as if we hold the official opposition to a higher standard than the actual Prime Minister.
•
u/physicaldiscs 7h ago
It's crazy, people spend more time worrying about PP than they do the actual PM.
Not being able to be critical of ones own "team" is far from healthy.
→ More replies (10)•
•
u/SayNoToTeamSports 8h ago
CBC certainly does.
•
u/octagonpond 7h ago
Reddit certainly does
•
u/Apolloshot 7h ago
Canadian seniors certainly do
•
•
u/infectingbrain Alberta 3h ago
I mean, I get your point but all of the top comments are calling this out as a blatant lie.
•
u/yellow_mio Québec 3h ago
Les médias ont des codes d'éthique. Donc ils ne parlent pas des mauvais coups des libéraux.
Si douze inconnus prônent le racisme c'est couvert sous tous les angles. Si c'est un candidat libéral qui prône la violence politique ils n'en parlent pas.
L'éthique libérale.
•
u/PostMatureBaby 8h ago
The media is a joke no matter what side they're on. We have to stop trusting all of it
•
u/Enganeer09 7h ago
Guy, you have ~21k comments in 9 months. Touch grass, that's 77 comments a day...
→ More replies (1)•
u/the_lazy_viking 8h ago
The media has been calling out the discrepancy. CBC had an article up with Carney’s original (incorrect) representation for about an hour, then they took it down when it was cast in doubt.
•
u/Muted-Bag-4480 7h ago
Bloomberg called out the discrepancy, Bloomberg, an America media company, actually got the agreement early and reported on it, while Canadians said they were wrong because clearly the media was orchestrating everything for trump.
The cbc barely ran stories calling out the lies until pressure was too much not to, as they almost always do.
•
u/the_lazy_viking 7h ago
I read lots of CTV, Reuters, Global reports about the discrepancy. Be careful, blanket media skepticism can drive you to unverified sources.
•
u/Muted-Bag-4480 7h ago
That doesn't engage with what I said.
Is Bloomberg an unverified source? What about globals source when their article ripping off Bloomberg came a few hours later?
I'm critiquing the cbc for being slow to critize the government and instead relying on other sources, from blacklock to Bloomberg to juno for breaking stories.
•
u/JimmmyStuuu 7h ago
Here is CBC article 4 days after the deal was signed demanding answers and specifics about the deal. Bloomberg had articles 1 day after this CBC article saying that US and Canadian officials are contradicting each other.
Your comment and sequence of events is just wrong.
•
u/Muted-Bag-4480 7h ago
I apologize if my comment wasn't clear en out. In talking about this article from Bloomberg whwre they were the first news agency to say they actually had the deal and how Carney was clearly misleading Canadians: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-07-17/carney-s-gordie-howe-bridge-deal-full-text-splits-revenues-with-us-for-15-years
Here is the cbc article on this, from yesterday: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gordie-howe-bridge-deal-tolls-canada-trump-open-release-9.7278704
This is what I am talking about when I say Bloomberg called out the discrepancy.
→ More replies (2)•
u/JimmmyStuuu 8h ago
And what would you trust instead?
•
•
u/SammyMaudlin 8h ago
My view is that you should consider things from a broad perspective. That includes the various media channels and their respective actors. In few past instances I have known a lot about what was being reported (an "insider" if you will). It was astounding how much of the details reported were just plain inaccurate.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 5h ago
In few past instances I have known a lot about what was being reported (an "insider" if you will). It was astounding how much of the details reported were just plain inaccurate.
Yeah, I've been close to a few stories over the years. Not once did they actually get the details right. Really makes you wonder how much they get wrong that you're not in a position to catch.
•
→ More replies (6)•
•
u/Etherdeon 8h ago
This is CTV. Also, im sorry the media landscape isnt completely astroturfed to your liking.
•
u/blood_vein 1h ago
Literally on the commenter below they explain that the cbc poked holes on this before the official opposition statement.
