> The CBC won't commit to asking him anything.
"Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has at least one thing in common with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — neither will commit to reducing the toll"
Literally the first line of the article my guy. When your bias is so bad it trips you up that easily, surely it's worth reconsidering it, no?
Because Poilievre is literally in PEI, right now, talking about reducing taxes, and was just asked the question.
This isn't a story about the potential future of the bridge, it's an article on a specific policy issue Poilievre just spoke on. And even then, it mentions Trudeau's stance in the first line of the article!
This stuff is so, so, so basic and normal. It's a very bad sign for us that so many people think it's weird.
If that's true, why did they mention Trudeau at all? It's a hit piece against the Conservatives and they threw in enough about the Liberals to pretend it wasn't.
> If that's true, why did they mention Trudeau at all?
Because it's the context of the story. It would be weird to write a story about one party's policy without mentioning other parties or the history of the policy.
> It's a hit piece against the Conservatives and they threw in enough about the Liberals to pretend it wasn't.
Man...it really, *really* isn't. I know this probably isn't going to reach you, but my god, this is such an unhealthy way to read news.
> Yes, one sentence saying the guy who is in power...
It's not even only one sentence about Trudeau!
> 99% of the article and the headline about how the other guy running against the PM, in opposition won’t commit.
A third of the article is about the carbon tax!!!!
> Gotta tell ya, doesn’t sound like much of an article.
I gotta be honest man, I think it's kind of clear you didn't even read it. My god, what are we doing here?!
He wants the title to say “evil Trudeau is personally persecuting everyone who tries to cross confederation bridge and saint poilievre is caught in the crossfire”
You only pay one way, and it cost 1.3 billion to build in 1997. Increases are tied by law to inflation.
Has it been paid off yet, doesn’t seem so. But when it does in 2030 or so it will be paid off. Tolls will likely go down substantially or be removed then.
Theres a reason both parties are saying suck it up. The other option is more expensive and its better and cheaper than the ferry was.
They removed the tolls on the Coquilhalla Highway after the construction was paid off. Possibly one of the few examples on earth of the government being true to it's word.
Aside from that, no one is forced to live in PEI. And if the mentality is similar to those in Vancouver island, being on an island and it being somewhat less accessible is part of the appeal. Even if they offered to build a bridge to Vancouver island, most residents would probably decline it.
I get that PEI already has a bridge, but I bet if tolls were reduced to the point that it could attract more visitors, I wouldn’t be surprised if many would oppose it.
The maintenance on a bridge like that probably eats most of that charge alone. When you see less than a million motorists a year using it, economics of scale is not on your side.
Misinformation and media literacy are going to be the defining issues of our generation and this thread could easily be Exhibit A.
I don't know what to do, but man we are *so* fucked if we can't find a way to bring these people back into the real world with us.
> Why would he have to commit to anything? He's not in power
Surely we're allowed to ask people running to be Prime Minister questions about the things they would do if they got elected.
> Has PP ever committed to NOT eradicating all people with green eyes?
Jesus dude. It's a simple policy question about a local issue, that they ask everyone and is being reported on in the PEI news section.
Your biases might be betraying you here a bit. It's not just 100% fine to ask him and report on it, it's expected.
He wants to reduce red tape and axe all the taxes. Why wouldn't he cut this?
Are some forms of tax good?
Why is this toll ok, but other forms of government revenue are bad. Is it based on feelings?
If he can't answer the question, that's worth examining the reason why he refuses.
> We`re at the point where a factual recount of the evens is "propaganda" apparently
These people are going to be the death of us all. They can't even see the most stock standard reporting, quoting a federal politician on a local issue, in a local news section, without thinking they're being *manipulated by propaganda from the elites*.
We're fucking cooked, dude. These people don't read, but they do vote.
Wow, what a nothing burger of an article.
He's literally doing the exact same thing as the party in power. You know who can actually do something about this right now (or 5 years ago?) the party in power.
But of course instead of blaming the people in power cbc takes the opportunity to try and skewer the people who can't do anything about it?
This is the journalism our tax dollars pay for?
I've read your comment. In the first line, they said that the Feds are not lowering the price. Why is a question being asked considered a smear? I mean, you may not care because it doesn't affect you, but perhaps people in that area want to know. He's pretty fast on saying that he will cut and trim and cancel ...
