At Issue - Can Carney deliver on his Davos speech?

Episode Date: January 23, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney outlines a new era of global politics in an address to the World Economic Forum, but can he deliver on his vision? And Ontario Premier Doug Ford fires back at the Canada-China EV deal.  Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Building a better world starts with a better way to build. That's why ADCO is leading with modular building solutions, delivering with innovation, speed, precision, consistency, and a dedication to quality that stands the test of time. We're moving people forward and driving the growth of communities. If you're looking for an advantage and a way to build the Canada of tomorrow, today, think ATCO. This is a CBC podcast. I'm Rosemary Barton this week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, January 22nd.

We live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can and the weak must suffer what they must. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. The middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, on the menu. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that? Mark, the next time you make your statements. This week we're asking, what does Mark Carney's Davos speech tell us about the

new dynamic amongst world leaders? What does it mean for Canada? I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down tonight, Chantelli Bear, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj. I'm glad that we finally get to hear from all of you because it has been a remarkable week and certainly a lot of response and reaction to the Prime Minister's speech. Let's start. with you, Chantel, in terms of how important a speech that was, or whether it was important and significant. Well, I guess you have to judge speeches by their impact. And I don't think we've seen very many speeches by the head of government of Canada that has had as much impact. To have the text of your speech reprinted in Le Monde and in the New York Times is pretty much

unheard of. And I think timing had a lot to do with it. Mark Carney delivered the speech that a lot of people in Europe, but also in the U.S. wanted to hear. It was a solid speech. It does establish Mark Carney, I believe, as an influential voice in the conversations going forward. It probably is not going to hurt his standing at home. Let's see what happens next, though, because that's like writing a great column. And then all the action or the other columns that follow can't quite live up to that great one. So let's see what happens.

I'm sure none of you are familiar with that experience at all. Andrew, what did you make of how the Prime Minister was positioning Canada on the world stage? Well, I mean, it was over-praised, shall we say. It was not the most eloquent speech I've ever heard. I saw people comparing it to the, you know, Winston-Church. We'll fight them on the beaches. It wasn't necessarily breaking new ground in its analysis, but it had the impact it did, partly because of who was saying it.

I don't mean Mark Carney himself, but the prime minister of a country with, it sends 75% of its exports to the United States, warning of the dangers of too deep integration with a great power that has turned predatory catches people's attention. He's got skin in the game. So he wasn't just giving casual advice to other people that he wasn't going to have to face himself. It's certainly, I think, the candor of it, the bluntness of it, it's pretty accurate appraisal,

the fact that he said it out loud, and as Chantel said, the timing. He caught the mood in the room after the insanity of Trump's Greenland escapade, which really does seem to have been the last straw for a lot of people in Europe, a lot of European leaders. I think people are now realizing the trap that they've been caught in. they're certainly realizing that the old game of trying to flatter and accommodate Trump has reached its terminus, and that a bit of defiance and a bit of resolve is now going to be required. Probably required a long time ago, but there's no alternative now. So framing that in terms of a new trade policy is the start.

But I think what you're seeing in there is the seeds of potentially the emergence of a rival organization to NATO, to anything led by the United States. If the United States is going to absent itself from the club of democracies in the way that it so signally seems to be doing, the other democracies may have something to say about that. Yeah, the beginning of whatever the new system is after the old one collapses,

I think is how the Prime Minister pointed to it. Althea, your thoughts. I'm not going to talk about the so-called Board of Peace, but on the speech itself, I feel like there were two different audiences. Two Canadians, the themes that he talked about, you know, this is a rupture, it's not a transition. If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.

Like, these are sayings that he's basically been talking about for the past eight, nine months. And I think the biggest takeaway for a domestic audience was basically how he tried to insulate himself from criticism from making deals with countries whose human rights records we might find repugnant, like China, like the UAE, like Qatar, by basically saying we need to follow an interest-based. foreign policy. We do not have the luxury anymore of basically following our values and our principles. And even when he talked about what his foreign policy will be about, pragmatism and principles, when he went to the pragmatism part, he talked about how we may not actually make deals of people who share our values. So there goes the principled part of the first part of the policy. The other message, which I found really interesting, was the international because I think it was a huge wake of call, especially the people in the United States,