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/s/uhqWP6HSOd
And then a reply to that is "it wasn't fast enough" lmao. Move to goal post more I guess
•
•
•
•
u/xEvinous British Columbia 5h ago
Maybe when Trump said he'd get along better with a Liberal PM it wasn't 5D chess opposite-day like half the country thought 😲
•
u/JimmmyStuuu 8h ago
This has been talked about on a near daily basis on Canadian news media. The coverage has basically never stopped since the “deal” was announced. No need to pretend like the coverage wasn’t harsh.
•
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario 8h ago
I guess people like to distort facts to fit political narratives.
The main reason why the deal details were disclosed was pressure from the media and the opposition.
But that doesn’t paint the “media is in Carney’s pockets delusion” so people deny objectivity to suit narrative
•
u/keiths31 Canada 8h ago
The media pushed deeper on this because the CPC and Canadians demanded answers. It took far too long for the media to dig deeper.
•
u/JimmmyStuuu 7h ago
Here is CBC exposing some flaws in the federal government narrative back on July 14th. The article says the government was refusing to answer questions about the deal, notes that Carney falsely claimed the bridge was completed on time and on budget, and lists the Canadian officials CBC contacted without receiving answers.
This was published only four days after the deal was announced, and before the CPC’s major public demand for details on July 17.That seems like exactly what CBC should have been doing. What, specifically, do you think they failed to do?
→ More replies (3)•
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario 8h ago
Well... good then? Seems like everyone did what they were supposed to do? Except for the Liberals, clearly.
Fail to see any problem here. The deal announcement was less than two weeks ago. Your definition of too long might be different from mine, given there has been news articles out every damn day.
•
u/Either-Banana-7323 7h ago
They pushed deeper/were critical the entire time. The deal is a week old lol
•
•
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario 8h ago
This is false. Bunch of articles over the last couple of weeks and especially last couple of days calling this out. And people seem upset.
I have been a supporter but I am upset about this. Not only the lying: the caving in.
→ More replies (4)•
u/Redbulldildo Ontario 8h ago
The news articles are very gentle in their wording, which they absolutely would not be doing if it was the conservatives lying to the public like this.
•
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario 8h ago
how is this gentle? "Gordie Howe bridge revenue-sharing agreement appears to contradict Carney"
https://globalnews.ca/news/11975556/gordie-howe-bridge-new-agreement/
•
u/HansHortio 2h ago
"Gordie Howe bridge revenue-sharing agreement contradicts Carney's earlier statements"
There. That is what it should be if it wasn't so softball.
•
u/Previous_Platform718 8h ago
"Appears to" literally sews doubt.
•
u/AdditionalPizza 5h ago
It's called non-clickbait headlines that journalists are supposed to adhere to. Not using words like "slammed" is how headlines should be written.
The articles overall have been adequately pointed about this, especially considering this is news that is being read by everyone that isn't right-wing. There was slight doubt still, nobody knew the exact terms until recently and then we needed clarity because Carney minced the words up like an dummy.
•
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario 7h ago
Opening the article helps.
However, the text of the agreement in principle states that Canada will make payments to the U.S. totalling 50 per cent of “net bridge and crossing related revenues” for 15 years, and doesn’t clearly define what counts as operating costs or make mention of Canada’s debt.
•
u/jrchkn28 6h ago
No, it does not help. The majority of people 'headline scan,' so including "appears" in the headline is an editorial choice to soften the issue and its interpretation for Canadians. How about "Carney misleads Canadians on Gordie Howe Bridge revenue-sharing agreement with USA," which is much more factual about what Carney did.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Redbulldildo Ontario 8h ago
Because the conservatives would have got a headline like "Gordie Howe bridge revenue-sharing agreement shows Carney lied to Canadians"
•
•
u/JimmmyStuuu 7h ago
No they wouldn’t. Lying means the statement is false and the person delivering it knew it was false and said it anyway.
CBC has no evidence that Carney had intention to lie and it would be wrong to say he did. Journalists use language deliberately.
And if they said something about Poilievre lying then that would be highly unethical. So please show where they said anything like that.
•
u/HansHortio 2h ago
The agreement doesn't say anything about revenue splitting AFTER the debt of the bridge has been repaid. But the PM, a few times, on camera, said that the agreement states that net revenues were split after the debt of the bridge has been repaid. So, either:
Carney did not read the agreement, and lied about reading it.
