Share.

    26 Kommentare

    1. CastAside1812 on

      I can’t express how awful this is.

      For a bridge WE 100% PAID FOR, we’re now giving the USA 50% of revenue. Then with the pittance leftover we need to somehow repay all the debt and by that point there won’t be anything leftover for Canada.

      It’s also so bad we’re going to have to reamortize the debt to even manage this huge revenue cut.

      Remember, for all the neo-liberal slop Canadians apparently will tolerate from Carney…his ONE SELLING POINT (at least with the b00mers who have Trump mania because they sit at home with CNN on 14 hours a day) was that he would be „tough on Trump“.

      He has utterly and completely failed with respect to this bridge. All while he raids the last remaining coffers of our country to go bail out BC condo developers and prop up a disgusting unsustainably priced housing market.

      I would say I’m surprised…but I’m not. Old retired Canadians are doing better than ever. Hell; for the first time ever, Canadian men over 65 are now making more than Canadian men aged 25-35.

      Canadian youth have been chopped up, slaughtered and had the visercal entrails that remain thrown in to an incinerator. This is the complete and total disdain and contempt the liberal party has for you.

      I would hope the younger generation take note, but I know they won’t.

    2. The deal states that Canada will share 50 per cent of net bridge and crossing-related revenues with the U.S. for the first fifteen years.

      “Net bridge and crossing related revenues is all revenues collected with respect to the bridge, less all incurred operating costs of the bridge,” the deal reads, confirming reporting from Bloomberg last week.

      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.

      Well there it is. Carney and Champagne straight up lied last week. It’s no wonder they were so interested in obfuscating it.

    3. hollowelf_18 on

      Yes, this is bad but what’s worse is that Carney hid it.

      I also wouldn’t be surprised if Trump’s lackeys leaked it to muddy up Carney’s image; it worked.

    4. StrongMargarita on

      Canada and the U.S. reached a new pact to open the $6.4 billion Gordie Howe International Bridge on July 27, 2026. The deal mandates that Canada share 50 per cent of the bridge’s net toll revenues with a United States regional development fund for the first 15 years, omitting provisions to cover Canada’s own debt-service costs. 

      The original 2012 crossing agreement stated that Canada—which single-handedly financed the construction—would recoup its costs before splitting profits. However, following threats from the Trump administration in February 2026 to block the bridge’s opening, the new agreement was struck in July. The U.S. demanded concessions, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick seeking direct investment into an American-controlled economic fund. 

      Under the finalized pact, Canada will pay down its construction debt out of the remaining 50 per cent of net revenues left after satisfying the U.S. share. Financial experts note that due to maintenance and operational expenses, it is unlikely there will be any net profits to distribute for up to 15 to 30 years. 

      Conclusion: Canada is paying for a $6.4 billion bridge that is expected to generate very little in net revenues. Canada will receive 50 percent of this net revenue (already very little) and will have virtually nothing generated to repay their initial $6.4B investment or interest costs. The US invested nothing, has no debt burden, and will receive 50 percent of net revenues. 

      This is not a good deal for Canadians. 

    5. In coming years, scholars will study how the US government lost its soft-power by selling out longtime allies for pennies.

    6. LiquidityCrunchWrap on

      Carney lied. Liberal MPs made videos from their summer chateaus, saying that everyone had it wrong.

      Bloomberg said they saw the deal, and it included no provision to pay for debt first. The US gov’t came out and reiterated the same thing.

      Liberal supporters continued to insist that everyone else had it wrong, even though the Liberals refused to release details of the deal.

      Carney had a chance to set the record straight yesterday and walked away from a reporter’s question.

      Is Carney a serial liar or is he incompetent?

    7. As a staunch Carney supporter, this really pisses me off. He shouldn’t have lied. 

      The US fucked us. That’s all he had to say. The bridge needs to open as we are paying interest on debt and cost to contractors. We need revenue. 

      He should have said this will be a lesson for Canada going forward. There is no agreements with the US one anything. 

      The bridge is one example, CUSMA is the next. 

      The US promise has no value. We need to accept that. 

    8. Different_Ad_6153 on

      It’s crazy he conceded…and we still getting hit with these tariffs. Wish we would just start retaliating more. We don’t need to get bullied.

    9. skeptic_monkey on

      Good thing Carney folded on this so the US wouldn’t put a 50% tariff on us….

    10. FineWhateverOKOK on

      Yet another example of Carney lying without shame. He did it to Guilbeault, he did it to May, and he’s done it to us multiple times. 