that what Trump is doing is not just impacting this term, however long it may last, but it is going to impact the next presidents. America as a whole, things have drastically changed. And I don't know, like, looking at the coverage in the United States, whether it's in the New York Times or social media influencers or whatnot, it seems like this had never occurred to them before, that the system that the United States has created is gone and that partners have to move in a different direction. Yeah. And that the trust is broken fundamentally as well. So I know you want to want you all to sort of talk about then Donald Trump's response and then the risk of that the speech or whether there was risk in saying those things, given that we have to

maintain some sort of relationship with the U.S. Chantel. I thought it was a mild reaction on the part of Donald Trump, and he wasn't having the greatest day, put it this way, or the greatest visit at Davos. And I don't think it was a key concern of his, which is why it came out like that. I think Canadians by now are pretty inured to these kinds of statements. Now, that brings people to our main interests, which is the renegotiation of Kuzma, the free trade agreement. And I think with the past two weeks, have sent as a message, and that goes well beyond the speech by Mark Carney,

but the speech tailors into that, is this is a president who has made trade deals with the European Union, with the UK, and then when he wasn't pleased about their defense of Greenland and Denmark's sovereignty, decided that he could threaten to impose new tariffs. message from that you can negotiate all you want with Donald Trump

but his word is not worth the paper he signs on too and I think that casts a different light on what's going to be happening in this country over the next eight or nine months because in the end we are at the mercy of the whims of someone who

wakes up at two in the morning and decides that he's going to put 200% tariffs on whatever because he's in a bad mood about something you said that is totally within your purview as a sovereign country. Okay, I only have a couple minutes left, Andrew. Well, and the key theme of the speech is,

unless we all act together against this, we'll all be the victim of his wins, the mercy of his wins. So in part, it's a kind of a declaration of independence in the sense that I think what you're announcing there is we are not going to let the Kuzman negotiations become a stick with which to beat us. We're prepared to walk away if we have to.

I think what is basically signaling is we have bottom lines. We have got ourselves in a situation where we are overly dependent in the United States, but we are going to try to find whatever ways we can, both economically and militarily, to lessen our dependence. Now, it's a tough thing. We're not just building the plane while we fly, we're having to build a whole second plane while keeping the first one aloft. But to some extent that's the fate.

That's the problem facing all of the democracies. Look at Europe where basically Trump has more or less said, I'm not going to fulfill my Article 5 responsibilities. You're on your own. That's, I mean, it's been fairly evident for some time, but I think this week has really crystallized that awareness. And when Russia is beating down your door, that's a pretty sobering message. Okay, last minute to you, Althea.

I'm not sure where the government is going on the Canada-U.S. front, to be honest. There was a hopeful message in that, you know, it kind of felt like he was talking to European partners, but you could interpret it to be a hand to Mexico too about, you know, if we don't ban together, the great powers will pick us off and we will have to accept less so then we can demand if we are together. At the same time, though, you know, the prime minister was very deliberate in not mentioning Donald Trump's name and not speaking directly to the United States. In the Q&A portion, he was asked to elaborate on some of the themes he talked about.

And he kind of declined to go further than he had. When he was asked about the Board of Peace in this $1 billion membership cost, he didn't say that he wasn't going to join and that Canada wasn't going to spend the money. He just had the money he wanted to see go to Palestinians. So, you know, he made sure there was no clip attacking Donald Trump personally.

And so I do think that, the still like the do no harm on the Kuzma front is still the government strategy as best as it can it's just kind of wants to play both sides at the same time okay we're going to leave this part there thank you when we come back though we're going to take a look at how Mark Carney hopes to implement this vision that he laid out in his speech to Davos

okay so this is the second speech what does it mean for Canadians what does the prime industry need to do to live up to it that's next now Canada can't solve all the world's problems but we can show that another way is possible. Canada doesn't live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian. So what does Mark Carney need to do to live up to his vision for Canada on the world stage?

Can he deliver on the rhetoric he laid out? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea, as Chantal said, sometimes when you write a second column and it's not as good as the first, people will notice. So I'll apply that. frame here, Althea. Obviously, the speech was different. It was for a different audience and it was about different

things. But what did you think it did in terms of sort of demonstrating to Canadians what the government is going to be up to? I'm not sure that he did that. I think, frankly, he should have stopped talking and let the Davos speech continue because he got grave reviews. This was kind of like a Justin Trudeau-Pablum speech, like tries to make you feel good. about yourself. You know, Canada will thrive because we're Canadian.