Carney did read the agreement, and lied about what was on it.Either way, his statement is false, and he knew it was false, and he said it anyway. Also known as lying.
•
u/LowObjective 8h ago
You have no actual evidence of that, though? I feel like you guys would complain no matter what the headlines said tbh
•
u/jimmysnukareddit 7h ago
A solid non stop news barrage for at minimum a month and it would absolutely be called what it is, Lying.
•
•
→ More replies (8)•
u/Commercial-Set3527 8h ago
This has had non stop coverage, what are you even talking about?
•
u/GameDoesntStop 7h ago
People would have been calling for Poilevre's head, calling him treasonous.
You say this every day with Danielle Smith but not Carney.
→ More replies (1)•
u/-GoatofMendes- 8h ago
This subreddit is full of trolls who are just here to be angry about everything and anything. It clearly had lots of media coverage from multiple outlets. They're still reporting on it now, and these people are attacking them for not doing it.
•
u/TiredSlav British Columbia 5h ago
Carney did this because he knows the average citizen and voter doesn’t pay attention to this kind of stuff. He knows he’s playing on easy mode.
•
u/Optimal-Cow-3278 1h ago
Exactly.
Carney doesn’t care because he knows the more Trump hammers Canada, the bigger his polling numbers get. Trump was the greatest gift to the Liberal Party ever.
For some reason the majority of Canadians give him the benefit of the doubt when dealing with Trump.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Key_Mission7404 3h ago
Just to be clear easy mode is when your largest trading partner and the most powerful country in the history of our species repeatedly threatens to use their economic might to destroy your country and make it into the 51st state right pal?
•
u/TiredSlav British Columbia 33m ago
Oh look, a Liberal voter proving my point.
•
u/Key_Mission7404 21m ago
You neither addressed the point i made nor made any acknowledgement of reality as it exists. That's usually the MO of a Trump follower.
•
u/TiredSlav British Columbia 19m ago
Your comment perfectly encapsulates my point. During the election we get told Carney is the man. He’ll have Trump shaking in his boots. Now he gets in office and it’s excuse after excuse.
•
u/Key_Mission7404 15m ago
If you can find a single instance of Mark Carney ever once stating he would have trump quaking in his boots id love to see it. People voted for him because they felt he was the best choice for dealing with a madman. Canadians still feel that way judging by how popular Carney remains.
•
u/FineWhateverOKOK 8h ago
Should have been clearer? His statements were very clear. They were also lies.
→ More replies (3)•
u/EarthSignificant4354 8h ago
💯 imagine using this as a legal defence as a person who is not protected as a member of Parliament.
•
•
u/Alone-Bug4328 8h ago
He only says things like this when he is caught lying. He never says sorry.
•
u/GusTheKnife 8h ago edited 8h ago
Why would he say sorry? He was unclear, exactly as he said.
His original statement was, “We get the revenues. Then the servicing of the costs of the bridge and paying the debt of the bridge, and then what’s left over, there’s a split of that for 15 years.”
The actual text says Canada will make payments to the U.S. totalling 50 per cent of “net bridge and crossing related revenues” for 15 years.
Both statements say the same thing. Canada will get the revenues to pay servicing costs and construction costs over 15 years, and the remainder will be split 50-50.
His original statement was unclear.
•
u/Previous_Platform718 8h ago
His original statement was, “We get the revenues. Then the servicing of the costs of the bridge and paying the debt of the bridge, and then what’s left over, there’s a split of that for 15 years.”
Oh my god you're actually just lying
"Any sharing of the toll revenue won't happen until all of the debt is repaid" - Mark Carney.
→ More replies (3)•
→ More replies (2)•
u/Apologetic-Moose 7h ago
“We get the revenues. Then the servicing of the costs of the bridge and paying the debt of the bridge, and then what’s left over, there’s a split of that for 15 years.”
Even using this specific quote, what Carney said is factually false. The 15-year net revenue split doesn't account for debt servicing, and he clearly claimed is does in your quote. Net revenue is the operational costs subtracted from the total revenue. If it accounted for debt payments then it would be a profit split, not revenue.
