Carney cuts Confederation Bridge tolls, ferry rates to fulfill election promise
Carney, who was in Prince Edward Island on Monday, said tolls will drop from $50.25 to $20 starting Aug. 1 for vehicles.
The bridge handles around 95 per cent of all passenger and commercial traffic to and from the province.
As well, the federal government is cutting fares by half for passengers, vehicles and commercial traffic on the Eastern Canada Ferry Services.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Those ferries include routes between Woods Island, P.E.I. and Caribou, N.S., Saint John, N.B. and Digby, N.S., as well as Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Qué. and Souris, P.E.I.
Fuel surcharges for the ferries are also being eliminated.
Story continues below advertisement
Marine Atlantic, a constitutionally mandated ferry service connecting Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, will reduce traveller fares by 50 per cent and freeze commercial freight rates.
Ottawa notes that Marine Atlantic plays a 'critical role in the region's trade and social links.' Nearly 65 per cent of goods that are transported to and from Newfoundland are transported by Marine Atlantic, including 90 per cent of all perishables like produce and propane.
In a statement, Carney said cutting tolls and fares in Atlantic Canada will save Canadians and businesses millions of dollars.
'That means more travel and trade between provinces, a stronger, more united economy, and more prosperity and opportunity for Canadians,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
This is the court case that could kneecap most Trump tariffs
Most of the tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed on countries around the world face a crucial legal test on Thursday. The hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit involves a pair of lawsuits challenging the 25 per cent tariff Trump levied on imports from Canada and Mexico in March and what Trump called his "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed on nearly every other country in April. At issue is whether Trump's justifications for the tariffs hold any legal water, given the president has limited powers to levy duties on foreign countries. Canada is watching the case closely because of its implications for the tariffs Trump imposed ostensibly to combat cross-border fentanyl trafficking — tariffs that he's threatening to raise to 35 per cent on Friday. Todd Tucker, director of industrial policy and trade at the Roosevelt Institute, a Washington think-tank, says the legal challenge to Trump's tariffs has global economic implications. "Trump is disrupting global trade relations in a way that we haven't seen since the 1930s," Tucker said in an interview with CBC News. WATCH | Carney on European Union's trade deal with U.S.: Carney says Canada is 'in a different position' than EU on trade deal with U.S. 3 days ago When asked by a reporter if Canada could see a similar trade deal with the United States as the European Union's, which includes a 15 per cent tariff, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Europe and Canada have different relationships with the U.S., particularly because the U.S. needs Canadian energy. "Some kind of favourable, even partial victory for the plaintiffs in these cases will sort of put the global economy back on a more secure footing," he said. The case, which has moved further through the courts than any other legal challenge of Trump's tariffs, brings together two related lawsuits: Five small businesses, led by a New York wine importer, challenging the Liberation Day tariffs. Twelve states, led by Oregon, challenging both the Liberation Day tariffs and the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Both sets of plaintiffs won their case at the U.S. Court of International Trade in late May. That ruling found the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statute Trump used to impose both sets of tariffs. Oral arguments take place Thursday in the Trump administration's appeal of that ruling Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center, a non-profit public interest litigation firm representing the five small businesses, says the case aims to rein in what he describes as presidential overreach. "The case is about whether the president has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants, at any rate he wants, at any time he wants, for any reason he wants," said Schwab in an interview with CBC News. "Congress ultimately has that power under our constitution, and although Congress can delegate that power to the president, they have not done so." Do tariffs 'deal with' fentanyl crisis? The IEEPA gives the president the authority to use emergency economic measures to "deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States." The Trump administration's argument — both in his executive order levying the tariffs on Canada and in its legal brief filed for the appeal — is that the flow of fentanyl across the country's northern border constitutes that "unusual and extraordinary threat." The administration claimed the tariffs "deal with" the fentanyl threat by giving the U.S. leverage to pressure Canada to address the issue. Trump's justification for the tariffs on Mexico is similar: that drug trafficking and illegal immigration across the southern border constitute an emergency, and that tariffs provide leverage to force the Mexican government to take action. But the Court of International Trade didn't buy those arguments. WATCH | Canada might not get deal on tariffs by deadline, says Trump: Trump says U.S. 'hasn't had a lot of luck with Canada' in trade talks 5 days ago 'Pretty major national significance' The court ruled that the tariffs on Canada and Mexico do not actually deal with the specific threats Trump cited. It also ruled that the "Liberation Day" tariffs were applied too broadly across the globe to be truly addressing an emergency. That ruling struck down both sets of tariffs, but almost immediately, the Trump administration requested and obtained a stay, which meant the tariffs have continued to apply. Molly Nixon, a Washington-based attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a national public interest firm, says whichever side wins the appeal, it's very likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "This is a question of pretty major national significance," Nixon told CBC News. "I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court didn't review the case." No president before Trump has used the IEEPA to impose tariffs. His predecessors have used its powers to levy sanctions on enemy regimes, to ban transactions with groups that are deemed terrorist organizations or to freeze the assets of designated transnational criminal organizations. Small business owner 'deeply invested' in case While Canadians are predominantly interested in the case for its impact on the fentanyl tariffs, David Levi, an electrical engineer in Charlottesville, Va., is deeply invested in the "Liberation Day" side of the case. Levi owns MicroKits, a small business that designs and sells make-them-yourself gadget kits and musical instruments. His company is one of the five small-business plaintiffs pursuing the lawsuit. "The tariffs really affect me, because I have to buy parts internationally," Levi said, adding that the high tariff rates announced on Chinese imports and the uncertainty over costs disrupted his business. "My worker who actually puts all the parts together, her hours have been cut 40 per cent and in the last three or four months we've missed out on thousands of units of production," he said. WATCH | Trump press secretary reacts to court ruling on tariffs: White House accuses 'unelected judges' of interfering with Trump's tariff agenda | Power & Politics 2 months ago Appeal court ruling expected within weeks Thursday's hearing is before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. The case is moving through the courts at what is, for the U.S. legal system, lightning speed. Legal observers say they expect the appeal court to issue a ruling within weeks, likely by early September. That could soon be followed by the losing party petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal. The case does not address Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from around the world, which he imposed using a different statute, the president's long-established power to levy duties on imports for reasons of national security. Other Canadian exports that comply with the rules of origin in the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement are exempt from the fentanyl tariffs, which means .
