At Issue | Carney says Canada can make America great again

At issue, Canada's relationship with the U .S.At a time of rupture and tension between the longtime allies, Mark Carney spoke to a U .S.audience about the need for a new kind of partnership.

That future should include a new partnership with Canada.A true partnership that reimagines cooperation in specific sectors that are deeply challenged by global competition.Partnership with a different Canada.A stronger Canada.a more confident Canada.Canada Strong will help make America great again.

So where do things stand in the Canada -U .S.relationship?How does picking partnerships with other countries affect that dynamic?I'm Rosemary Barton.Here to break it all down tonight, Chantelle Baer, Althea Raj, and Stephanie Lovitz is in for Andrew Coyne.

Good to see you all.Althea, I'm going to start with you.You know, a lot of what the Prime Minister said today sounded familiar.Some of it sort of made me raise an eyebrow, particularly that last line there about a strong Canada making America great again.

And I wondered what you made of that and who you think he was actually talking to there?And it is increasingly, I think, becoming obvious to Canadians that there's some elasticity in his message, shall we say, in terms of, you know, on the one hand, you have the elbows up message.You have the framing of the Davos speech, where the rupture is a relationship between Canada's relationship vis -a -vis the United States.You have a very important narrative that is set out there that has brought public support for things that previously were more controversial, like pipeline approval and speeding up assessments for other natural resource projects.And on the other hand, you have the message you delivered today, which in the case, the word rupture here was about the global order and thethe world, not about the relationship of Canada vis -a -vis the United States.

You had, and we had a little bit of this floating in the fall.Remember when they were talking about sectoral tariff relief on the 232 tariffs, where we have a deeper integration with the United States on energy, potentially on critical minerals.And I think that that is what the prime minister was hinting at.But building a fortress North America is in conflict with the idea that our relationship is forever changed and we have to completely diversify.So kind of it's interesting to see the prime minister trying to square that circle.And I think it could bring potentially some challenges at home.

I was listening to Minister LeBlanc, Dominic LeBlanc, on Power and Politics with David.And certainly, Chantal, there are lots of conversations happening around Kusma and trade.But there doesn't seem to be any sort of concrete progress or a move towards an official negotiating table.And I wondered about that and then what the PM said and how those two things maybe fit together or don't.

Well, I think in the real world, there is no option but for Mark Carney to try to walk and chew gum at the same time, because you are not about to replace the United States as a trading partner by making deals all over the planet.You can diversify, reduce your dependency.But I mostly saw it as an attempt to walk away from or break out of the Kuzma box.by saying, if you're just going to be talking about Kuzma, it's mostly defense.You're trying to keep what you have or not make it worse.If you break out of that box and you say there are places where there are wins to be had by the administration,

making deals that also work for Canada, aluminum, et cetera, et cetera.It's kind of an attempt to reframe the conversation because at this point from the outside, it sounds like the US has a list of concessions they want out of Canada to keep Kuzma.Canada obviously is not about to show up saying, Here's our act of rendition.So you try to find a way to make this a larger conversation and still achieve your goals.I don't know if it will work, but I know that what will not work is to tell Canadians that we will not be doing business with the United States in a more intense way than with other regions of the world, such as China or India going forward, because that's not gonna happen.

So is it, do you think Steph, indicative of where the non -negotiations are at?Or is it, I mean Pierre Poiliev basically slammed the Prime Minister today because he's now, in his view, saying something different than he did before.

I mean, to pick up on what Althea said, there's elasticity in the prime minister's message.And where he seeks to tailor it, you know, to whatever audience he's speaking to, it's almost as though he forgets there is no singular audience anymore.Everybody is watching what he said.So the American business leaders in that room are watching, but Canadians are also watching, and opposition politicians are watching.And when you see the prime minister make that reference to make America great again, and you think that's a lot of words to fit on a Canadian hat.You know, like, what is he trying to accomplish there?

And I do think, to Chantal's point, it is a reframing.And it's trying to get away, if there's an irritant with the Americans, and they've raised it time and time again, it's the disparagement that Carney seems to show to the U .S.administration that frustrates them.They understand the need for other trading relationships.They understand that Canada should go and strike a deal.

deals.It's constantly being framed as because the U .S.is bad, that's the bit that gets under their skin.And so for Mr. Carney to come outside that box, as Chantal so well put it, and say, you know, there's bigger gains here.There's bigger things we can do.

I mean, we saw the U .S.ambassador sort of pick up on that and say, thanks for that positive language for a change.And these negotiations are about tone as much as they are about substance.So this is a change of tone.

Is it too on a week where Althea, you've made a choice to buy fighter jets from Sweden instead of the United States.You need to show some goodwill to the United States so that you can get some talks going on other issues.