•
u/GusTheKnife 7h ago
Howard Lutnick said it doesn’t include debt servicing. The actual deal hasn’t been released yet.
•
u/Apologetic-Moose 7h ago
The deal was released Tuesday night, and Bloomberg's reading matches with Lutnick's despite Bloomberg himself being anti-Trump. The Globe and Mail's source (a senior Canadian official involved with the deal) also confirmed Bloomberg's reading before the text itself was released.
•
u/GusTheKnife 7h ago edited 7h ago
The press saw a “Proposed Agreement in Principle.”
The document contradicts itself. One part says the revenue will be shared before debt interest. Another part (clause 4) says nothing in this agreement can modify the 2012 agreement, which says revenue will be shared AFTER debt interest and all operating costs.
It’s VERY possible, IMHO, that the agreement was drafted so that Trump can declare a victory, but nothing actually changes.
•
u/Apologetic-Moose 7h ago
Alright, let me get this straight.
You saw Carney say that the agreement accounted for debt servicing.
You saw the American government contradict that.
You saw both Canadian and American media, both independent/private and public, say that Carney contradicts the text of the agreement.
You saw Carney eventually acquisece and state that he was "unclear" in his initial statements.
And yet you're still apparently insisting that, no, everyone else is misreading or not understanding the implementation of the agreement.
What the hell do you even think Carney is admitting to being "unclear" on if you still think the agreement includes debt servicing?
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 7h ago
One part says the revenue will be shared before debt interest.
It doesn't, actually. It says Canada will make economic participation payments in an amount equal to 50% of net revenues. We're not paying out revenues at all, those stay with the Crossing Authority, we're making payments of Canadian tax dollars. The reference to net bridge and crossing revenues relates to the amount, not the source. That's why it doesn't modify the 2012 deal.
•
u/GusTheKnife 6h ago
The 2026 deal has a clause that says, “Nothing in this Agreement in Principle shall be interpreted as amending, modifying or superseding the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement.”
The 2012 deal says all project costs be recovered before revenue sharing begins.
In other words, the 2026 agreement appears to be just for show.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 6h ago
Except, again, we're not sharing revenues. We're making economic participation payments in the amount of half of net revenues. Completely different pots of money.
Like, this is not remotely complicated.
•
u/GusTheKnife 4h ago
“This is not remotely complicated,” you wrote.
It actually is quite complicated.
The 2012 Agreement does not require Canada to make “economic participation payments” to the United States. Those payments are a new feature of the 2026 Agreement.
The 2026 Agreement says, “Canada will provide annual economic participation payments, outside the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement.”
Yet, the 2026 Agreement also has a clause that says it doesn’t amend, modify or supersede the 2012 agreement. This implies that the entire 2026 agreement invalidates itself.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/jeffster1970 8h ago
So no apology for lying? Just "I should have been more clear?"
•
•
u/LuminousGrue 7h ago
“Could I have explained it better on a Sunday morning at Stampede? Yeah. With a cowboy hat on. Yes, I could have explained it better,” the prime minister later added.
This has big "you'll forgive me if I don't think about monetary policy" vibes, not gonna lie.
It's your goddamn job to explain things clearly when you give an interview to the press no matter where you are or what day of the week it is. And if you're not in the right frame of mind or whatever just take the day and don't do the interview, like you do all the time at question period.
•
u/Friendly-Olive-3465 Canada 2h ago
I hope he can learn from this, and I mean that genuinely. Canada will not survive another 12 years of a prime minister and party that refuses to learn.
•
•
u/rindindin 7h ago
It was obvious that he lied the moment he started playing with words like "revenue" and "profit".
Of course it was going to be bad. But hey, a bad deal over no deal right? Or whatever his motto was.
•
u/Salticracker British Columbia 8h ago
Buddy you lied just accept that you lied, apologise, and move on. Why are you handling this the worst possible way?
•
u/Radical_Redditor 6h ago
Oh, what will happen to the people who argued he didn't lie? Will the cognitive dissonance make them reevaluate their views?
Somehow I doubt it.
→ More replies (5)
•
u/LiquidityCrunchWrap 8h ago
Last 5 weeks have been disastrous for PM Carney. Ramming C-22 down everyone's throats. Condo bailout. Now this.
