If Canada paid for the bridge, why are we now sharing the profits?
That's the question a lot of Canadians are asking after a last minute deal between Canada and the United States cleared the way for the Gordie Howe International Bridge to finally open on July 27.
If you haven't been following it, here's the quick version.
Canada paid for the entire bridge.
The project cost about $6.4 billion and Ottawa covered the bill after the United States decided not to contribute to construction. You can learn more about the project on the official Gordie Howe International Bridge website.
So what happened?
According to Reuters, President Donald Trump refused to let the bridge open unless the financial agreement was renegotiated.
After weeks of negotiations, both countries reached a deal.
Reuters reports the United States will receive 50 percent of future net toll profits, not half of all toll revenue. That's an important difference because profits are what's left after operating costs are paid.
The report also says the U.S. will have the ability to block certain toll increases and that a 15 year regional economic development fund will be created using bridge profits.
But there's something else you should know.
Neither government has released the full legal agreement.
That means some of the details being reported are based on sources familiar with the negotiations rather than the agreement itself.
So until the documents are made public, there are still some important questions that don't have answers.
For example, did Canada get anything in return for sharing future profits?
Will taxpayers ever recover the $6.4 billion that was spent building the bridge?
Is this revenue sharing arrangement permanent, or can it be changed in the future?
Right now, we simply don't know.
But to be fair, there's another side to this.
The Gordie Howe Bridge isn't just another bridge.
About one quarter of all merchandise trade between Canada and the United States moves through the Windsor Detroit corridor. Every day the bridge remained closed meant delays for manufacturers, trucking companies, and businesses on both sides of the border.
Supporters of the deal argue that getting the bridge open was more important than holding out for a better financial arrangement.
Critics argue Canada negotiated from a weak position because we'd already invested billions and had little choice but to reach an agreement.
Personally, I'm not ready to pick a side yet.
I'd like to see the full agreement before deciding whether Canada got a fair deal.
Until that happens, I think it's worth asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions.
I'll be watching for one thing.
When the agreement is released, I'll be looking to see exactly what Canada received in exchange for sharing future profits. That could end up being the most important part of the entire story.
Until next time,
Dean
P.S. Do you think getting the bridge open quickly was worth making concessions, or should Canada have held its ground? Hit reply and let me know. I read every response.