OTTAWA — Liberal MPs voted to adjourn a committee meeting on Wednesday without voting on a Conservative motion to look into the details of the new revenue-sharing agreement struck between the United States and Canada on the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
The motion stems from what the Conservatives view as contradictory statements made by Prime Minister Mark Carney about the details of the deal, which would see net revenue from the bridge tolls split with the U.S.
“The fact that these statements were contradictory, the fact that…the minister responsible for infrastructure has told media that he will not be releasing fiscal impacts from this side deal arrangement with the Trump administration on revenue raises a whole host of questions,” said Conservative MP Dan Albas, during a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
According to agreement-in-principle released last week, Canada will give the U.S. 50 per cent of net revenues for the first 15 years of the bridge’s life, after recovering operating costs. The U.S. share will go into a United States-Canada Economic Development Fund, which will be controlled by the U.S. government. The agreement would run alongside the original agreement struck between Michigan and Canada, which says the splitting of total toll revenue will only come after Canada repays its debt for constructing the bridge.
The new agreement comes as U.S. President Donald Trump blocked the opening of the bridge in June, on the basis that the original deal was unfair to the U.S.
Carney had originally told CTV News on July 12 at the Calgary Stampede that the split in net revenue with the U.S. would come after accounting for debt-servicing costs on Canada’s financing for the bridge. Canada fully financed the construction of the bridge that connects Windsor, Ont., to Detroit, at a cost of $6.4 billion.
However, missing from the text of the agreement which was released 10 days after the federal government announced the deal, is any reference to Canada recouping debt-servicing costs, which had been an issue of conflicting comments from Canadian and American officials.
Speaking to reporters in Charlottetown last week, Carney said he could have ‘explained better’ the terms of the U.S. bridge deal.
“Could I have explained it better on a Sunday morning at Stampede? Yeah, with a cowboy hat on,” he said. “Yes, I could have explained it better.”
Wednesday’s motion called for the all drafts of the agreement to be released by the Department of the Housing, Communities and Infrastructure Canada within two weeks; to have Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne and Housing and Infrastructure Minister Gregor Robertson appear at committee and testify for two hours each; direct the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to look into the fiscal impact of the new agreement and to call on the prime minister to incorporate “transparency, accuracy, openness and honesty” around communications on the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Opposition MPs took issue with Carney’s explanation for the confusion, arguing that wearing a cowboy hat should not have an impact on the accuracy of one’s statements.
“Just because you wear a cowboy hat is not an excuse to not tell the exact honest truth,” said Conservative MP Chris Lewis. “It’s not an excuse to forget something.”
Liberal MPs talked about the economic and trade benefits of opening the bridge and argued they could not a support a motion that does not include a discussion of those topics. Conservative deputy leader Melissa Lantsman then amended the motion to include witnesses from the business community to discuss the impact of the bridge deal.
“I am confused that the Conservative opposition is trying to celebrate the opening of the bridge, yet critiquing the opening of the bridge at the same time,” said Liberal MP Vince Gasparro. “So to conclude, Chair, I do not support this motion.”
Liberal MP Pauline Rochefort admitted that she was initially “confused” by the terms of the agreement.
“But for me, the confusion disappeared completely once I recognized that there were two separate agreements that worked together,” she told the committee. “The first agreement, the 2012 Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement, which remains fully enforced, remains fully enforced, and I think that’s an important point that’s been made that deserves to be repeated.”
Bloc Québécois MP Marie-Hélène Gaudreau said she is still unclear from this agreement what impact it will have on Canada’s ability to pay down its debt on the bridge. She also said the federal government should not operate like a private enterprise and is still accountable to the Canadian taxpayer.
At a press conference in Red Deer, Alta. on Wednesday, Carney defended the deal with the U.S. to open the bridge.
Carney took issue with a reporter’s question about what Canada has received in return for concessions to the U.S. on the bridge deal, saying that the new funds going south of the border amounted to less than five per cent of the cost of the bridge.
“Put that in perspective, that’s being pragmatic and moving forward. And now we’ve got a bridge that’s open,” said Carney.
National Post
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.