At Issue - Can Carney make Canada an energy superpower?

Episode Date: November 14, 2025

At Issue this week: Prime Minister Mark Carney unveils the next round of nation-building projects he says will transform Canada’s economy. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre tries to move past party struggles. And François Legault’s fight with Quebec doctors. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Kids these days, people say we have so much more. Smartphones, video games, treats, and busy schedules. But more isn't always better. Because kids these days, we also have more health challenges than ever before. More mental health issues. More need for life-saving surgeries. And more complex needs. Chio has a plan to transform pediatric care for kids like me.

Join us. Because kids these days, we need you more than ever. Donate at GeoFoundation.com. This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton, this week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, November 13th. The first principle of these projects is it's in the interests of Canada. Not every aspect, not every project, not every mine will go for it because people have to be behind them and they have to be the right ones. This week, we're asking, what do these new projects tell us about Mark and?

Mark Carney's vision for Canada. Plus, can Pierre Pauliev turn the focus away from his party's internal struggles? So, what are these new projects tell us about Mark Carney's vision for Canada? How likely are they to be greenlit and completed? I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down tonight. Chantelle Iber, Ender Coim, Altheiraj. Andrew Coyne, I'm going to start with you tonight. What do you make of this second tranche of projects and sort of what they tell you about

what or don't tell you about what the government's trying to do here? Well, I'm particularly impressed by it as a public relations exercise. You know, by going this route, they've been able to convert the conversation around climate change from saying no to projects that had oil and gas involved to saying yes to projects that are more in line with the government's climate change agenda. I think that's smart politics. They are now in the business of building rather than obstructing building, even if their projects selected to their designs. These are not necessarily, and I'm sure Elfiel will make this point at greater length, these are not necessarily projects, quote-unquote, of national interest,

but they are projects that are going to go through the major project office and be basically given the concierge service, and that reflects the government's priorities. Yeah, they are just so people understand. They're projects that are referred to the office, but they haven't necessarily been green-lit, which is what the prime minister is kind of referring to there. And you wrote a lot about this today, Althea. Well, basically, when this major's project's office was, set up. It was made to support the great Building Canada project of Mark Kearney from last June.

And we spoke about it at the time. The government basically gave itself unprecedented powers that if it listed a project as a national interest project, it could basically clear the way legislatively and through regulation and through study by ignoring a whole bunch of laws on the books and regulations on the books and picking and choosing what laws to apply and giving a whole bunch of power to cabinet and to one minister specifically. What the Toronto Star has learned, what I wrote about was that none of the projects so far have actually been listed as national interest projects. So there was no need to have this huge rush, this unprecedented piece of legislation that

Kaibosh Parliament's rights. The only person who seems to want to use this bill at the moment is Pierre Paulyev, who has talked about it to build a northern gateway pipeline, to build 15 to 16 massive of LNG terminals on BC's coast. So these are like kind of two separate things, but one thing I did notice from today's announcement, perhaps the government will use this unprecedented law on the books, but Mark Carney never said the word national interest project today.

He just talked about referring it to the Majors Projects Office, and my reporting has shown that actually most of what the project proponents want is money, and that is what Mark Carney is giving them. He is giving them the certainty to private investors by saying these are the project the government wants to see built. And in this budget, he's also giving the infrastructure bank a whole bunch of money so that they can invest in these projects. Though just because they haven't exempt the projects from the laws and regulations doesn't mean that they won't, right? No, no, it doesn't. But they said they could not be, this bill could not be studied. It was

studied in a day and a half. It did, it was like so crucial we had to get this done and they haven't used it. Yeah, I should tell your thoughts. A lot of the projects, I'm, I'm, I'm, thinking for to start with with the first batch do not need any laws to be lifted I was talking to people from the Montreal Port Authority they have a project that that was in the first batch so I asked them so that this major projects bureau get in touch with you and they said actually we don't need very much from them because we'd already cleared all the regulatory hurdles what they're basically doing for us is speeding up conversations at the federal level.

Okay, I'm not saying that's bad, but it goes to Altheo's point. My impression is that looking at the projects to date, I don't think very many of them require interprovincial cooperation, for instance. They're all, for the most part, very much localized in one province. And from that, and then in the real world, that would not necessarily make them worthy of the title of national interest projects. But I suspect that up to a point the government is using those projects to road test its system, but also to tread water while it gets those bigger projects.

I'm thinking the train between Quebec City and Toronto, for instance, or the transmission line between Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. None of these projects are ready to get off the drawing board. But those would be, or a pipeline to the West Coast, projects of national interest that would possibly require Bill C-5. But I think the government wants to show action, and it's using those projects to give the sense that there's momentum behind the initiative. But that is, I agree with Andrew, it's great public relations. I mean, it does seem as though the further we get down the list to Chantal's point. the harder it's going to be to get some of these things across the finish line.