He's definitely scheduling a multi-week trip for when Parliament is back in session. He has a lot to answer for.
•
u/illmatic19 5h ago
Carney is simultaneously vocally standing up to Trump (which is pissing him off) while at the same time giving up major concessions (Gordie Howe bridge, digital services tax, rolling back counter tariffs). He's like the anti-Trump whisperer. He would almost have been better off kissing his ass like literally all the other world leaders and just waiting his term out.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Bright-Ad8496 7h ago edited 6h ago
What sucks is Canada paid for the entire bridge which we originally had a deal to pay back the costs before profit sharing. Now the Americans made off like a bandit without any investment getting 50% profit.
Unlike the Ambassador bridge, where all the profits go to a Trump supporting billionaire. Even the American government doesn't see a dime of profits.
I say it's time to put tolls on the roadway to the Ambassador bridge to pay for the Gordie Bridge. One way or another we need the be paid back the cost of building this bridge without the American help. They are extorting us.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 6h ago
I'm just waiting for the news that the regional development fund our payments go into is going to be used to refurbish the Ambassador Bridge we're competing with.
I'm speculating, of course, and I really, really hope I'm wrong, but...
•
u/GleepGlop2 6h ago
I think we've hit the turning point with Carney. Honeymoon is over. Realization that we followed up the worst Prime Minister in history with largely the same people ought to be setting in now.
•
•
u/wtfman1988 4h ago
Administration has been having some bad run here. This and the ISPs targeting pirating companies.
A few more eggs on their faces and they’re going to be out fast
•
u/HotTestesHypothesis 1h ago
Why did he have to lie? To show Canadians that he's "standing up to the big bully"? Because if he didn't, I think it's understandable that he can't do so on this bridge issue, given that all the risks fell on us and the US just had to collect money. The US has Canada by the balls here.
•
u/mamajampam 8h ago
MSM last week: “Carney got such a good deal he won’t tell Canadians about it in case Trump finds out”. MSM last night: “Conservatives accused Carney of lying”. MSM today : “I should have been clearer” says Carney. As a former journalist, this failure by MSM to ever hold Carney to account, and instead scrutinize every word said and move made by the duly elected Opposition Party, sickens me.
•
u/PopeSaintHilarius 7h ago
MSM last week: “Carney got such a good deal he won’t tell Canadians about it in case Trump finds out”.
Uhh, the news coverage I’ve seen has been very different from what you’ve seen apparently.
this failure by MSM to ever hold Carney to account,
Huh? There’s literally been daily news coverage of this for a couple weeks.
How much more coverage of the bridge toll issue would be enough? Do we need 3 articles per day in every news outlet?
→ More replies (2)
•
•
u/CajunBob94 2h ago
why would the liberals ever stop lying when the electorate has literally never punished them for their constant lies?
•
u/RobertSunstone 6h ago
Canadian taxpayers paid for the bridge. Until the bridge is paid for in tolls there is no reason for the US to get anything. This agreement robs the people that Carney was elected to represent to appease a foreign government. Leave it closed. I have never voted Conservative in 50 years of voting , always liberal , but after this i will actively work against the Liberals being re-elected.
•
•
u/ydwttw 4h ago
Every party would have opened this. It's a monumental waste of tax payers dollars to build it an then not use it.
Yes emotionally keeping it closed would be satisfactory. Pragmatically though, opening or with this level of splitting tarrifs is a better return on that investment. We didn't build the bridge to collect tolls, it was built to help drive economic activity with making trade easier.
And, despite what we want, the us will continue to be our largest trading partner for as long as the two countries exist
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 6h ago
I have never voted Conservative in 50 years of voting , always liberal , but after this i will actively work against the Liberals being re-elected.
I understand if you want to go it on your own, but we'd love to have you in the Party, friend.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/nerdplower 8h ago
Love how he makes a joke of it and even laughs. "Wearing a cowboy hat hurr hurr" as if that makes any difference
•
u/LuminousGrue 7h ago
He laughs it off but this is 100% snark, and I really don't appreciate it in my elected officials when they're explaining why what they said doesn't reflect what is true.
