Prime Minister Mark Carney’s deal with the United States to open the Gordie Howe International Bridge prompted new questions after a senior government source confirmed new details about the bridge’s revenue-sharing model.
The clarification came after days of confusion and ambiguity about how revenue from the bridge would be shared. The source told the Star that, over the first 15 years, Canada will repay its construction costs only after net revenue is split with the United States.
The story prompted plenty of reaction from readers, too. We looked back at your comments to gather the opinions that stood out. Here’s what you said:
Carney got the deal wrong
“Prime Minister Carney, your team should have kept your ground and stuck to the original agreement, bridge is paid off then profits are shared. It is called the ART of the deal… I’m quite sure the original agreement had penalty provisions against the USA delaying the opening.” — Nick
“This does not look good. I have given the prime minister the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the pragmatic approach was to get the bridge open. The costs of the closure are mounting. Could have made the honest case to Canadians. Canadians have seen very little pushback from the prime minister. Today’s statement was weak.” — Gino
“Every time we make another concession to Trump, he reads it as abject weakness and it emboldens him to do more to attack our economy. Last week, Canada caved on the bridge and this week Trump imposed another $20 billion in additional 50 per cent tariffs.” — Rosa
Opening the bridge was the priority
“It was a shakedown, holding the bridge opening as a hostage. Canada had no choice but to capitulate, as we need the bridge to open more than the Americans. Lawsuits for breach of contract would have been a better course of action but that would hold up the opening for quite possibly years. Carney did the right thing for sake of our economy.” — Mark
“I believe there is a quiet part to this story. The bridge needs to be open since neither party gains anything. Second, a deal had to be made. The new deal is superficial and the original deal will be honoured.” — StevenW
The deal isn’t the problem — the lack of transparency is
“This story is a good reminder that supporting a government doesn’t mean excusing poor communication… The bridge should open. The agreement should now be released. Those two positions aren’t contradictory.” — Lisa
“I think we’re missing the bigger picture. This does not look like a bad deal for Canada. The key question is whether Canada will ultimately recover its investment and debt costs. Based on the reporting, Canada still gets repaid; the debate is over the timing and mechanics of revenue sharing. Carney may have been imprecise in describing the arrangement, but I haven’t seen evidence that he was being disingenuous. To me, this looks more like a communication issue than a bad deal for Canada.” — Jonnel
“A question for those who truly believe that Carney negotiated a good deal for Canada on the Gordie Howe Bridge; when was the last time you know of that any government negotiated a good deal for their constituents, then, instead of holding a news conference to announce it, refused to release details of the deal?” — Steve
“Mark Carney should have been more transparent with the deal’s details and not mislead people into thinking that debt repayments would be taken out to calculate net revenue for splitting. But he is correct in saying that there won’t be much net revenue for splitting with the U.S.” — Brian
Let us know what you think in the comments section below. Was this the right deal for Canada — why or why not? And what would a fair agreement look like to you?