And we should say that they're working on some sort of MOU, some sort of memorandum of understanding with Alberta, where apparently the Alberta government believes there'll be some sort of language around a pipeline. We shall see, but it is remarkable that you unveil a list of projects that doesn't include a pipeline and you don't have a blow up from Alberta. So they are at least talking and they seem to have convinced Alberta Premier Daniel Smith that they're at least serious enough that she can keep talking to them. keep talking to them. We shall see whether they come to agreement because, you know, you could argue that Alberta has a vested interest in wanting to keep, her premier, I should

say, has a best interest in wanting to keep, you know, a bit of a feud going with the federal government. So can they agree on terms that take away that foil for her? At some point, yeah, if it's enough in terms of improving the Alberta economy, it'll be worth it. But there's bargaining to be done on both sides that way. It's not just finding common ground with Alberta. It's finding common ground with Alberta while keeping cabinet and caucus united behind whatever results from that. And NBC and indigenous community. So it's easy enough to say, well, you know, let's do the pipeline that Alberta was.

but is it politically feasible? I'm not convinced. Yeah, Althea. The most interesting thing to me has been the timing of these announcements. They did not need to announce the LNG terminal today. And in doing so, they may have lost Green Party leader Elizabeth May's vote.

They may have lost some NDP votes in favor or some abstentions. My understanding was basically until a few days ago, it wasn't clear when this MOU was going to be announced. I think, thankfully, for members of the Liberal caucus, the MOU is not going to be announced before the Monday budget vote. But at the moment, the Liberals do not have the votes to get their budget across, unless there is some closely guarded secret with some floor crossers that we have not heard a whiff about,

it is not clear how they survive. And they have just made their job harder with this announcement. and Mark Carney musing last Friday that Daniel Smith is getting a pipeline or something like it. Okay, we will leave this part there. Thank you all for that beginning of the conversation. When we come back, we'll talk about how Pierre Paulyev is responding to one of his MPs crossing the floor and one of them resigning. So how are the conservatives? How is the leader responding to the loss of two MPs?

How is he trying to turn the page? That's nice. Have you maybe reflected on your leadership? style moving forward. No, we are, my way's plan is to continue to lead to be the only leader in the country that's fighting for an affordable Canada. Becky Bo is unhappy with the environmental policies. Wilkinson is unhappy, so I know that I'm looking forward to seeing the wall-to-wall coverage. So what does Pollyas response to the loss of two MPs and to those questions there tell us about the state of his leadership?

Can he turn the focus away from the struggles that he's currently facing and back on the the budget, for instance. Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew Elthia. Chantel, what did you make of, that was the first time that reporters had a chance to ask Pierpola about any of these things. That's kind of why it became a focus of that press conference. What did you make of how he

responded? If you want to ship the focus away, you do with people like Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau do and say, I wish him well in his future, but I have more serious things to talk about, i.e., the budget. But I think this press conference probably had more impact on caucus members who were trying to see if there would be a change in Pierre Puellev's approach to his leadership than on the general public who basically saw the usual Pierre Puelev, the one that squander the 20-point lead in part on tone and the one who is 20 points behind Mark Carney is best prime minister.

but if you're a conservative MP and we know that they exist and we know that they talk and you're uneasy about the style of leadership of Pierre Puellev and the lessons not learned from the last election you got your answer. No lessons to learn.

He's good and if you don't agree well it's just because you don't like him but he doesn't want your vote. It was kind of a curious response because in some ways I would argue Andrew he has learned some lessons, right? He, you know, he did an interview with me. He didn't interview with CTV.

He is trying to put himself out there more, but he kind of reverted back to the stance that he had had previously in terms of attacking the media and denying that there was anything to take away from the past 10 days or so. Yeah, I mean, you know, this is the art of being politic or the opposite. I think the answer to that question was a big smile on his, I'm always trying to learn lessons as a leader. You know, that's what a normal, humble person who's trying to be. to convey humbleness anyway would say it looks a little chipping defensive if you just say a flat no i think there were parts of it that were better than no i don't i think it's pretty fair game to say look you know chris d'antramal said all these things about the liberals and liberal policies

and now he's joining them you know catching him in his own contradictions i think is more fair game but uh and it's certainly better than the initial impulse coming out of the leader's office which was to call him a liar and a fraud and a cheat and all these things uh but generally speaking the tone was still that kind of chippy and defensive thing. When people say, I'm not sure about his leadership style, of course, what they really mean is, I'm not sure he can win. And this is the kind of Pierre-Poli Everett that got them up to 40% plus, but is unlikely to get them much beyond that. I mean, he does maybe believe Althea that this style works, that that it got him to where he is, that this is. The leader of the opposition is where he is.

