Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentColby Cosh: Why Mark Carney felt comfortable spreading misinformationThe prime minister must have known that media would go easy on his falsifiable story about the Gordie Howe International Bridge dealLast updated 10 hours ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.The United States side of the Gordie Howe International Bridge is shown on Wednesday, July 22, 2026. Photo by WINDSOR STAR/DAN JANISSEReaders of the Post will notice a careful, measured column Thursday morning that discusses the U.S. government’s last-minute shakedown of Canada over the Gordie Howe International Bridge connecting the two countries; the bridge is scheduled to open Monday. Columnist Rob Breakenridge stops just short of calling the prime minister a liar, but asks why he was “making claims about the deal” just a few days ago “that would inevitably be disproven and discredited” when the details came out, as they did on Wednesday?Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorI am afraid I know the answer: the prime minister anticipated that flatly false statements, statements he must have known to be false, would quickly be obscured by Canadian strategic navel-gazing (“Are we being tough enough in our own defence?”) and by the usual “Conservatives pounce!” news framing of the issue. As Breakenridge says, it is difficult to see any purpose at all in the lies — but they can be easily seen as a political trap for the opposition parties. You lie; your opponents accurately accuse you of lying; and your own voters wonder why those nasty people across the floor can’t help being so negative and divisive and grouchy.The National Post newsletter that doesn’t hold back, giving readers the unvarnished truth on media, politics and culture.By signing up, you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Right? will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againWell, if the prime minister can account for the statements he was giving out just a few days ago, we’re all waiting to hear the explanation (all he could say on Thursday was that he could have “explained it better”). He said pretty unambiguously that the toll revenue from the bridge, net of the immediate operating and maintenance costs, would go toward paying back Canada for the construction of the bridge, built entirely with C$6.4 billion of Canadian money. “Splitting of tolls, any sharing of the toll, won’t happen until all of the debt is repaid.”The text of the agreement in principle seems equally unambiguous. We’re handing half the net toll revenue, for the first 15 years of the bridge’s life, to the United States outright. Only after that slice is deducted will revenues be available for debt repayment. (The U.S. says it intends to put the captured money into an “economic development fund.” How exciting! Maybe they can use it to build a bridge someplace!)No one has yet generated a professional-grade assessment of how much this will cost us in the end. I expect to see treatises on this next week. Funnily enough, the hit to Canada depends on how successful the bridge is, which in turn depends on the state of U.S.-American trade relations and on Canadian willingness to use the bridge for recreational travel. The more we use the bridge to visit our friends in Michigan, the bigger the loss from the revision of the deal will be — and the more it will cost us down the road after the 15-year period elapses because the debt has been shoved forward.Well, I guess we didn’t build it because we don’t want people to use it. The bridge was never expected to be very profitable in the early period anyway, and it was already foreseen to take about 50 years for the construction debt to be paid off. In net-present-value terms, it might be a matter of turning a $6.4 billion debt into a $7 billion debt. It’s certainly a drop in the bucket next to the external economic benefits of the bridge being built and open to traffic.And of course it might be the case that Canadian trade negotiators are getting some secret quid pro quo back in exchange for tolerating American banditry. This is almost impossible to believe, but you never know. It is not that trade negotiations have to be conducted in broad daylight at the 55-yard-line of Taylor Field; it’s just that we must be able to expect straight truth from our prime minister about the results.National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.