At Issue | Carney's G7 hits and misses

At issue, Mark Carney at the G7.The annual meeting was dominated by conversations about the deal between Iran and the US, with Carney praising the deal for ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon.

Moving to this position where that's been taken off the table, yes of course.

But was followed with Trump again attacking his trade deal with Canada and Mexico.

I would rather not have the USMCA.The primary reason I wanted it was because there was no way out of NAFTA, which was the worst trade agreement ever made, like ever.

So did the Prime Minister have an effective, a good G7 meeting?Does it matter if Trump did not meet with Karni directly for a bilateral on the sidelines?I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down for our final at issue of the season, Chantel Hibbert, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj.Andrew, I'm going to start with you on this one.I mean, there are lots of different threads out of the meeting.Iran, probably the big one, and Karni was praising at least the fact that they had reached a deal.

But to go back to the President, they had a number of kind of conversations on the sidelines, but no sort of official conversation about any of the particular issues I don't think that needed to be addressed.Does that matter at all, do you think?

I don't really think so.It's a symbolic thing.I think the British press was very upset because Keir Starmer didn't get a bilateral either.But I don't think there was much that was going to go on in a meeting like that anyway.Most of the heavy lifting on KUSMA is being done by officials, as they usually are.The whole G7 was a little bit of a farce, as it more and more is these days, where the other G7 members pretended to be enthused about the Iran deal in return for Trump pretending to be enthused about taking the side of Ukraine in the Ukraine war.

There's nothing to be enthused about with this Iran deal other than that the war that was so ill -advised to begin with is now, we think, for the time being, over, but not without having achieved any of the objectives that were supposedly behind it.it.It's hard to see why people were so excited, except that they've decided for the moment to go back to the flatter Trump strategy.Well, we saw what the result was of that was in the next day or two, Trump started talking about pulling out of Kuzma and Pete Higgs is talking about pulling the troops out of Europe.So I don't know how many times you have to keep relearning this lesson that the flatter Trump strategy doesn't really work.

That may be true, Jean -Pierre, but I also don't know that the insult Trump strategy works either.So I don't know what line you walk.

No, I agree that there is no line to walk because there is no line.So you kind of do what you can.And the insult Trump, I think the G6, the other six, mostly, to start with, wanted the Iran issue put to rest.Forget that the US won or lost or whatever to restore some kind of normality as far as you can get back to normality these days in getting oil across the strait and tamping down hostilities.So that is one.That being said, considering that there is a July 1st kind of deadline.

It's not a deadline you're dead on July 1st, but we are in that period.An optimum scenario would have been for the prime minister and the president not only to meet, but to send together a signal to their teams that they wanted this settled.And that didn't happen at the G7.

And is that a problem, Althea, for the Prime Minister?Because they have been signaling that they don't think that they're going to meet that deadline.But if there's no even conversation, as Chantal says, that we know of anyway, where they said, let's get this deal done.and the President turns around and says the same stuff he's been saying.I don't know how much that matters.

a discussion that happened on the sidelines between our chief negotiator and the minister in charge of the Canada -U .S.relation with their counterpart.I think it does signal that Trump does not want to come to the table and that perhaps Canada has not conceded enough to get Trump to want to have a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Carney.I don't think that we need to be worried about that, though.I mean, it would have been a very positive signal had that happened.

That signal is not there for obvious reasons, and the president kind of elaborated on those reasons after the G7 was over.I also don't think that we need to, you know, assume worst case scenario because I think this is like pre -negotiation posturing and we will see what actually emerges in terms of later on this summer and into the fall.He is right though when he says that the Canadians and the Mexicans thought that the 60 -year deadline to, you know, as a time span to renegotiate this deal meant that Trump would no longer be in office.That is true.They did pick that date because they did think that if he won a second term, he would be gone.But alas, he is still here.

There was a line put in the final communique, Andrew, about other countries taking the lesson from Iran and turning to Canada for our natural resources, our energy.I wonder whether you thought that was a nod also to some of the trade conversations that are happening and the realization that this is kind of the direction that the Carney government wants to go in.