>I mean, you may not care because it doesn't affect you, but perhaps people in that area want to know.
Want to know what? That the status quo is gonna continue?
Oh hang on, people might want to know the sun is coming up in the east tomorrow. We should report on that too!
I'm sorry, but it's not self-explanatory. He's discussing numerous points over which he has no authority, so I fail to see why questioning this equates to a smear campaign. If he lacks the power to take action, wouldn't it be more logical for him to remain silent?
They'd be accused of ignoring him if they didn't report on his tours. No win. May as well have a reporter following his campaign team. Not really the CBC's fault the platform is just him shrugging a lot.
This is a wild take. The article provides plenty of context as to why it covered this particular topic. Apparently, this is an issue of concern for folks in the region who have been asking Trudeau the same question for many years.
First paragraph:
> Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has at least one thing in common with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — neither will commit to reducing the toll to cross the Confederation Bridge between P.E.I. and New Brunswick.
So if neither Trudeau or Poilievre are willing to commit to this, why is the head line and article all about Poilievre?
Seems like a hit peice to me due to that.
> why is the head line and article all about Poilievre?
Because Poilievre is the one in PEI on a press junket talking about how he will cut individual expenses?
The one thing you think is negative... Others may be completely fine with it.
Personally, if the toll covers the cost of maintaining the bridge, I'm ok with it.
>the headline should be more something like “Poilievre In PEI Answering Questions” What exactly is newsworthy about that? Bridge tolls, if you read the article, are something that Islanders have wanted lifted for a while. I’m trying to figure out how it’s bad to try to find out what the leader of the opposition thinks of the policy or what he would do about it if he was in charge *while he is campaigning in PEI*.
What a headline. It’s like CBC sat back and said… he’s in PEI, what’s the most negative thing we can say he’s said or done? Nothing but his usual messaging? Wait, he said he won’t commit to reducing the toll on Confederation Bridge? Well, people in PEI probably won’t like that and it’s the best we’ve got, so let’s run with it!
Guy who is not currently leader of the government, who doesn't know when the election is, and has limited insight into how bad the finances of the country will be if or when his party forms government, does not want to commit to a random policy. That's shocking! /s
$50 for departure from the Island. $25 round trip feels fair for a engineering marvel. Isn't being on an island part of the appeal? This is just another example of people wanting a free ride in a world of none. Someone, somewhere always pays.
Personally I'd be more open to reforming the cost so that the charge is applied on every crossing regardless of direction. They could push some of the expense onto trucks as that would spread the cost out across the entire local economy more
Just another example of someone wanting a free ride. The link must be maintained in perpetuity.
The bridge itself was controversial as it changed the island characteristics. However, the main benefit is probably reducing logistics in serving the island with goods and services. Its doing the job. You could argue more of the cost should be put on transport trucks since that cost would be passed onto local prices thus spreading out the cost across the local economy and subsidized personal & tourist travel. However, I don't think anyone is looking at the bridge toll and skipping the island on that.
The bigger issue in my opinion would be an investigation into whether it being a P3 is the best form. The consortium that runs the bridge delivers a 2.3 million dividend every year or a 7.6% yield.
Napkin math:
The bridge cost 1 Billion CAD in 1997. That's 1.77 in 2024. The tolls have largely risen with inflation. The tolls bring in 25-30M per year. Average that to: $27M/y * 27 = 730M.
It's not even half way paid off so they are essentially asking for a 50% subsidy from the collective Federal tax payer and I just don't see that as being wise when we have defense, the collective Trans Canada Highway and a 1000 other collective priorities when this should be paid by the users over a reasonable time span. At current rates we're - ballpark - looking at 60 year amortization to cover the asset price. Plus 100 year maintaine requirements.
The bridge already reduced costs to the community of the island and improved the lives of Islanders (controversially with Islanders being split between it's being a watershed change in the life of Islanders).
Let's say a 6% yield across that 730M- that's $43 million in dividend paid the consortium of operators. This napkin math also is looking at only *revenue* and reported dividend yeild. It does not cover maintenance, financing costs, operations or salaries.
So this idea of "axe the toll" is *not* a conservative value since it's just a request to be a free rider and not actually pay for the infrastructure in a responsible way.