I think it's probably less about the Saab announcement than it is about the June 1st deadline.So we've often talked about the July 1st deadline.But the June 1st deadline is the deadline by which Canada, the United States and Mexico basically have to have their list of grievances in that they'll discuss on July 1st.And so I think it's more about the building towards that front.And then, you know, we've also heard in the last few weeks, for example, we've seen negotiations between the United States and Mexico gain a lot of momentum and public threats from the Americans that, you know, they might do a deal together that would layer on top of KUSMA and we would have a kind of take it or leave it approach.And we've had our prime minister play hardball in the sense that, like, we're not going to go to the negotiating table because we don't want to make concessions preemptively.

And why should we?Because you have these tariffs on us that are also illegal.And so you guys should also show some good faith.So I think it's a little bit more about resetting that and making sure that there is a constructive output.I was surprised yesterday hearing from the Ontario representative in Washington, David Patterson, that he believes we only have a window of up until Labor Day to get a deal struck.Otherwise, the Americans will be busy with their own midterms and then possibly impeachment and whatnot.

And so if we want to actually have a firm deal on Kusma, and I'm not sure that's actually where the government is, the federal government that is, but that you could see negotiations heat up.And you're kind of starting to see that at least, you know, this is obviously Ontario trying to put some pressure on the federal government.Chantal?

Yes, except that short of the U .S.declaring that they want out entirely.There is the notion that we must get a deal by Labor Day doesn't actually work in the sense that we are not going to all turn into pumpkins on Labor Day or anytime soon.And if the U .S.

wants to give notice that it's leaving Kuzma, that will bring its share of problems on the U .S.administration.So it might be in the president's interest.to have something to show on trade in time for the midterms, more than it is in the interest of Canada.So I'm not so sure manufactured deadlines will do a lot of good for the Canadian approach to this.

At issue, climate advocate.After seven years as an MP and minister, Stephen Gilbeau, the former climate activist, says he will resign this summer.Gilbeau says Canada is backsliding on climate action, and he's moving to take his fight outside of the political arena.

These seven years, intense, demanding, and deeply meaningful, have been among the most formative of my life.I leave proud of what we have accomplished together.

So what does this departure tell us about the government's agenda on energy and climate?Let's bring everyone back.Chantelle Althea and Stephanie Levitz, who's in for Andrew Coyne tonight.Stephanie, maybe I'll start with you.I was sort of struck by the lack of rancour and anger either from Mr. Gilbeau, he wasquite professional in his departure, and from the government side.

There was not a lot of friction, even though Mr. Gilboa obviously doesn't agree with what the government is doing.

Yeah, I found that interesting, too.And, you know, Prime Minister Mark Carney's reaction when he was asked about Mr. Guilbault, it was almost like a shrug.It's like, well, I've got other MPs, so good luck, Stephen, and we'll see you when we see you.And, you know, Mr. Guilbault made a choice there, right?We've seen other politicians leave government benches, leave their parties, and burn it all down, to borrow a phrase.And he made a choice not to do that, despite the fact, it's worth pointing out, when he left cabinet over the Alberta -Ottawa MOU, that was a scathing letter.

and a takedown point by point of how that MOU undercut the government.And so in some way, perhaps, he had already signaled his displeasure.He had already signaled that he was throwing his hands up.From what I'm led to believe, there were conversations continuously between him and the prime minister's office to find some way to keep him.And eventually, those fell apart.And it's a conscious uncoupling, to borrow a phrase in relationships.

They just decided, OK, we're done.

And Chantal, what does that tell you about where the government is going?Because certainly Mr. Guilbeau was, he was an activist politician.I mean, I think he would be comfortable with that.And obviously now feels like he will get more done outside of the arena than inside.So what does that tell you about the government's direction?

Well, even before Stephen Guilbeau announced that he was going to move on to other climate challenges elsewhere, it was pretty obvious where the government is headed.There has been every step of the way over the past year has brought the government closer to having dismantled just about every bit of the climate infrastructure put in place by Justin Trudeau.That's one choice.but not replacing it with something other.You rarely, if ever, hear now the Prime Minister explain in the same kinds of details that he likes to offer on a sovereign fund or go down the list, how he is meeting climate objectives, or if they even matter.Now, It was the show in the House of Commons was very civil, including the decision on the part of someone who resigns in theory on principle to continue to sit with the team he has resigned from until he leaves Parliament.

But if you look at many of the interviews that Stephen Guilbeault has been giving, and the conclusions that stem from that, this has been a pretty bad week for the Prime Minister in Quebec, where There has been a hit and we may see consequences from it because by now, if you do not know that Stephen Gilbo left because what he told voters about Mark Carney turned out not to be true, then you have been living on another planet and not in Quebec this week.