Well, yeah, I mean, Carney drew an explicit connection A lot of things, but between the oil thing, the AI thing with Anthropic, where they were cut off, and we've suddenly realized, oh, we can't necessarily rely on U .S.artificial intelligence either.TheThe theme that sort of is throughout this thing is we can't be exposed to bottlenecks.So, yeah, Canada's energy, supposing we're prepared to bring it to market, is much more highly valued in this kind of world where we're very vulnerable, very aware of bottlenecks.

very much more in demand and that was clearly part of the language that was trying to express.

Do you think that Europe is, I mean Germany obviously has some deals, Chantal, but is Europe interested in that conversation even if it's going to upset Donald Trump and he wants to keep things?

Up to a point, but the real issue is how long does it take for us to get to that point where we are a solution to a problem and is the problem still going to be the problem by the time we get to the solution?You're talking pipelines, things that we're not even discussing, and you're looking at a five to 10 year time frame.Meanwhile, though, while we live in this bubble where we are walking away from decarbonization, Europe is not.And at some point, there will be a gap between one and the other.I'm not totally convinced that words mean a lot in this case.Last 30 seconds to you there, Althea.

I would say I think it was a coup, actually, to have Canada mentioned by name in the declaration because if it does anything, actually, it will probably drive investment.to Canadian projects.So I'm sure the government is very pleased to have that language agreed to by the parties in there.I think the other thing that the meeting highlighted, or rather what happened on the sidelines of the meeting, which was the CNN interview with the prime minister highlighted, is that a majority has now given Prime Minister Carney a much longer leash to take a much more—an approach to Trump that is placating him.Like, nobody at all thinks that this is a good deal.But the prime minister is not talking to Canadians.

He is just talking to Donald Trump.And I don't know that he would have been able to do that, you know, six months ago, because the prospect of an election was around the corner.

At issue, the challenge is ahead.With the House on break for the summer, the Liberals will still have issues to manage in the next months and beyond, from an upcoming Alberta referendum, to trade uncertainty with the U .S., and the Liberal majority facing more by -elections.So what could be the biggest challenges for the Liberals in the months ahead leading up to when the House comes back?Let's bring everyone back.

Chantal, Andrew and Althea.I said the by -elections because I think we're up to six now.Of course, the Prime Minister gets to decide when to call them, although there's time parameters.But that is something that's out there as well because the majority is fragile.But Chantal, let me start with you.What do you think is sort of the big obstacle or the big shiny thing that the Prime Minister needs to keep an eye on in the months ahead?

There's nothing that's big and shiny, but the by -elections probably belong at the bottom of the list.Why?Because I don't think the prime minister is going to be calling by -elections in the middle of a an Alberta plebiscite and an election campaign in Quebec, so that pushes it back to later in the fall, for one.Two, by the time the House comes back, the Conservatives will be missing an MP, the NDP will be missing an MP, and so will the Bloc Québécois.So when it comes to the math of a majority, not a big change.Plus, the Bloc Québécois is not about to bring down the government in the middle of an election campaign.

So let's set that aside.We'll have more fun in November.But look at these timelines.In theory, Alberta is supposed to present the federal government with a pipeline plan by July 1st.The federal government is supposed to decide that it gives it national interest projects status, meaning we're behind it and we're speeding it up.By October 1st, Quebec goes to the polls on the 5th.

Alberta has the plebiscite on whether they want a referendum on separation on the 19th.So there is some some interesting navigating.If you were in a canoe looking at these three dates, you would think you'll need to be good that with your paddle.And that's basically where things will rest.And we will know on November 1, whether Mark Carney is home.safe and dry, or whether we are in a storm.

And how do you think he will navigate, if we continue this metaphor, Andrew, how do you think he will navigate those things?Because it's the time frame and the pull from all those different things that is so fascinating that he's going to have to deal with.

Well, that's just one of the things he has to navigate.He's got a series of very difficult squares to circle or trade -offs to weigh.So that's one of them.Energy versus the environment, building pipelines versus, I mean, Chantal's right that right now the climate's kind of on the back burner, but it's not going to go away.And it's certainly given more political acuteness by what she described there, where you've got these twin referendums or elections in Alberta and Quebec, where, you know, if you build a pipeline to please Alberta, do you annoy Quebecers and vice versa?So that's one.