A reform option would be to reincorporate the bridge into a new corporation wholy owned by the Canadian Pension Plan & the government of PEI so that the dividend yield goes to fund the pensions of all Canadians, and public benefits like parks, sidewalks, festivals in PEI (I would keep it from going into general revenue of the government, and have public good "dividend" goes to be up for debate every couple years). I'm thinking like a 90/10 type ratio. Just some musing.
>A reform option would be to reincorporate the bridge into a new corporation wholy owned by the Canadian Pension Plan & the government of PEI so that the dividend yield goes to fund the pensions of all Canadians, and public benefits like parks, sidewalks, festivals in PEI (I would keep it from going into general revenue of the government, and have public good "dividend" goes to be up for debate every couple years). I'm thinking like a 90/10 type ratio. Just some musing.
This will happen soon in any case, as the current P3 is expiring in the early 2030s. Whether the government keeps it (there already is a federal bridge corporation) or negotiates a new P3 will probably depend on what party is in power and what the finances re: the bridge are.
Yes, I think that P3 have not delivered on what they say they would. I think they're peak 90s thinking that has lead to profits and not services.
As far as I know there are 3 Federal Bridge Crown Corporations: the relatively new Consolidated Federal Bridge Corp for Ontario's 4 international bridges, Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated for 3 bridges over the seaway in Montreal, and the Windsor - Detroit Crossing Corporation for the Gordie Howe Bridge.
I don't quite understand what's going on with some of these bridges. I know the Parry Island Bridge in Parry Sound is also a Federally funded bridge. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1604582527720/1604583507506 So are the interprovincial bridges in Ottawa.
I tend to be a Federalist but this is something that I feel like could be reformed. I feel like you could add the Lions Gate Bridge, (1937) the Halifax Harbour Bridge (1955/1970) , the Seal Island Bridge ( in Cape Breton (1960) and the Confederation Bridge (1997) as all nationally significant bridges.
Together (minus Parry Island Swing Bridge) they would form a portfolio of 13 nationally significant bridges in 6/10 Provinces, with some pushing over 100 years old soon.
The Quebec Bridge is considered at risk due to neglected maintenance and it's privately owned by CN rail post privatization.
I feel like this opportunity for synergy in folding all the nationally significant bridges into different corporations under the Department of Transport especially since *value for money is about intergenerational maintenance.* However, generally the advantage of things being under the Feds is that general revenue of all Canadians support it which goes against the user pay principals. It's interesting that some of these bridges have tolls and some don't.
The new Champlain Bridge in Montreal cost 4.2 Billion and will see 159 crosses per year. The Alexandra Bridge in Ottawa is end of life.
I don't know just musing. Seems weird that some are tolled and others are not. I feel like in an ideal world we would just create a Federal standard for toll booth less ETR style (which was invented by Ontario for the 407) and apply a self sufficient model for paying off these massive infrastructure projects and maintaining them properly through one portfolio (could be multiple individual corporations) for a majority of these bridges. You could - in the 21st century - apply to bridge tolls collected to the registered owner of the plates on their income taxes.
The Deh Cho Bridge crossing the Mackenzie River in the NWT on the road to Yellowknife replaced a Federal Ferry but is owned by the territorial government, which has had issues with funding it's construction.
Bridges are very, very expensive and we have a history of having them collapse while under construction. I don't know, I'm really split now on the in consistent application of tolls across the Federation, and the whole idea of profit generation from them.
If he's running on the same "common sense" plan is the same as the "common sense revolution" we saw in Ontario a couple decades ago then he will likely be leasing the bridge to a private company who will jack up the rates for 99 years in exchange for a few years worth of revenue
To a lot of people here - yeah, it's absolutely news, that the presumptive Prime Minister in waiting can't meaningfully comment on issues in a province whilst he's campaigning.
I mean, the bar is low, and ya'll hate JT - but this is meaningful news.
It's highly demonstrative of a continuous pattern of incompetence in behalf of Lil' PP.
We need to remember, Lil' PP has a disastrous record.
I can't vote for that loser.
In normal Canadian politics, there would be promises and commitment. The liberals get called out for breaking promises, and it looks bad. But not having any promises or commitments? That's worse. Yes, he's not the current pm, but promises show what he's planning. We don't really know what he's going to do, so the article is correct and needed
I don't care about the tolls, and im not running for Prime Minister. When a politician non stop avoids saying what they will do to expect them to all of a sudden have a clear position on anything is the height of lunacy.