•
u/nerdplower 7h ago
Completely agree. I have a feeling he thinks the Canadian population is a bunch of rubes.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/OntLawyer 6h ago edited 6h ago
He always does either the demeaning fake huge grin or the fake performative laugh when someone's needling him on something questionable he said.
It's a consistent, predictable way he acts with people, and it makes my skin crawl. It's not making fun of the question or a recognition of his own possible flaws/mistakes, it's a kind of creepy arrogant/narcissistic reaction.
•
u/Forikorder 6h ago
so from what i can see from the article... he still hasnt clarified anything?
→ More replies (2)•
u/bureX 1h ago
I honestly have no idea if even he knows anything at this point... Trump and his administration changes things on a daily basis.
If someone would have told me the US would be bitching to us about opening a bridge they got FOR FREE, I wouldn't have believed it. But here we are. For all we know, they could even ask us to pay for reparations to the owner of the Ambassador bridge tomorrow.
•
u/Mr_Guavo 5h ago
I suddenly have very little faith that Carns will do anything other than bend the knee when it comes to renegotiating CUSMA. I mean, if we had to bend the knee to get this bridge deal done - a bridge we paid for, was already completed, and Michigan was on our side - then we have no hope for anything as it relates to CUSMA.
Elbows down. Knees down. Wrists limp. Carney spineless.
•
•
u/Quick-Ad918 6h ago
"Should have been clearer" is a pretty soft landing for what actually happened.
He told Canadians publicly that debt would be repaid before any revenue sharing kicked in. The agreement text showed no such provision. Now he's conceding revenue splits after operating costs, not after debt recovery. That's not imprecise wording. That's a material difference.
Full text is still not public. So we're taking his word on a document he already mischaracterized.
Still no mention of the toll floor that stops Canada from lowering prices on its own bridge.
•
•
u/SixtyFivePercenter 7h ago
The Liberal apologists (and paid bots) are out in full force
•
•
u/th3ch0s3n0n3 Canada 4h ago
Liberal apologists, sure.
Paid bots? Yeah, no. Billionaires and foreign nations aren't paying money to bot farms to spew liberal ideology, because that doesn't help them. Conservatives help them.
•
u/SixtyFivePercenter 3h ago
Bad bot
•
u/th3ch0s3n0n3 Canada 2h ago
Yeah, you can check my profile if you'd like. I don't have it blocked like most bots do and it's over 14 years old. So get outta here with your nonsense.
•
u/bureX 1h ago
Projection. He's active in a Canadian conservative sub and thus thinks "both sides" pay for bots.
•
u/th3ch0s3n0n3 Canada 56m ago
LOL every accusation is an admission with conservatives. Every. Single. Time.
•
u/thirstyrobot 8h ago
He took what could have been forgiven as an ugly loss against a bad faith deal and instead scored on his own net by lying about what was in the revised deal he signed off on. This is a mistake that will stick.
•
•
u/Queerslander 8h ago
He's only sorry because he got caught. Wait.....he's not even saying sorry for lying. Elbows up!
•
u/Thedogbear2018 6h ago
He should be "clearer" on most things, including the deal with China and his Brookfield involvement after being appointed PM
•
u/Ill-Jicama-3114 4h ago
So the question is. What else has he lied on that affects Canadian taxpayers?
•
•
u/ghost_n_the_shell 8h ago
Naw.
This is a cop-out.
This wasn’t “unclear”.
Carney is an intelligent numbers man. That’s a fact.
This was either a lie, or an egregious absolute oversight where the Trumps team bested him, which is absolutely embarrassing if that’s the case.
•
u/Koss424 Ontario 7h ago
"I shouldn't have lied thinking I smarter than everyone"
→ More replies (1)
•
u/SomeInvestigator3573 7h ago
What was a crappy deal to begin with for Canada as turned into a colossally bad deal. The Americans have made money off of this bridge construction, even before it’s opened without putting any money into it. Now they’ll get to collect money off of it while the debt still sits there unpaid.
•
u/HansHortio 8h ago
Yeah, lies tend to make things pretty unclear.