What does that mean? But worst, he shot himself in the foot by kind of suggesting that he doesn't absolutely know, A, much about Canadian history, B, the symbolism of being there. And, like, Quebecers don't view this as a moment where we all came together and said, kumbaya, let us all get together.

They view it as a conquest. Sure. So, you know, I don't. don't know what happened with the speech, but it clearly needed an editor who said, uh, it's the best we rewrite this and leave it for another day. I mean, I, I took it as this is our founding peoples, you know, regardless of the I understand what he was doing. But that's why he did it.

That's why he did it. Yes. Across the country. I get it. You know, he didn't talk about the West. Yeah, yeah. It's like now the leader of the PQ is planning to do a rebuttal on Sunday on this speech. Like, it's just opening a whole can of worms that he didn't need to go there.

Chartel, Chantal. Seriously, you do not go to the plains of Abraham to praise a great coming together moment. And you don't need to be a sovereignist, a federalist, that's common knowledge here. So if you're going to mark Quebec history, Canadian history, the two of them together, you've really picked the wrong place, especially when you start with the two generals who were dead. and this was the end of New France. I'm quoting here. No.

But the other thing is, the first speech was, I believe, in sync with where a lot of Canadians, Quebecers, Canadians, whoever, were on the Trump issue. This speech, the kind of unity speech, it wasn't just a reminder of Justin Trudeau's speech. He would never have made that mistake, by the way. It was more a reminder of the era when you come to Quebec and you need to preach unity to Quebecers. And I believe that was totally ill. Andrew.

I'm not sure I'm quite as vexed about it as my colleagues, but I do think it was mostly, I mean, it was a pretty bog-standard liberal leader speech. So a big chunk of it on unity, a big chunk about how the liberals created Canada, all the policies that we brought you. He managed to work in a couple of conservative prime ministers, but only when they did liberal things. So it wasn't, if the first speech had that great impact because it read the room so well, I'm not sure he read the national room necessarily as well.

I'm not sure what the necessity of the speech was other than it may be the kickoff of an election campaign to come. But as I say, I don't think, I'm not sure he did himself quite as much harm as has been suggested here. Okay. What did you make of Pierre Paulyev's response? So far it's just a written statement. There's a video that may come, but there was a shift there too, I thought, Althea, maybe not as much as is needed. But the fact that he didn't criticize the speech, per se, seemed a little different than what we've come to expect from the conservative leader. Well, to be clear, we were talking about a Davos speech. That's right, the Davos speech today at the Citadel. This is Pierre Paulyev's best statement, I think, that I have ever read from the conservative leader. I almost fell off my chair when the word started with he wanted to congratulate the prime minister on a, quote, well-crafted and eloquently delivered speech and offer, quote, praise

of his own. So I thought it struck the right balance because, A, Mark Carney has been getting that congratulatory message from around the globe on the Davos speech, but also in his criticisms which I thought were fair and just, frankly, where he said, you know, you can pretend that the relationship with the United States is over, but, you know, three-quarters of our goods still go to the United States and that relationship is integral to be protected, and we cannot gloss over that. And the other part, on the values bit that I spoke with in the first block, you know, you can't be naive, basically, saying about running into the arms of China, because this is still a regime

that has, you know, kidnapped Canadian citizens, is engaged in, or has been shown to be engaged in electoral interference and foreign interference. You know, this is not a country that shares our values, and so you can't gloss over that. And then in his suggestion about bringing forward a Canadian sovereignty act, I think it is a good way to say to the Prime Minister, Pierre Pueleev. You know, these are the things that are our priorities and kind of squeeze the liberals on when the House resumes. They can play those clips on social media and fundraise, but also, you know, Pierre Paulyev basically needs to wait until Mark Carney fails. And now he's setting himself as a constructive force. And so I thought it was strategically smart.

30 seconds to you, Chantal, then I've got to go. But it also showed how loudly the Prime Minister's devil speech echoed in the Conservative chambers, that it required the response that went beyond the usual snide social media comment, whether that appeases the conservatives who are saying, where is our leader as an aspiring Prime Minister? It goes some way to that. but I thought the timing of the response was also a sign of the pressure that Pia Pua Lever has been under since the Davos speech. We're going to take a short break here.