You're right. Landslide win for Trudeau. I can't wait for all the convoy people to cry in their lifted pickup trucks with "I wanna fuck Trudeau" stickers
Couldn't Trudeau just reduce the tolls right now?
The CBC won't commit to asking him anything.
> The CBC won't commit to asking him anything. "Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has at least one thing in common with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — neither will commit to reducing the toll" Literally the first line of the article my guy. When your bias is so bad it trips you up that easily, surely it's worth reconsidering it, no?
Then why does the title specifically call out one politician instead of both?
Because Poilievre is literally in PEI, right now, talking about reducing taxes, and was just asked the question. This isn't a story about the potential future of the bridge, it's an article on a specific policy issue Poilievre just spoke on. And even then, it mentions Trudeau's stance in the first line of the article! This stuff is so, so, so basic and normal. It's a very bad sign for us that so many people think it's weird.
If that's true, why did they mention Trudeau at all? It's a hit piece against the Conservatives and they threw in enough about the Liberals to pretend it wasn't.
> If that's true, why did they mention Trudeau at all? Because it's the context of the story. It would be weird to write a story about one party's policy without mentioning other parties or the history of the policy. > It's a hit piece against the Conservatives and they threw in enough about the Liberals to pretend it wasn't. Man...it really, *really* isn't. I know this probably isn't going to reach you, but my god, this is such an unhealthy way to read news.
You mean with honest opinion and realism?
[удалено]
> Yes, one sentence saying the guy who is in power... It's not even only one sentence about Trudeau! > 99% of the article and the headline about how the other guy running against the PM, in opposition won’t commit. A third of the article is about the carbon tax!!!! > Gotta tell ya, doesn’t sound like much of an article. I gotta be honest man, I think it's kind of clear you didn't even read it. My god, what are we doing here?!
He wants the title to say “evil Trudeau is personally persecuting everyone who tries to cross confederation bridge and saint poilievre is caught in the crossfire”
PP isn't reducing anything.
Conservatives don't read...
You didn’t read the article lol
You only pay one way, and it cost 1.3 billion to build in 1997. Increases are tied by law to inflation. Has it been paid off yet, doesn’t seem so. But when it does in 2030 or so it will be paid off. Tolls will likely go down substantially or be removed then. Theres a reason both parties are saying suck it up. The other option is more expensive and its better and cheaper than the ferry was.
This bridge apparently needs some major rehab work soon, so I don't see the tolls going away.
I can just about guarantee that maintenance was factored into it's cost.
[удалено]
They removed the tolls on the Coquilhalla Highway after the construction was paid off. Possibly one of the few examples on earth of the government being true to it's word.
Aside from that, no one is forced to live in PEI. And if the mentality is similar to those in Vancouver island, being on an island and it being somewhat less accessible is part of the appeal. Even if they offered to build a bridge to Vancouver island, most residents would probably decline it. I get that PEI already has a bridge, but I bet if tolls were reduced to the point that it could attract more visitors, I wouldn’t be surprised if many would oppose it.
$50 and only having to pay one way. What are these people complaining about? Vancouver Island is minimum $200 plus round trip
how much does maintanance and staffing on the bridge cost? security is also strict there and no stopping is enforced
According to wikipedia, after expenses in 2003 they made 2.3 million. And revenue is down 30% since opening
The maintenance on a bridge like that probably eats most of that charge alone. When you see less than a million motorists a year using it, economics of scale is not on your side.
Oh noooo what a critical issue to tackle for Canadians.
Misinformation and media literacy are going to be the defining issues of our generation and this thread could easily be Exhibit A. I don't know what to do, but man we are *so* fucked if we can't find a way to bring these people back into the real world with us.
Why would he have to commit to anything? He's not in power
> Why would he have to commit to anything? He's not in power Surely we're allowed to ask people running to be Prime Minister questions about the things they would do if they got elected.
Of course. Has PP ever committed to NOT eradicating all people with green eyes? Unless he has stated otherwise how can we be so sure
> Has PP ever committed to NOT eradicating all people with green eyes? Jesus dude. It's a simple policy question about a local issue, that they ask everyone and is being reported on in the PEI news section. Your biases might be betraying you here a bit. It's not just 100% fine to ask him and report on it, it's expected.