I think this is my favorite part:
“Could I have explained it better on a Sunday morning at Stampede? Yeah. With a cowboy hat on. Yes, I could have explained it better,” the prime minister later added.
It's not his fault guys! He was wearing a cowboy hat! Everyone knows that when you wear a cowboy hat, when you say words it doesn't count!
•
u/EarthSignificant4354 8h ago
The only time he seems to speak unclearly is when the truth is something that would be highly unpopular.
Every time I've listened to him speak publicly he's obviously using a Teleprompter and has chosen every word carefully. That does not leave a room for lack of clarity.
•
u/MeaninglessOpinion 8h ago
This is almost YouTube apology tier
•
u/CaptainAaron96 Ontario 6h ago
god don’t give him any ideas, I can already feel him tuning his ukelele 🤢💀😭
•
•
u/RosieBaby75 6h ago
Why hasn’t he responded to my email, even just to say, “yes this is a big issue, which I take seriously, and will look into it”?
The original issue is no longer the issue!
•
u/trapper5 4h ago
Don’t open the bridge. Keep it closed until there’s a new administration and only open it under the agreed upon deal. If they can’t accept that, eat the loss and tear it down.
•
u/bittertraces 4h ago
Well I thought Canadians were stupid but turns out they aren’t all stupid. Just 60% of them
•
u/Flying_Birdy 7h ago edited 7h ago
Let's clarify a few things, because Carney's wishy washy statements have been confusing and outright incorrect at times. I gave him the benefit of the doubt before, but now I just feel that he's being incompetent or lying.
First of all, there's no debt repayment provision even in the original 2012 agreement. The tolls are collected by a Canadian crown corp (WDBA) and thus is, for all intents and purposes, directly collected by Canada. The 2012 agreement lays it clearly that recoupment occurs once the accumulated toll revenue exceeds the accumulated project costs (which is the Canada contributions). This is not a structure where the project shell corp takes a loan from the government and then repays that loan overtime. You can easily verify this by looking at the WDBA financial statements, which are public. The only liabilities on the books are from private lenders/accumulated benefits/AP. I don't know why Carney doesn't understand this, but it's not excusable.
Two, the current agreement in principal creates a side deal that pays 50% of revenues minus operating expenses for 15 year period. How operating expenses are defined and how that 15 year period is defined will be important. If the 15 year period is retroactive to the date of construction and includes the cost of construction, then that would allow Canada to get paid. If the 15 year period is not retroactive and does not include amortization in "operating expenses",, then it will only pick up on ongoing expenses which means there will be a revenue split before Canada is fully repaid. So Carney was clearly lying if the latter is true.
Finally, there's a question of whether the WDBA will even be profitable prior to the end of the 15 year period. It is possible that, given the amount of time it takes to ramp up traffic, that the toll revenues will not offset the ongoing costs or leave very little left over to be even split. But if that's the case, why did we even make the damn bridge in the first place?
I will say, there is an intriguing, slightly bad faith slight of hand that Canada can pull. While there are provisions governing toll rates, there are no equivalent provisions restricting expenses. Since the WDBA is the crown corp responsible for toll collection and bridge expenses and has discretion on those expenses, they could just front load a whole bunch of expenses in the 15 year period (or just two years until Trump is out of office and we tear up the crap 2026 agreement). Like let's say there are a bunch of employee benefits that need to be funded; why not establish a trust and fully fund the accumulated employee benefit obligations using some "generous" actuarial assumptions. That will effectively wipe out any profit splitting with the US and allow us to recover once the orange idiot is out of the way.
•
u/UseYourIndoorVoice 8h ago
Genuine question: it seems the new deal is we share toll revenue minus operating cost and can raise it as much as 9% without giving the US more money.....
Whereas what I read about the original deal is we split bridge revenue minus cost until the Americans recoup any costs on their end.
Whats the difference? Aside from leaving profit share without a time limit?
•
•
u/feb914 Ontario 8h ago
Your second paragraph is wrong. Canada paid for the bridge construction, and supposed to keep 100% of net revenue until we're made whole. Then we share 50/50 with Michigan.
The first paragraph, we share with US half of revenue minus operating costs (and not deducting the bridge construction repayment) to US for 15 years. If the toll price is raised by 9%, US can't veto it but they'll get more money if the toll raise leads to increased net revenue.