That's right. That's right. But maybe he believes that that style still has. merit. I mean, that's the other way to take that. Althea, tell me what you're hearing. Coming out of the election, there was a tone shift. There was suddenly all these conservative MPs were doing mainstream media. I'm not sure that Pierre Pueleev would get on your show this Sunday. Frankly, I'm sorry to say, Rosie. But he has reverted back to the old Pierre Puelev. And it wasn't just saying that he hadn't learned any lesson. It was the sites that he was trying to pick with CBC and CTV. And, you know, what I think has happened

is they have decided that there are two things that are crucial. One, he needs to have a really strong showing in January at the Leadership Convention. The people who like Pierre Paulyev like him a lot. The people who dislike him, dislike him a lot. The other issue is he needs to not lose the base

that turned out for him in the last election campaign. And those people are like former People's Party of Canada supporters. he needs to maintain a grip on those people. And he was being attacked last Friday on social media for voting with the government against the Black-Kibiqua motion and not triggering an election.

He lost his chance to send Canadians to the polls when it was given to him. And so in this election campaign, he was like unanimously, all conservatives are going to oppose this budget. And we will see. But the biggest challenge to his leadership at the moment comes within caucus.

So he is saying to those progressive conservatives, the doors over here, You don't like the way I'm leading? It's not going to change. I'm going to tinker around the edges. I'm going to talk about the team around me, which we have seen in the last two days. But this is who I am and this is how I'm going to lead. You don't like it. Go away. And frankly, that probably means that his leadership will be more secure in caucus. We'll be more secure in caucus. But does it improve anything for him politically? Because that's, you know, to win an election, it's something entirely different. Well, Mark Carney has pushed him to the right, and so that's the challenge. That's his response to that. For sure, for sure, Chantal. Two things.

I do think that a lot of the members who will be voting on his leadership will not just vote out of, I like him. And I covered Preston Manning trying to run for the Canadian Alliance and the next step in the process. And people would tell me I like him, but they wanted to win an election. So I think that 20-point gap on who's the best prime minister between Carney and Puellier, that's going to matter when people vote. This is not a hands-up vote in caucus. It's a secret ballot. But the other thing about how you get rid of a story like that,

I wrote a not very nice column about Lucien Bouchard when he came back from having been ill and having lost a leg about how he was staging his return to bolster his party's fortune and manipulating people into that. and there was a news conference and he was asked about it. And his answer was, the next time I almost die, I will try to do better.

That's the answer you give. That's why we like having you here. The other thing he has going for him is the absence of available alternatives. That's right. None of the names which conceivably could be raised as a possibility of replacing him a poll as well as he does, even though he himself is 20 points behind Carney in the polls. So if you're dissatisfied with Pahliav's leadership and you're a conservative, you're kind of stuck with him at this point

until somebody else emerges who looks a little better. Yeah, because we should also say that the conservative party is not polling as badly as the leader is, right? That is also part of the time. Yeah, and by the way, I don't think Mark Carney out-pulled Justin Trudeau at this time last year. That's true. That's also true.

Last word to you, Althea. Oh, where to take this? I don't know that the people who are that upset with Peer Paulyev are actually going to show up in January, to be honest. Like, that's $2,000 investment. The Ontario Progressive Conservative Convention is the same weekend. I don't expect that Mr. Palliav really will face a challenge. Unless. Yes.

Go ahead. Sorry, I didn't interrupt. No, no, no, no. Please interrupt. Go ahead. Unless we get a couple more floor. process. Yes. Well, I don't actually expect anybody to join the grits. I think the rumors are that if the people who are dissatisfied leave, they will leave to sit as independence. And what they

need and what they're looking for is safety in numbers, I'm not sure we're there yet. And so the likelihood that there's any more impact on his leadership in the immediate future. We didn't know two weeks ago that this was going to happen. People usually don't publicize They're thinking before. We never saw those Canadian Alliance MPs wake up one morning to sit outside of the Stockwell-Days caucus. So I agree the safety and numbers think. Lots of people are having lots of conversations, frankly.

I have another unless. Yeah, quickly. Unless the liberals contrived to lose on the budget vote and force an election. Okay. Well, I'm not entertaining that one. I don't think they're trying. to lose the budget vote, but it doesn't seem like they're trying to win it either. I think that's some bigger issue.

I think that's fair to say. And let's be clear, that's only because I don't know if I have a second election in a year in me. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Quebec's Bill 2 and the threat of many doctors leaving the province. That's next. I'm not targeting Quebec doctors. If they call me, I return their call. We don't put a gun to anyone's head.