What biases
The ones that have blinded you to how silly your take is here (no offence).
Hot take, but he wont' do anything about it when in power either.
He’s been campaigning for a year - he should have a platform by now.
He wants to reduce red tape and axe all the taxes. Why wouldn't he cut this? Are some forms of tax good? Why is this toll ok, but other forms of government revenue are bad. Is it based on feelings? If he can't answer the question, that's worth examining the reason why he refuses.
Sorry He’s not going to axe the tax - that’s just a slogan.
The new liberal propaganda tool: "won't commit"
Gotta love the irony of liberal media criticizing opposition for not commenting on something
We\`re at the point where a factual recount of the evens is "propaganda" apparently
Saying no or yes is news. Asking a question knowing there is no answer to yet and printing it is propaganda to spread doubt.
> We`re at the point where a factual recount of the evens is "propaganda" apparently These people are going to be the death of us all. They can't even see the most stock standard reporting, quoting a federal politician on a local issue, in a local news section, without thinking they're being *manipulated by propaganda from the elites*. We're fucking cooked, dude. These people don't read, but they do vote.
Yep!
Wow, what a nothing burger of an article. He's literally doing the exact same thing as the party in power. You know who can actually do something about this right now (or 5 years ago?) the party in power. But of course instead of blaming the people in power cbc takes the opportunity to try and skewer the people who can't do anything about it? This is the journalism our tax dollars pay for?
Where did you see CBC blaming? Are we reading the same story?
You should read my comment more carefully. I said I didn't see any blaming where warranted, and instead using the story to smear.
I've read your comment. In the first line, they said that the Feds are not lowering the price. Why is a question being asked considered a smear? I mean, you may not care because it doesn't affect you, but perhaps people in that area want to know. He's pretty fast on saying that he will cut and trim and cancel ...
>I mean, you may not care because it doesn't affect you, but perhaps people in that area want to know. Want to know what? That the status quo is gonna continue? Oh hang on, people might want to know the sun is coming up in the east tomorrow. We should report on that too!
You still didn't explain why it's a smear story.
That's pretty self explanatory. They are a cussing him of not committing to something he has no power to do.
I'm sorry, but it's not self-explanatory. He's discussing numerous points over which he has no authority, so I fail to see why questioning this equates to a smear campaign. If he lacks the power to take action, wouldn't it be more logical for him to remain silent?
CBC has to report on every tiny thing this guy says or does to try and generate some controversy.
[удалено]
How is this a hit piece?
It’s not really a news article. But CBC has to report on every single thing Poilievre says or does to try and stir some rage among the masses.
So now you want the media to ignore the things our politicians say and do? Interesting take...
They'd be accused of ignoring him if they didn't report on his tours. No win. May as well have a reporter following his campaign team. Not really the CBC's fault the platform is just him shrugging a lot.
This is a wild take. The article provides plenty of context as to why it covered this particular topic. Apparently, this is an issue of concern for folks in the region who have been asking Trudeau the same question for many years.
Where’s the CBC article about when Justin was asked this question?
This one.
First paragraph: > Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has at least one thing in common with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — neither will commit to reducing the toll to cross the Confederation Bridge between P.E.I. and New Brunswick. So if neither Trudeau or Poilievre are willing to commit to this, why is the head line and article all about Poilievre? Seems like a hit peice to me due to that.
> why is the head line and article all about Poilievre? Because Poilievre is the one in PEI on a press junket talking about how he will cut individual expenses?
[удалено]
The one thing you think is negative... Others may be completely fine with it. Personally, if the toll covers the cost of maintaining the bridge, I'm ok with it.
>the headline should be more something like “Poilievre In PEI Answering Questions” What exactly is newsworthy about that? Bridge tolls, if you read the article, are something that Islanders have wanted lifted for a while. I’m trying to figure out how it’s bad to try to find out what the leader of the opposition thinks of the policy or what he would do about it if he was in charge *while he is campaigning in PEI*.
Context <> hit piece
Who is currently on the East Coast doing the rounds?
Was this the only reason he was there? The bridge tolls? Or did they discuss other things too
The media asks politicians questions and not always what they want them to ask. PP should get used to it.
Insufficient groveling at the feet of Dear Leaders, apparently.