Secondly, he's got to deal with this question of how do we diversify trade and defense alliances away from the United States while still recognizing the reality that most of our trade is going to be with the United States and for the time being, they're supposed to be our protector.This is a dilemma that's facing, of course, all of the democrats.countries.You see Europe going through this at the same time, of how do we build something to replace NATO while keeping NATO in place.But it's particularly acute for Canada, since we're so dependent on the United States for both those things.Thirdly, he's got to try to, he's got a big defense buildup and other spending items, spending demands on his plate, at the same time as federal finances are pretty rapidly deteriorating.

So that's a very difficult square to circle.And then finally, the political one is, he's got to keep trying to reach across the center, center -right voters to keep the conservatives in check.You know, the NDP has not gone away, and the more that he departs from liberal orthodoxy on things like the environment, the more that he's a little bit exposed on the left flank.Not so great to trouble him unduly at this point, but it certainly could become that.

I agree with everything Chantal and Andrew said.I would just possibly add forest fires and Kuzma to the mix in the summer because if the country is burning, you know, it makes it a bit more difficult for the liberals to go full on and more fossil fuel investment.But I actually want to talk about what happened this week because I think it feeds into a possible problem that the liberals need to be attuned to.Last week, Michael Sabia, speaking at the Eurasia Group, this is the clerk of the Privy Council, talked about one of the things the Kearney government has that's an asset, which is trust from the public.And we have seen some softening of poll numbers in the sense that the NDP is rising.That's great news for the Conservatives, even though they're not doing so great.

What happened this week is that the Liberals decided to use their majority to shut down debate and pass legislation that is very controversial.Bills that were not studied, in some cases had no witnesses that even testified as towhether this was good or bad.In a finance bill, there were measures that basically give cabinet the right to overrule the health minister who decides that a pesticide is too toxic for the environment and should not be allowed to be used under any circumstances.We had the lawful access bill that has gotten a bit more attention across the country.completely shut down the debate.

In some cases, they even backdated the ability of opposition members to bring forward amendments, so only government members could bring forward amendments.We have never seen anything like this, ever.We have talked a lot about these kind of moves during the Harper era, especially during his majority government, and with reason.I think we deserve to talk and highlight what is happening in this case.And I bring it up because the trust issue.The government house leader talked about he hoped the conspiracies around C -22, the lawful access bill, would go away, that time would allow these to pass.

He talked about tinfoil hat people.This is not a way to bring people along.If anything, it fuels conspiracies.So there was no reason to pass these bills.They could have taken the summer to study them and bring more Canadians on side.And I think that they are taking They risk taking, I should say, Canadians' votes for granted.

I think right now the vote is parked in the very same way that Pierre Poilievre's vote was parked, because people don't like the other options.So I think they need to be sensitive to this.Okay, so let's hear from everyone else then.Chantal?

I agree that it's unprecedented to find a government using its newly found majority not obtained at the polls to speed up or force feed nine bills to the House of Commons.I don't think I've ever seen anything like that.And I believe that in the end, it leads one to poor relationships between the parties and you never know when you're going to need help from across the aisle in instances.But it also leads to bad legislation, because no legislation that is brought in in a hurry is perfect and to not want to hear what others have to say about this.is kind of leading you into a place that you're not going to like a couple of years from now.Last minute or so to you there, Andrew.

I'll just add a couple of things to that.One is it's playing to a certain stereotype, if you will, of liberals.You know, if the besetting sin of conservatives is a certain chippy defensiveness, the besetting sin of liberals is arrogance.And the smart ones in the liberal camp always know that that's their kryptonite.So it's not good to be playing to that.It's not good for a guy who's kind of the top dog type as Mark Carney is to be seen to be too conscious of it.

A little bit of personal humility and governmental humility is always becoming in somebody who is, in fact, the top dog.Final point I'll make just as an addition to this in terms of the trust issue, and maybe a sleeper on this, is artificial intelligence, AI.The public is really worried, really scared by this.All the polls show it.That paper that the federal government brought out talked a lot about trust, but did very little in terms of concrete proposals to try to allay public fears in this.The overriding message of the thing was full speed ahead.

And that could come back to bite them.

Yeah, they would probably point to the privacy legislation as trying to build trust.I'm not saying that it will, but...

But in fact, it doesn't.It makes the privacy commission accountable to the government rather than accountable to Parliament.

Yes, and those are all bridges that they will have to cross, I guess, in the fall.At issue, question period.The Conservatives are calling out the Prime Minister for his lack of attendance at questions.period.