And I fully understand the prime minister's sort of power bases in Quebec, but I don't You know, on the other hand, Stephen Gilboa's departure at a time when Alberta is threatening separation, and we're going to talk about that in the next block, is maybe not the worst thing politically for this prime minister in this moment.I take Chantal's point.It might be bad later, but in this moment anyway, Althea.

Can I just say, Alberta is not threatening separation, but the Parti Québécois, the frontrunner in the Quebec election is.So pick your battles.Yes, yes.OK, Althea.

I was like, what was the question again?Okay, yes, Alberta.I think it is really interesting to see how this decision is playing out in kind of the two solid states.in the country.In Quebec, there has been so much ink spilled about who is Mark Kearney, and if Stephen Guilbault cannot find a place in the Liberal caucus, and he doesn't feel not just that his legacy is still intact, but that he can't advance the things in a way that you know, will have any results.And he doesn't want to give the government, and this was, he said this in an interview with your colleague from Hudson Canada, he doesn't want to give the government the benefit of being the moral conscience for other MPs who are climate minded or voters who see him and think, well, it can't be that bad because Stephen Guilbeau is still in caucus.

that that's why he's taking his exit.And you do have, on the other side of the country, especially in Western Canada, people who are, like, praising that Stephen Guo is, like, good riddance, happy to see you gone.We think you're responsible for 10 years of horrible economic growth.I mean, I don't think it's fair to pin that on the foreign minister.But there are definitely these different class points.I think it speaks to, and I think this is where Chantal is going, like the things that are good for addressing Alberta separatism actually hurt the cause of the federal government in Quebec.

believes, and I have not heard that the prime minister's office tried to keep Stephen Gibault.If anything, you know, he took his fight publicly because he couldn't get anything done behind closed doors, writing in my newspaper about what he hoped the memorandum of understanding with Alberta would look like.And they did nothing of what he suggested.And on the things where he did have an impact, on the nature strategy, on the international climate finance, I think those were seen as two I don't want to say minor wins, but...that legacy can continue without him there.And so what's the point of him staying?

It's really weird, if we can just take a moment to reflect, to have somebody leave in these circumstances.And I think it is quite significant.Mark Carney has gotten a lot of floor crossers.Now this is somebody who's choosing to leave because of the government's record.Steph?

Yeah, I mean, I pick up on that in the sense of this pendulum that continues to swing with, is it Alberta that is going to get the attention today?And then that swings away from Quebec.Is Mark Carney then going to swing back to Quebec?We have David Eby, if we're going to talk about sort of the national unity debate, saying, I'm really not getting any attention.Nobody's talked about Doug Ford lately in Ontario and what some of the pressure points are there.And one of the interesting things as we move into this national unity debate that we're in, What's the pop -off valve?

Which is to say, how is Mr. Carney and also inside his caucus going to reconcile all of this?I mean, a lot of folks looked at these floor crossers and said, Mr. Carney is going back to a different kind of liberal party.He's going back to more of a brokerage party.He's going back to everyone has a home in this big red tent.But clearly everyone does not have a home in this big red tent.And maybe that's OK. I mean, not everybody has to have that home, I suppose, if they don't want it.

But there is definitely a progressive faction in that caucus that was looking to Mr. Bow as their leader, as someone who was going to keep up the fight internally.So what happens to that faction and how does Mr. Carney keep them aligned with his broader cause and ambition?

Well, given none of them seem to want to be very public about their criticism at this stage, it'll be interesting to see whether they do anything on that front.At issue, Alberta separatism.The referendum question about Alberta's place in Canada dominated a meeting of Western premiers this week.I think that the court erred in judgment and I think it's also anti -democratic, the decision that they made.

I think we know that that is not correct, a lot of what you just said there, Premier Smith.It is not up to the petition gatherers to fulfill the duty to consult.It is up to you as the Alberta government.

Daniel Smith says it's important for Canadians to take Albertans' concerns seriously.

I think it's also incumbent upon everyone not to dismiss Albertans' legitimate grievances.

So what's been made of some of the fallout from the referendum question, Chantal Althia and Stephanie Levitt's all back for that.Chantal, I watched that press conference and I just thought, wow, that must have been a really awkward meeting, like very uncomfortable from start to finish.Maybe it wasn't, maybe they're more professional and mature than I, but it was very awkward and it just sort of, I don't know how that's gonna work now for the next five months, those kinds of conversations.

