The Canadian government released the full Gordie Howe International Bridge agreement late Tuesday night after pressure from the Conservative Party, revealing terms that contradict Prime Minister Mark Carney's public statements on debt repayment and revenue sharing.

The document, formally titled the "Gordie Howe International Bridge Proposed Agreement in Principle," was disclosed after Conservative MP Shuvaloy Majumdar pushed for its release. The Globe and Mail obtained and reported on the agreement exclusively. The Prime Minister's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Globe and Mail.

Canada paid $6.4-billion to build the bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ont. Under the released agreement, Canada agreed to split "net bridge and crossing related revenues" equally with the United States for the first 15 years of the bridge's operation. Revenues are to be divided after operating costs are deducted — but not after deducting the cost of servicing the debt on the bridge's construction. The agreement does not include a clause that would let Canada cover those debt-servicing costs before splitting revenues with the U.S.

That revenue-sharing structure directly contradicts Carney's public assurances. On July 12, Carney told CTV News that debt-servicing costs and bridge debt would be paid before any revenue split. At a press briefing on July 16, Carney said Canada will not share bridge tolls with the United States until the bridge debt is repaid, and that the underlying 2012 agreement with Michigan remained unchanged.

The agreement also grants the United States veto power over some toll rate changes for the bridge. The U.S. share of revenues will be paid into an economic development fund "established and solely controlled by the Government of the United States."

Majumdar said the full agreement shows Carney "capitulated" and "misled Canadians."

The bridge is governed by the 2012 Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement, under which it is to be publicly owned by the governments of Canada and Michigan. Ottawa first disclosed the existence of a side deal on July 10 with a brief press release that did not mention the net revenue split with the United States.

The agreement's release comes at the end of a months-long standoff over the bridge's opening. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, prompting Carney to speak directly with Trump after the president erupted over the file. On June 9, Carney confirmed the bridge would open despite Trump's threats. The U.S. administration held up the opening to extract concessions from Ottawa.

Carney characterized the deal as involving "no big drama." The bridge is scheduled to open July 27, 2026. Canada has cancelled a joint ribbon-cutting celebration with the United States for the opening, which was scrapped due to Trump's threat of 50 per cent tariffs.

The broader context here is the gap between Carney's public statements and the agreement's actual terms. Carney's July 12 and July 16 assertions that debt would be serviced before any revenue split are not reflected in the released text. The agreement splits revenues after operating costs only, with no provision for debt-servicing deductions. The distinction matters because Canada financed the entire $6.4-billion construction cost; without a debt-servicing carve-out, the revenue split applies to a larger pool of funds than Carney described publicly.

The toll-rate veto granted to the United States adds a second layer of concessions not previously disclosed. Combined with the revenue split, it means Washington holds both a financial claim on the bridge's operations and a degree of control over pricing decisions, even though the bridge was entirely Canadian-funded and is publicly owned under the 2012 bilateral framework with Michigan.

The leverage the U.S. administration exercised over the file is also worth examining. Trump's threat to block the opening gave Washington significant negotiating power over a Canadian-funded infrastructure project already built and ready for operation. The cancellation of the joint celebration, tied to the separate tariff threat, shows how the bridge became entangled in wider Canada-U.S. trade tensions rather than remaining a bilateral infrastructure milestone.