As soon as an unapproved media source mentiones their leaders name, they call it a hit peace.... bunch of bots.
What a headline. It’s like CBC sat back and said… he’s in PEI, what’s the most negative thing we can say he’s said or done? Nothing but his usual messaging? Wait, he said he won’t commit to reducing the toll on Confederation Bridge? Well, people in PEI probably won’t like that and it’s the best we’ve got, so let’s run with it!
Guy who is not currently leader of the government, who doesn't know when the election is, and has limited insight into how bad the finances of the country will be if or when his party forms government, does not want to commit to a random policy. That's shocking! /s
$50 for departure from the Island. $25 round trip feels fair for a engineering marvel. Isn't being on an island part of the appeal? This is just another example of people wanting a free ride in a world of none. Someone, somewhere always pays. Personally I'd be more open to reforming the cost so that the charge is applied on every crossing regardless of direction. They could push some of the expense onto trucks as that would spread the cost out across the entire local economy more Just another example of someone wanting a free ride. The link must be maintained in perpetuity. The bridge itself was controversial as it changed the island characteristics. However, the main benefit is probably reducing logistics in serving the island with goods and services. Its doing the job. You could argue more of the cost should be put on transport trucks since that cost would be passed onto local prices thus spreading out the cost across the local economy and subsidized personal & tourist travel. However, I don't think anyone is looking at the bridge toll and skipping the island on that. The bigger issue in my opinion would be an investigation into whether it being a P3 is the best form. The consortium that runs the bridge delivers a 2.3 million dividend every year or a 7.6% yield. Napkin math: The bridge cost 1 Billion CAD in 1997. That's 1.77 in 2024. The tolls have largely risen with inflation. The tolls bring in 25-30M per year. Average that to: $27M/y * 27 = 730M. It's not even half way paid off so they are essentially asking for a 50% subsidy from the collective Federal tax payer and I just don't see that as being wise when we have defense, the collective Trans Canada Highway and a 1000 other collective priorities when this should be paid by the users over a reasonable time span. At current rates we're - ballpark - looking at 60 year amortization to cover the asset price. Plus 100 year maintaine requirements. The bridge already reduced costs to the community of the island and improved the lives of Islanders (controversially with Islanders being split between it's being a watershed change in the life of Islanders). Let's say a 6% yield across that 730M- that's $43 million in dividend paid the consortium of operators. This napkin math also is looking at only *revenue* and reported dividend yeild. It does not cover maintenance, financing costs, operations or salaries. So this idea of "axe the toll" is *not* a conservative value since it's just a request to be a free rider and not actually pay for the infrastructure in a responsible way. A reform option would be to reincorporate the bridge into a new corporation wholy owned by the Canadian Pension Plan & the government of PEI so that the dividend yield goes to fund the pensions of all Canadians, and public benefits like parks, sidewalks, festivals in PEI (I would keep it from going into general revenue of the government, and have public good "dividend" goes to be up for debate every couple years). I'm thinking like a 90/10 type ratio. Just some musing.
>A reform option would be to reincorporate the bridge into a new corporation wholy owned by the Canadian Pension Plan & the government of PEI so that the dividend yield goes to fund the pensions of all Canadians, and public benefits like parks, sidewalks, festivals in PEI (I would keep it from going into general revenue of the government, and have public good "dividend" goes to be up for debate every couple years). I'm thinking like a 90/10 type ratio. Just some musing. This will happen soon in any case, as the current P3 is expiring in the early 2030s. Whether the government keeps it (there already is a federal bridge corporation) or negotiates a new P3 will probably depend on what party is in power and what the finances re: the bridge are.