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Canada plans to recognize Palestinian state
July 30, 2025 | Prime Minister Mark Carney announces that Canada plans to recognize a Palestinian state. Tsunami alerts send thousands searching for higher ground along the Pacific. And a judge slams the brakes on Ontario's plan to rip up Toronto bike lanes.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The regular work of defending sovereignty
Opinion In September 1885, from a prison cell in Regina, Louis Riel — Métis leader and founder of Manitoba — penned one of the most audacious diplomatic appeals in Canadian history. Facing execution, he wrote to U.S. President Grover Cleveland, asking for the peaceful annexation of the Northwest Territories. It was a radical act, born not of betrayal but of desperation. 'Your humble petitioner respectfully asks, as an American citizen, for your kind and powerful protection… that the international line between the United States and the North-West be blotted out from Lake Superior to the Pacific Ocean, that the Hon. James W. Taylor, United States consul, at Winnipeg, be appointed governor-general of these vast territories… I, the undersigned, humbly ask you to appoint me as first minister and Secretary of the North-West…' Riel's appeal was rooted in a profound sense of injustice. He condemned the Hudson's Bay Company's monopoly, the illegitimate land transfer to Canada, and the deceitful arrival of armed surveyors masquerading as civil agents. His homeland, he believed, had been erased through colonial deception. He asserted the British government was 'guilty of an extraordinary crime against humanity.' Yet even in his final days, Riel's tone remained dignified and conciliatory. He wrote not with bitterness, but with hope — for protection, for peace, and for a future where his people might thrive. His letter is more than a historical footnote — it's a testament to the desperation of a visionary leader confronting the collapse of his world. Riel had few options left. His appeal to Cleveland was a last resort, not a calculated betrayal. As a naturalized U.S. citizen (Montana, 1883), he had a legitimate basis to seek protection. His proposal to erase the border and establish a new government under U.S. oversight was bold, but it reflected his belief that the Métis had been abandoned by Canada. Still, while Riel's appeal was understandable given his circumstances, it was also deeply misguided. The idea of annexation — however rooted in desperation — would be rejected by most Canadians today. It challenges the very notion of Canadian sovereignty and identity. Riel's words reflect a man who, despite facing death, still believed in the possibility of a better future. His appeal was not a surrender — it was a final act of leadership, rooted in the conviction that his people deserved protection, recognition, and a voice in shaping their destiny. Even in chains, Riel imagined a government that could serve the Northwest with dignity and justice. His plea was not just political — it was spiritual, a testament to his enduring belief in the power of institutions to uplift the marginalized. That vision, though dismissed in his time, continues to challenge Canada to live up to its promise. The tensions Riel faced were not isolated. His letter echoes earlier and later struggles for Canadian autonomy. American revolutionaries invaded Quebec in 1775–76. Quebec rejected American efforts to get them to join their rebellion and form a new country. Indigenous and settler forces repelled U.S. incursions in 1812. Annexationist movements in the 1840s through 1870s stirred fears of cultural erasure. These moments reflect Riel's desperation and the enduring tension between sovereignty and influence. Even today, echoes of Riel's plea reverberate. While Canada is now a sovereign middle power, recent provocations — such as U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks that Canada might be 'better off as the 51st state'— serve as cautionary reminders. But threats to sovereignty are not only external. Premier Danielle Smith's government in Alberta has introduced legislation that lowers the threshold for triggering a provincial referendum on separation. Her rhetoric, coupled with support from organized separatist groups, has stoked fears of a constitutional rupture. While Smith claims to support 'sovereignty within a united Canada,' her actions suggest a willingness to entertain separatist sentiment to appease her political base — quietly stirring forces that threaten national unity. Indigenous leaders have condemned these moves as a violation of treaty rights, warning that no referendum can override the foundational agreements between First Nations and the Crown. The Onion Lake Cree Nation has revived a lawsuit against Alberta's Sovereignty Act, citing the province's 'growing separatist agenda' as a direct threat to constitutional protections. Such developments remind us that sovereignty is not static — it must be defended not only from foreign influence but also from internal fragmentation. Riel's appeal, though misguided, was born of desperation and a desire for justice. Today, we must ensure that sovereignty is not weaponized for political gain, but upheld through reconciliation, pluralism, and respect for all peoples who share this land. Ultimately, Canada's sovereignty is not just about borders or trade — it's about justice, self-determination, and the promise of a nation that listens to all its voices. Riel's final plea reminds us that sovereignty is a living principle, defended in communities, courts, and the national imagination. Martin Zeilig is a journalist and writer based in Winnipeg.
