Some things in life are mutually exclusive. Logic tells us that the same statement cannot be both mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive. However, that may be one of the contradictory statements that our current Prime Minister wants us to believe.

In recent news, Mr. Carney has been criticized for mutually contradictory statements he has made regarding fee-sharing of toll revenues from the newly-completed Gordie Howe International Bridge connecting Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan. Canadian taxpayers paid the entire $6.4 billion cost of building the bridge and under the original 2012 Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement, that debt to Canadian Taxpayers was to have been paid off first before toll-sharing with the US would take place. However, under the new Agreement announced recently, Canada will begin sharing revenues immediately, meaning that it will take much longer for the debt to Canadian taxpayers to be repaid.

The Prime Minister has made a couple of statements that don’t seem to align. On July 16, he said, “Any sharing of the toll revenue won’t happen until all the debt, all of the debt, is repaid.” The recently-signed “proposed agreement in principle” that Mr. Carney calls a “good agreement for Canada” says that for the first 15 years, Canada will split half of the bridge’s net revenue with an economic development fund “established and solely controlled” by the U.S. government. The recent agreement—without which the bridge may not have opened when it did—makes no mention of repaying Canadian taxpayers prior to the commencement of revenue sharing.

This discrepancy Mr. Carney tried to minimize with a less-than-satisfying mea culpa. He simply said, “I could have been clearer.” That is not an admission of error or of misleading statements. It basically indicated that—once things are clarified—both statements can be objectively true. That statement itself is objectively false.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge is now open and traffic is flowing. The mainstream media—which, for once, seemed to be pressing in on the toll fees contradiction—has now, apparently gone back into the quiet acceptance mode and is willing to leave unanswered questions for future journalists to ponder.

Are there other examples of glaring contradictions coming at us from the PMO? How about his May 3 statements about freedom of the press? On his webpage, he said, “A strong, independent and free press both defines and defends our values.” He went on to say, “My new government will also protect and fund more local news…” How can news media funded by the government claim to be “free and independent”? When media—like the CBC and others—depends on government (taxpayer) handouts it is neither free nor independent. It is beholden to the hand that feeds it (not the unwilling taxpayer but the government doling out the funds).

Another problematic area involves the energy sector. The Prime Minster has said he wants Canada to become “one of the largest suppliers of LNG [Liquid Natural Gas] in the world.” But as a globalist and an unrepentant promoter of Net Zero and the war on carbon, he is simultaneously imposing additional costs on the oil and gas sector in the name of “saving the planet.” His media-heavy overtures to Alberta regarding potential future pipelines contain poorly-concealed poison pills…like a massive hike in the industrial carbon tax and a ridiculous $16-billion ‘carbon-capture’ project, both of which could make oil and gas production and pipelines uneconomical at today’s prices.

There’s more, much more. For some additional examples of Mr. Carney’s flip-flops, you can find more details here. The point is that curated talking points and a smooth, unruffled delivery are no guarantee that the content of press conferences or government announcements is actually honest. Hidden or misrepresented details of government policies should concern every Canadian who cares about the economic prosperity and the morals and culture of our society. The Christian Heritage Party offers honest and straightforward policies that we will never “clarify” or “justify” with political doublespeak. Of course, we encourage our readers to examine and compare our statements and those of other parties. Politicians who are speaking the truth should welcome scrutiny and honest questions and should be prepared to defend their policies with facts, not misleading bafflegab. Canadian voters and taxpayers deserve no less.