      He even lied in a Memorandum of Understanding, for God’s sake. This is who he is. Lying to get what he wants is an essential part of his character. 

      And before someone says “all politicians lie,” they don’t all lie like Carney. This is unusual. 

    11. Psychological_Word58 on

      Yikes this does not look good on Carney. Had high hopes for him hopefully he can do better or else we might not see another liberal government in power.

    12. RicketyEdge on

      Fucked us on the bridge, now planning to fuck us with more tariffs.

      Can we stop giving concessions to the orange baboon? It’s not like it earns us any good will, he just turns around and fucks us anyway.

    13. TactitcalPterodactyl on

      This is the Canadian version of: „Mexico will build the wall and they’ll pay for it!“. Not a great look for us.

    14. ThicccThunder on

      I’m so glad we didn’t elect Pierre who would’ve sold Canada out to the US, oh wait… that was Carney

    15. arcadeenthusiast8245 on

      I’m not dissappointed that we got a bad deal (it was inevitable), but I’m dissappointed Carney lied and gaslit everyone and liberals will continue to go „PP BAD“ as a coping mechanism.

    16. SunflaresAteMyLunch on

      That’s egg on Carney’s face, why lie? Embarassing.

      Why can’t we mothball the bridge until Trump is out of office?

    17. Is it a good deal? No. Is it a deal? Yes. The other option was to let it sit and collect dust while we collected 0 tolls. Its time to move on

    18. I’m a Carney supporter on the whole, but here Carney lied and needs to answer questions from the press about why. 

      Normally, I wouldn’t demand public disclosure of all their financial projections for this, as it might undermine their negotiating position. But given this breach of trust, i
      f he has financial projections that show how much money we’ll be giving the US and how much more expensive the debt will be, he needs to share them. 

    19. GreatCanadianPotato on

      You are expected to resign from parliament if you are found to have misled to House of Commons.

      Carney lied to the entire Canadian public, what’s his punishment?

    20. Viewsonic378 on

      I don’t really care that he gave in to the US. Could it have been handled better? Maybe, but it’s hard to say. Opening the bridge is important, and Trump can be unpredictable.

      What concerns me is how blatantly he lied about it. It’s not even this specific lie that bothers me the most, it’s the fact that CUSMA is now under review. From this point forward, anything he announces about those negotiations can’t really be taken at face value.

    21. There was no need to lie about it. The case could have been used to drive the “let this be another proof that USA is no longer a reliable partner” message home. Which is why I don’t understand why a lie was seen necessary by the LPC party line and their PR honchos. I suppose, it’s just a force of habit.

      Besides – it’s just an agreement in principle. It does not supersede the original agreement and there probably will be months of negotiation to finalize it.
      The bridge had to be opened to fully capitalize the costs, and some form of revenue had to start flowing, it’s better than nothing.

      Reality is – this bridge is no longer necessary. It was conceived when cross-border traffic was crazy busy and we had a serious capacity issue. Anyone driving through the border crossings today will tell you that both commercial and private cross-border traffic is down immensely. No more waiting 1hr or more to cross. Faster than a Tim Hortons drive through. Having said that – hopefully this is only temporary.

    22. work_of_shart on

      Yes, the new bridge deal is very poor outcome for Canada, but I have to say, the original deal where we paid for the 100% of the construction costs was the dismal failure. Revenue-splitting would normally be an agreeable outcome, so let’s not forget which party authorized this mess to begin with.

      *“I am pleased to be here at this critical border crossing to announce that the future publicly-owned bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, will be named the Gordie Howe International Bridge. Mr. Hockey, one of the greatest players in the history of the game, is a proud Canadian who led the Detroit Red Wings to four Stanley Cup victories, building extraordinary goodwill between our two countries. It is my sincere hope that this bridge, which bears his name, will continue this proud legacy by accelerating the flow of people, merchandise and services between our great nations for years to come.”* – Prime Minister Stephen Harper

    23. Hm, interesting. The bridge was funded under a public-private partnership through BNA, so I have the feeling the differing interpretations come from the fact that payments to BNA for operating the bridge would bundle all the stuff including debt together.

      Either way, since we already paid for it years ago, it’s either let it sit closed and both not get anything out of it and let those assholes who own the Ambassador Bridge collect everything, or have this agreement in principle then drag out the negotiations over the finalization while the bridge gets fully opened the entire time, lol.

    Leave A Reply