ValueSubtracted

Good grief, it's not a "deal" at all - "proposed agreement in principle" indeed. With no definition of "operating costs," it's pretty much a worthless piece of paper.

There's also some confirmation that the US would have a say in toll reductions, not just increases as was reported last week.

As an exercise in kicking the can down the road, it's...fine. As an ironclad agreement, it sucks.

I'm a non-drinker and know very little about the topic, but some provinces seem awfully protective of their local booze industry.

I'm not sure why the embed isn't working on this one, but it's worth a watch.

That's not what the article says, but it would certainly make more sense.

BUT the current standard toll is $8.00 CAD, while the Ambassador Bridge toll seems to be $14.00 CAD.

Like I said, it's possible I'm misunderstanding something about the tolls, but that's my interpretation.

The other piece of the "new deal" that seems to be new is the wording about the Americans having approval about changes to the tolls - Reuters says this means the US can veto any toll hike over 10% of the current value, which...I don't know, it seems like such a hike would be in their best interests to approve should it be proposed, since it would lead to more of the net revenue they seem to care so deeply about.

I'm also unclear about whether the "regional investment" the new deal refers to is some kind of new money unrelated to tolls. It would be nice to get clarity there.

Assuming all the toll revenue goes toward the reimbursement of construction and operational costs, the net revenue should be zero for many years to come.

I could be wrong about any of this, because it's based on news reports and noth the original documents, so grain of salt, but:

As near as I can tell, the original deal said Canada would charge tolls, which will be used to reimburse the Canadian government for the funds it spent to build the span, and Michigan would get half once that happened.

So the main new bit is the language around "net profits," which doesn't seem to change this original agreement.

Seems like this decision was made strongly based on this individual’s history and that everyone’s safety was considered.

Indeed - the judge's own words deserve consideration.

“It is not without some reluctance that I thus dismiss this judicial review application, because it means leaving Ms. Cooper, a woman, in a male institution. These reasons and judgment should not be viewed, however, as any kind of blanket determination that a transgender or gender-diverse inmate who is designated as a [dangerous offender] cannot be transferred to an institution that aligns with their gender identity, and that may happen eventually for Ms. Cooper. Each such case will depend on their unique circumstances."

Sure, I guess you got me.

My understanding is that pipelines are federal jurisdiction, so there's very little the provinces can do if push comes to shove. I'm not super well-versed on the subject, though.

Without knowing exactly who was involved - and that seems to be the case, so far - you can't say it was any of them, because you don't know. This shouldn't be hard to grasp.

If there were a bunch of people protesting a bunch of different things, it would be irresponsible to declare the supporters of any one particular issue to be the ones who did this.