Yeah, and that happens, I think, at the wrong time, in particular for Alberta, because at some point, Miss Smith's pipeline plants, for instance, do inch on some degree of concern from the BC government, and from people in British Columbia and other plants that would be of advantage to Alberta, will involve Manitoba.But overall, one, I was struck by the different dynamics from what you normally see when Quebec is doing this.I The premier of Quebec, or the federalist leader in Quebec, does not get shot at by other premiers or by premiers, because everyone wants to make sure that the federalist champion goes undamaged.But the ambivalence of Premier Smith kind of leads other premiers to say, basically, you've created this.problem and this issue.And so you're not fighting the good fight for us, you are actually enabling this fight to take place at a terrible time.

Will it have impact?Well, seriously, I was listening to Jason Kenneyin an interview in French this week, who explained, and he was totally right, that yes, the prime minister, yes, other premiers, both of them from the NDP, David Ibi and Wab Kinu, but at the end of the day, the people who are almost unanimously part of the sovereignty separation movement in Alberta are conservatives.And they are not going to be swayed back.by New Democrats or centrist liberals or progressives as much as by other conservatives.I thought that's interesting analysis.

Doesn't apply in Quebec, again, but is totally reflective of what polls tell us about where the support for a referendum on separation in Alberta comes from.

And there was an interesting moment, I think it was today, Althea, where the Premier had to say, the president of my party says we're not fighting to keep in Canada, but I'm the leader of the party and that's what I'm saying and that's what this party is going to do.I mean, that to me just sort of summed up the conundrum she herself is in.

Yeah, that the UCP is not necessarily a federalist party, according to the president.But that is a decision for the members.And then, obviously, you had the Alberta sovereigntists come out and say that they want to get Daniel Smith out.I think one of the things that is hard for other premiers and politicians in this town to understand is it feels like Daniel Smith has handed the arsonists a matchbook.And if you really believed in the fight for a united Canada, a strong Alberta, a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada, why take all the steps to facilitate a divisive referendum?And, you know, coupled with that, the

that she has added, that she did not need to add, because she, as the prime minister suggested to one of his cabinet ministers this week, was given an off -ramp and chose not to take it.There are other very divisive questions on that list of referendum questions that are not going to put the issue of sovereignty to bed.You know, if you're suggesting to people that you can somehow decide to get with the other provinces and abolish the Senate, that is not going to happen.So you're just kind of fueling more and more discontent and anger towards Ottawa, and for what purpose?Mm -hmm, mm -hmm.Steph?

Yeah, I mean, I'll pick up on that when she talks about the legitimate grievances.If we take as front and center the legitimate grievance about the allegations from Alberta that their energy industry has been strangled to death over the last 10 years, well, clearly Mark Carney is addressing that problem or making at least a best case effort to try, if you believe him, to be sincere.So then let's run through the other grievances.Do they want more control over immigration?OK, maybe, you know, that's a negotiable.What about getting rid of the gun ban?

I don't know about that one.Like, that's a tricky political promise for the liberals to just walk away from if that's what they choose to do.And so then you go to the question of, if you take that there is like a rump in that province, that they're going to want to separate no matter what.It doesn't matter if these grievances have all been addressed, because to them, and I've spoken to some of them, it's just broken.It's just not working for them anymore.And they don't care about whether there's going to be a new pipeline or not.

They've had it.So then you go to that mushy middle.Right, where maybe as the prime minister warned, you don't want to give people the easy reason to vote yes, thinking, oh, well, we'll solve it later.Oh, it'll work itself out.But I want to send a protest vote.It's that cohort that the messaging kind of needs to go to right now and find a reason to talk to them.

And I don't know what that language is that is going to reach them.And to Chantal's point, and I think to what Mr. Kenney was saying, that's where the question becomes, who is going to be that voice?It's not necessarily Jason Kenney, but some, and it's definitely not Daniel Smith.Who's that voice that is going to be able to break through and convince people, don't vote to go because it's going to create a lot of problems.

Last quick word to Chantal.But don't assume that when the people who are championing the let's have a referendum on separation case, when they show up with no plan really for what happens next or no plan that makes sense, that they will not be driving those soft voters back.to let's not go there.It does matter that there's not a Lucien Bouchard or a René Lévesque or a Jacques Peguesot standing for separation in Alberta.People who have never been elected, who have never managed to elect a dog catcher with a separation tag on his collar, who suddenly show up to Albertans.And it might be that the worst thing that could happen to that movement is for its leaders to be exposed day after day after day.

because they will be given equal coverage.

Okay, good conversation.Thank you all for being here.That's at issue for this week.Steph, thanks for filling in for Andrew.Althea, Chantal, good to see you.I'm Rosemary Barton.

Thank you for watching.