When we come back, we'll talk about the fallout of the Canada-China deal and the concerns Ontario in particular has about this relationship. That's next. We need to find a path forward that protects Canadian auto workers and good-paying union jobs. Instead of importing vehicles, and if the Chinese are serious about making investments, and creating auto jobs here in Canada, then show us proof. It's the second largest economy, and it's our second largest trading partner.

We should have a strategic partnership with them within those guardrails, and that's what we've achieved. So what does the pushback from Ontario mean for the deal? Have new cracks formed in the country? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. Althea put out lots of good points in the previous segments

about making the deal with China. But Andrew, I'm going to start with you on this one, Because, I mean, of course, you expect Doug Ford to defend Ontario's interests and the auto sector, but we are told, you know, we've been reporting that there is an auto package coming from the federal government in the next few weeks. I wonder how difficult this is for the federal government to manage and whether Doug Ford, frankly, needs to be a little more open about the idea of the auto sector changing. Yeah, I was actually, I thought Ford was more statesman-like than you might have, might have anticipated.

It wasn't, I'm blowing up, I'm taking my marbles going home, it was, we need to have these kinds of offsetting measures, et cetera. And in the circumstances, that's not necessarily unreasonable. If there was any other country but China, I would say, look, you know, adjust, you know, don't just retreat into protections and what have you. Obviously, China makes things a lot more complicated.

But I do think the importance or the degree to which we have, quote, unquote, fallen into the arms of China is vastly overstated. If the background documents on that agreement said, we hope, like it's an ambitious goal that will get a 50% increase in exports to China over the next five years. Supposing that happens,

my calculations are that China would go from being 4% of our total exports to maybe 5%. So I think it's actually a fairly cautious opening. Again, if we didn't have to deal with anything else in the world, maybe we would say we don't even want to do that with China. But given the kind of existential threat we're now dealing with in the form of Donald Trump, I do think you have to recalibrate and rethink things. But it's going to be a very good debate.

Should we continue to put all of our eggs or 75% of our eggs in the American basket? Or do we need to be more open to the kinds of diversification that are required by our current security situation? And how comfortable should we be with those things, with those opening of the doors? To your point, Chantal? Yes. Well, it's not just that suddenly 49,000 EVs are going to be up for sale from China and Canada a year, which is a minute amount of cars, by the way, in a place where we actually do not have the same offer from domestic auto manufacturers. But it's also, and I think that's probably why Premier Ford has kind of been restrained up to a point.

Saskatchelan, the Atlantic, Canada. among others, did gain something from that, and that is the reduction, sharp reduction in tariffs on their own industries. So at some point, I think it's fair on the part of the Premier of Ontario to say, well, if they want to sell cars here, they should build plants here. That is what we told the Japanese decades ago. And it is a valid argument, but I don't believe that this is a major rift between. Ontario and the federal government. Okay. Althea, last word to you. I think it's possible that we see an autopact that involves China.

There was talk about a joint venture. And Melanie Jolie, the industry minister, has talked about building a new auto pact. But then you saw from Howard Lubnik in the United States basically suggesting if you do have a joint venture, then that would jeopardize access to the American market. So I think they're trying to thread a fine line there. I think on the deal itself, you know, they release the MOUs for every other arrangement that they had, but they didn't really release this one. They gave us the summation of what the Canadian government believes was what agreed to.

And there are a lot of questions, you know. You had the Chinese ambassador say that, oh, well, maybe the visa-free travel thing isn't really a done deal. And then we don't really know if the canola, lobster, if that's going to be permanent or maybe just until the end of the year. There's a lot of questions to be asked about what exactly it is that Canada has agreed to with China and what the impact will be on the auto sector. Okay. We'll leave everything there. Thank you. That was a good conversation, as always.

That's at issue for this week. What did you think of that speech that lots of people are talking about? And how do you feel about Chinese EVs? Let us know. You can send us an email at Ask at CBCC. c.ca. Remember, you can catch me on Rosemarton Live. That's Sunday is at 10 a.m. Eastern. We will be back here in your feed next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.