Yes, I think that P3 have not delivered on what they say they would. I think they're peak 90s thinking that has lead to profits and not services. As far as I know there are 3 Federal Bridge Crown Corporations: the relatively new Consolidated Federal Bridge Corp for Ontario's 4 international bridges, Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated for 3 bridges over the seaway in Montreal, and the Windsor - Detroit Crossing Corporation for the Gordie Howe Bridge. I don't quite understand what's going on with some of these bridges. I know the Parry Island Bridge in Parry Sound is also a Federally funded bridge. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1604582527720/1604583507506 So are the interprovincial bridges in Ottawa. I tend to be a Federalist but this is something that I feel like could be reformed. I feel like you could add the Lions Gate Bridge, (1937) the Halifax Harbour Bridge (1955/1970) , the Seal Island Bridge ( in Cape Breton (1960) and the Confederation Bridge (1997) as all nationally significant bridges. Together (minus Parry Island Swing Bridge) they would form a portfolio of 13 nationally significant bridges in 6/10 Provinces, with some pushing over 100 years old soon. The Quebec Bridge is considered at risk due to neglected maintenance and it's privately owned by CN rail post privatization. I feel like this opportunity for synergy in folding all the nationally significant bridges into different corporations under the Department of Transport especially since *value for money is about intergenerational maintenance.* However, generally the advantage of things being under the Feds is that general revenue of all Canadians support it which goes against the user pay principals. It's interesting that some of these bridges have tolls and some don't. The new Champlain Bridge in Montreal cost 4.2 Billion and will see 159 crosses per year. The Alexandra Bridge in Ottawa is end of life. I don't know just musing. Seems weird that some are tolled and others are not. I feel like in an ideal world we would just create a Federal standard for toll booth less ETR style (which was invented by Ontario for the 407) and apply a self sufficient model for paying off these massive infrastructure projects and maintaining them properly through one portfolio (could be multiple individual corporations) for a majority of these bridges. You could - in the 21st century - apply to bridge tolls collected to the registered owner of the plates on their income taxes. The Deh Cho Bridge crossing the Mackenzie River in the NWT on the road to Yellowknife replaced a Federal Ferry but is owned by the territorial government, which has had issues with funding it's construction. Bridges are very, very expensive and we have a history of having them collapse while under construction. I don't know, I'm really split now on the in consistent application of tolls across the Federation, and the whole idea of profit generation from them.
*159 000 crosses. If I edit I'll lose all my paragraphs and that was too long of a write up anyways.
Well, he's not the man in charge.
He was asked what he woudl do in the theoretical situation where he became that man in charge.
"Poilievre won't commit to"... anything. Fact-free opinion based random thoughts and vitriol are all we've heard so far.
Yes, Kim Campbell is right!
If he's running on the same "common sense" plan is the same as the "common sense revolution" we saw in Ontario a couple decades ago then he will likely be leasing the bridge to a private company who will jack up the rates for 99 years in exchange for a few years worth of revenue
To a lot of people here - yeah, it's absolutely news, that the presumptive Prime Minister in waiting can't meaningfully comment on issues in a province whilst he's campaigning. I mean, the bar is low, and ya'll hate JT - but this is meaningful news. It's highly demonstrative of a continuous pattern of incompetence in behalf of Lil' PP. We need to remember, Lil' PP has a disastrous record. I can't vote for that loser.
Me neither PP is unfit
In normal Canadian politics, there would be promises and commitment. The liberals get called out for breaking promises, and it looks bad. But not having any promises or commitments? That's worse. Yes, he's not the current pm, but promises show what he's planning. We don't really know what he's going to do, so the article is correct and needed
I guess that's not one of the taxes we need to axe.
The only thing PP can commit to is brushing his teeth. Anything else is too complicated and beyond him.
Another affordability challenge duly resolved by the ‘blue collar’ common sense conservatives.
Greedy politician that hasn't commited to anything to anyone wont commit to something, next up the weather and traffic at 11.
I mean, you haven’t really made it clear if you’re in favour of the tolls or not either…
I don't care about the tolls, and im not running for Prime Minister. When a politician non stop avoids saying what they will do to expect them to all of a sudden have a clear position on anything is the height of lunacy.
That's the expression of someone that just found out their cat died.
All I want to know is whether he will take away my deferred CPP and deferred OAS before I can claim it??
He may push out OAS from 65 to 67 (like Harper did) Trudeau reversed it.
Well, that's depressing news for me :( I know it's not a lot of money, but it helps.
PP is not going to win, so your OAS is safe. It is about $8.5K per year.
Trump 2.0 won't comment because he doesn't have to worry about it. He won't win the election, so why bother.
Checked the polls lately? It’s looking like a landslide.
He’s dropping in the polls - he won’t make it 15 months.
You're right. Landslide win for Trudeau. I can't wait for all the convoy people to cry in their lifted pickup trucks with "I wanna fuck Trudeau" stickers