We don't handcuff any of our doctors. to stay in Ontario. If you treat your doctors well and you respect them, they're going to stay. So what does this reaction from the doctors mean for Francollo's government?

Let's bring everyone back. Shantelle, Andrew, and Elfia. I'm going to start with you, Chantal, because you're there. I don't, I don't, I'm not sure I understand how the government didn't see how badly this was going to go

and the position that they are now in. I don't know either because I'm not. sitting in those rooms where the government apparently tries to figure out the way forward, but for sure they have managed to make doctors very, very, very angry about this, their contract proposal, that's one thing, but it's the back-to-work legislation that they passed, which wasn't meant to send people back to work. There wasn't a doctor strike. It was meant to stop doctors from using pressure tactics, such as not giving classes and residences, etc.

The problem is that the government loaded this legislation with everything but the kitchen sink, including supervision of attendance for doctors and their medical practices. The list goes on, and they have managed to break any hope of a trust relationship between the parties who are trying to negotiate. That bill is a non-starter for most doctors. 13,000 of them showed up at the Bell Center last weekend on a Sunday in Montreal to demonstrate. Doctors don't usually spend time demonstrating. Others are you are right exploring options of all kinds, and this is just exploration.

It's part of the public relations battle on both sides. two things happened over the past two weeks that to me are significant politically. The first is a poll this week that showed that the public is now siding with the doctors and not the government out of fear of losing their doctors. But the other is they message to Francois Legoe from Doug Ford and other premiers that he is seen outside Quebec as a dead man walking. And so nobody cares that his nose is out of joint because New Brunswick or Ontario are trying to recruit doctors because they're assuming, as the Post suggests, that you will be history

come this time next year. Yeah, if not sooner, if you can hold on that long at this point, it's hard to see. We'll see. Andrew, what did you, what do you make of this? Well, I mean, my background is economics, and so I tend to think incentives matter for guiding human behavior, but I've come to believe that the desire for respect is an even much more powerful thing. And people, when they feel like they're being disrespected, it goes way beyond the actual ins and outs and technicalities of what's being proposed. Look, you know, fixing health care is fiendishly difficult. Getting doctors to move out of, you know, established ways of doing things,

establish practice to go into other things, go into primary care, to work more hours, changing the compensation system from fee for service to capitation, making sure that you don't go from getting doctors to overtreat patients, to worrying about that they're going to under-treat patients. All these things are really difficult. But other provinces have tackled it in a way that involves more negotiations rather than just simply putting the hammer down. And particularly the stuff where, you know, these massive fines for protesting

and taking time off work, I can see where people would just say, look, he's just not taking our views into account. He's not listening. He's just, it's my way of the highway. And people don't respond well to that, and particularly doctors. Well, and particularly when doctors are so desperately needed everywhere, you would think that that is the one area where you wouldn't want to anger people out of you. The Canadian Medical Association says that there are 1.5 to 2 million Quebecers

without a family doctor, that Quebec has the longest wait times and emergency rooms in the country. And you would think that the government's response would not be to say, we're going to cut your salaries and we're going to make your family clinics harder to run. And we're going to give you insane targets that actually have nothing to do with the amount of time you spend with patients delivering the care that they need. They're basically our fault because we have understaffed emergency rooms, for example, like suggesting that every patient, that goes to the emergency room has to be seen within 90 minutes. What's the doctor's response if they're going to be doc pay for that?

Well, then they're going to not listen to the maybe 15 different things that you came in with and say, well, I got to see more people and I'm, you know, the health care of that person is going to suffer. And we have seen over time that that's also a primary motivator for doctor's behavior. And then to say to them, if you act out, we're going to find you $20,000. I think maybe we should be having a panel about, like, what is going on in the provinces in their fight against labor with unrealistic, not unrealistic, the heavy hand of the state coming down on people who are just saying, well, you know, we don't think this is acceptable

and instead we're trampling on their rights. It's really quite something. Okay, Shantle, quickly, and then I got to go. Yes. But the other thing is, if you're going to, to go in a major fight to make a change like that, and you know it's going to be unpopular, do not do it when you are falling off a cliff in public opinion polls. No kidding. Because you are basically telling the people across from you at the table that you cannot do it. You do not have the moral or the political capital to do it. And I think it's part and parcel of Francois de Gauss' refusal to recognize that he's unlikely to lead his party to

another victory. And you do it in the first year of a mandate, not in the last months. Yes. Totally. Not when everyone's against you. Okay. Thank you all. A good conversation. That is at issue for this week. What do you think at the latest list of big projects? What do they mean to you? Let us know

what you think. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We will be back here in your podcast feeds, though. Next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.