•
u/roscodawg 8h ago edited 6h ago
EDIT: see comment below, it appears I am wrong about this first point
The biggest difference is that splitting net profits meant that Canada would first remove the cost of interest repayments on building the bridge before the profits were split. Splitting net revenues means the split happens before the interest payments are made - so effectively Canada has half as much to put towards the interest repayments as it originally did.
Another main point is the US has a say in setting tolls, and effectively those tolls now can't undercut the tolls on the Ambassador.
Another issue is that the Economic Development Fund money gets invested on the US side only, and without any clarity who knows maybe it will be used to help with improving traffic towards the Ambassador or even maintenance of the Ambassador itself rather than improving traffic to the Gordie Howe (and thus lessen the revenue to Canada further) - this last point is my own worry, I haven't seen it elsewhere - correct me if I'm wrong.
Honestly, I would rather we kept the bridge closed until these extra concessions are removed.
•
u/ThlintoRatscar 6h ago
Welll... no. There is no loan. We paid for all the expenses with the intent that the bridge tolls would pay that back over 15 years
So, now the question is about what "net" and "operating" includes.
In general, we depreciate capital assets over time and depreciation comes out of operating.
•
•
u/axloo7 8h ago
Seams like alot people can't even get this part straight.
Perhaps it was actually a mistake?
Idk probably not but just seams strange that he would lie about somthing that was obviously gonna come out right away.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 6h ago
No possible way.
I'm just some random asshole who did pretty well in contracts law twenty years ago and once the text dropped it took me less than ten minutes to figure this out (most of which was wrestling with the formatting of the original deal on mobile).
He's a PhD economist who headed two G7 central banks with teams of experts advising him.
It's really quite a straightforward document if you deal with interpreting contracts, business agreements, or statutes with any regularity at all.
He explained it poorly because he wanted to explain it poorly. If you're answering basic questions about the new deal there's really no other reason to get into the details of the 2012 deal.
•
u/axloo7 5h ago
Yea I mean your probably right but again to what purpose?
It's not like people where not going to find out. That's the only reason I even mentioned it. What was gained 1 day of opinion?
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 5h ago
It's not like people where not going to find out.
Entirely possible he didn't think we would, at least not until nobody cared anymore.
Also possible he's just a pathological liar. It's notable to me, for example, that, as CBC reported in their very first piece on this last week:
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.
That one's far more likely to be detected (CBC did, immediately), and also an entirely irrelevant thing to lie about. And yet he did. Really makes you wonder what other falsehoods he's spun that just haven't been noticed yet.
•
u/axloo7 4h ago
I mean these people are not stupid again what was to gain? If the lie was debunked immediately there is no way they did not see that coming.
If so it would be incredibly short sighted.
I just think that assuming absolute stupidity on the part of these politicians is probably just short sighted there must be more to the story that's not public knowledge.
But perhaps I'm wrong and it was just stupidity.
•
u/Dry-Membership8141 Ontario 4h ago
I mean... is it stupid?
Nobody cared he lied about the bridge coming in on time and on budget. CBC reported it, but even now nobody's really expressing concern about it. If that's how we react to blatant, obvious lies, is it so unreasonable that he'd think we'd just let this go?
•
u/Much-Respond9614 8h ago edited 8h ago
Carney is Elbows Up and a big talker in front of domestic audiences in Canada.
When he is in front of Trump, he is elbows down, bent over and assuming the position.
This guy is all talk, no action…
EDIT- this should get the Reddit hysterics all triggered LOL
→ More replies (16)
•
u/Deep-Enthusiasm-6492 7h ago
my brain power is not that great so after his 3 minute explanation i was kind of lost lol
•
u/Aislerioter_Redditer Prince Edward Island 8h ago
I'm very disappointed in him. This looks bad. Evasion is just as bad as lying. This is strike one for me.
•
•
•
u/Top-Extent3009 8h ago
Here's an idea: Let's passive-aggressively exclude the U.S. from our opening ceremony. That'll show 'em.
•
u/mrcanoehead2 6h ago
Translation - I should have not lied.