He's missed now more than a hundred question periods.He's been in Ottawa 64 of those days where he didn't attend question period to not answer to Canadians.

The Conservatives celebrated a hundred absences earlier this week with a cake, but the Liberals are defending the PM.

I think the Prime Minister should be expected to be there cheering on our national men's soccer team in Vancouver.

So is the Prime Minister's question period attendance an issue?Let's bring everyone back.Chantal, Andrew, Althea.I mean it sort of goes back to what we were talking about before a little bit I think.You know, entitlement, arrogance.trust, all those things.

Except the question period sometimes really isn't great.So that's the part that sort of gives me pause.Well, is this the best place for the Prime Minister to be?I don't know.And certainly Pierre Poiliev is not always there because he wants to grill the Prime Minister.Is this an issue, Althea, you think?

Yes, Pierre Poiliev is also much more often there than Prime Minister Carney is.The real issue is not that the prime minister wanted to cheer the men's soccer team.It's not that he's at the G7.It's that when he's in Ottawa, upstairs in his office, sometimes he does not make the effort to go down the stairs and answer the opposition's questions.And why it matters, it's because it's called the House of Commons.We are the Commons.

Those questions, even though sometimes they're kind of stupid, they are asked on our behalf.And, you know, Justin Trudeau did not have as great an attendance as Stephen Harper, but he came every Wednesday and answered every single question.This prime minister does not do that.So I think it is a lack of respect of Parliament, and it feeds into a narrative that the opposition is certainly trying to create, that he's more of a CEO prime minister than a parliamentary leader.We'll see if the public cares.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's the question, Chantal.I don't know if people care how question period unfolds.if the Prime Minister is there and maybe it doesn't matter if they care or not, maybe he should be there because that's part of his job.

I don't think the measure of saying it's okay to dodge question period is whether people care or not.It is whether you have some respect.You cannot be the person who is preaching around the world respect for institutions, and then treat the institution where you're accountable as a place that is of no interest to you.And Mr. Mark Carney has the same obligations as Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, And whoever came, and Justin Trudeau, and they all managed to show up in the House of Commons a lot more often than he did.But what he's basically saying is, we need to respect institutions, but I'm not showing up to the one that I'm held responsible for.to show up at.

And I don't think that that is very healthy for democracy or for our parliamentary system.

I wonder if he thinks, Andrew, and I don't know what he thinks, but I wonder if it's that it's not serious enough.You know what I mean?Because that's how he projects himself as a serious person in a serious time.

Not nearly as serious as going to a soccer game.Look, it's disgraceful.The question period, God knows, is nobody's idea of a graduate seminar in political theory.But it's the only thing we got.And for all of its failings, for all the ways it can be improved, it's a pretty good thing.Donald Trump, instead of being questioned by the polite, respectful reporters of the White House Press Corps, who are trying to be fair to him.

had to stand up every day and be questioned by skilled political opponents who are not trying to be fair, who are trying to catch him out, who are trying to throw him off his game, he'd be in a very different position and a much more accountable position.So for all of its ugliness and bloodsport aspects of it, it's how we keep powerful people to account in this country.And when the most powerful person in the country feels it's beneath them to show up, it sends really bad signals and it weakens one of the last lines of accountability we've got.

Althea, do you think it's something that the Conservatives can get some traction with?Because obviously it was done with a cake and, you know, some jokes this week.But if it continues to be a trend...

Actually, the cake is part now, I guess, of a parliamentary tradition.The NDP brought out a cake in 2009 to mark the 50th time the Liberals were voting with the Conservatives, despite Michael Ignatius signaling that Mr. Harper's time was up.

That's a good member you have there, my friend.That's good.

Well, it's not often you have a cake in the House of Commons.And so that drove, you know, it kind of helped cement an idea in people's head that were the Liberals really opposed to what Mr. Harper was doing.And I think perhaps this will also help cement in the public's mind, hey, you know, Prime Minister Carney is not showing up to question period.

So if you want something to stay with people, you bring a cake.That is the message that I got from that.

Gotta have a gimmick.

Thank you all.That's that issue.And I'll see you all soon.Probably not that soon, but soon enough.Thank you all for being here.We're going to take our usual summer break with the House rising.

Thank you for watching us all season long, for sending your questions, your comments, your concerns, your thoughts.I'm Rosemary Barton.Thank you for watching.We'll see you back here in September, if not before.