At Issue - Canada faces more U.S. trade war escalation

Episode Date: September 9, 2026

With Canada's $28 billion tit-for-tat counter-tariffs sparking further U.S. tariffs and outright bans on some Canadian products, the At Issue panel breaks down Canada's strategy, what it might do next, and what all the trade chaos means for politics and national unity. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Georgetown invites you to a quiet and compassionate free seminar on supporting those who struggle with substance use. On Saturday, September 12 at 10 in the morning, we will gather to listen, to learn, and to offer hope. Robin Griller of St. Michael's Holmes and Reverend Robert Crestick Lutheran Church, Canada will share gentle guidance on medical, practical, and spiritual care. If you are someone you love is seeking understanding, please call to register 437-297-0056. This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on Add Ischew, the podcast edition for Tuesday, September 8th. I don't believe in escalating the conflict.

That's not constructive. But our tariffs are necessary to protect our workers, protect our companies, and our communities. If I were the Canadians, I'd be careful because they wanted the benefits of being a state, without being a state. And now that the... Now that the arrangements may be splintering, everyone's going to come to our side. So this week, we're asking what's to be made of Canada's retaliatory tariffs

and how is Canada positioned to respond to the escalation from the United States? Plus, how are opposition parties dealing with all of this? So what does Canada's dollar-for-dollar tariff response mean for the trade war? How prepared is Canada now to respond to this further retaliation from the United States? I'm Rosemary Barton. Here to break it all down tonight. Glad to have them. Chantal Iber, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj.

Good to see you all back for the official beginning of the season. An escalation in events, a spiraling of this. Chantel, let me start with you. I mean, Canada, the Prime Minister made the case as to why he felt he had to put these counterteriffs in place. And now we see the response from the White House. How surprised are you? Not at all. I mean, this is basically being invited to a bit of.

ballet where you were given an insight on every step that you would be shown. There is no way that the Canadian government was going to back off its plan to have counter tariffs. It certainly was provided no reason for that over the barrage of insults of all kinds that have been coming from the administration. And there was also very little indication that this would not be followed by a retaliation. So this is where we are at. But does that mean? But what I'm watching for, because I watched the prime minister's address today, and I noticed that, and I covered the FDA, and after the last renegotiation that led to Kuzma, we are, the government of Canada is no longer framing this as a trade negotiation. It's framing this as something much larger,

probably rightly, but that also means that to go back to the table will involve a lot more than saying, let's take the text that we're working on Wednesday and see if we can make them work on Friday. Andrew? Yeah, it's not a trade negotiation because it's about a lot more than trade and because there's not a whole lot to negotiate. The aims and ambitions of the president vary from week to week, but they have a broad outline of essentially suppressing this country's national independence and sovereignty,

of forcing it in the line across a whole range of policy fronts with the United States of America, leaving aside the various threats of annexation, et cetera. I think the government must know that. I think if they didn't know it before, they certainly found it in the course of the negotiations, which is why ultimately they walked away. I think it's quite clear that there's not really a deal to be had with this administration, partly because they don't want a deal. They certainly don't want a deal that hampers their freedom of movement in any way, shape, or form.

It's strictly about what kinds of constraints they can impose on Canada. Whatever undertakings they do make, they haven't made much to date, except to reduce pre-existing tariffs. You can't count on them keeping it. And as I say, their main objective is to keep holding the threat of tariffs over us, and not just tariffs, but other types of retaliation so as to force us into line. So this retaliation for our retaliation is certainly modest compared to some of the things that were coming out of Donald Trump's mouth. But we shouldn't think it's going to end here by any stretch. A few things. I don't know that it's just now that the government has kind of reframed it as a war.

I mean, the prime minister used those words back on August 21st when he announced that he had pulled the negotiators the night before. He said that you are at war when you get attacked. and we have been attacked. The other thing I would say is that I do actually think that the president of the United States and the prime minister of Canada did want a deal. I think the Americans wanted dominance over Canada, and we still see that. But I think the response that we've seen from Donald Trump shows to us that he did actually want a deal with Canada, whatever that meant.

And that Canada was ready to accept, or the government of Canada, was ready to accept many concessions that probably a lot of liberal voters or people who voted for the liberal party in the last election would have been uncomfortable with. And we kind of talked about that already in August. I think what I find surprising by the latest White House action is how kind of rushed it feels. Like you read the list of banned products and some you can understand like banning beer, for example, because alcohol has been such a big thing on the U.S. front. But, like, we don't actually make anything that's branded as tequila. They could have called it agave, but they didn't.

So it kind of feels like they didn't really do much of their homework. It feels a bit rushed. But, you know, I don't know, maybe the prime minister will come out and tell us that we all need to get drunk for our country tomorrow. Chantelle, how bad could this get? I mean, if it's tit for tat, and I feel like that's downplaying where we're at, out. How bad could this get? It could get a lot worse before it gets better. A lot of people are kind of looking at the calendar and saying, well, you know, we need to

hold fast until the midterms. And in a normal setting, a president that is not winning the PR war at home, that is people from his own side saying, this is wrong and it's going to hurt us, and that is looking at the vote, would probably want to climb down or at least find some way. to fix matters. In the reverse, a prime minister who's got public opinion behind him, who doesn't have to face an election anytime soon, and who has more allies in the U.S. by the day,

should be in no rush to do anything about it. But we're not in normal times. We are not talking about the normal administration that thinks about American interest versus Canadian interest in a way that is beneficial for both. So it could get a lot worse. I'm not sure that the midterms will resolve anything. I'm not even sure how the midterms happen in the U.S.

So there's one premier, I think the premier of Nova Scotia, who is saying he feared this might go on until Donald Trump is gone from the White House. That is a possibility that no one wants to talk about, but it's possible. Okay, I've got about maybe 30 seconds for you, Andrew and Althea. Andrew? It's entirely possible it could go on beyond the midternerners, but now is a good time. If you're feeling like you're going to have to have a confrontation with them at some point, which would be my view, you might as well have it now. In the run-ups, the election, you're going to divide a lot of Republicans. As Chantel said, there's a lot of Republicans

who are aghast that was going on there, and this is maybe the optimal time to have it out. Althea. I agree with Chantal. I don't think there's going to be much movement. It's not clear what the off-ramp are. It feels like the junior player is in this battle, like Ambassador Greer, Mr. LeBlah, have open lines of communication, and that's like a healthy relationship. But at the top of the White House, it feels like the president does not want to give an inch,

and it's not clear what the off-ramps are. And I do think that in the very short term, this is like a political win for Mark Carney, but in the short, long term, like when we get into January 2027, and, you know, there's lots of people losing their jobs, this is going to become a real problem and I think we're going to have to rethink

if this was really the wisest of strategies and I don't mean that in terms of what the government is doing but in terms of just I think the price to pay will be more real for people and I think that's in a way what the prime minister was trying to condition today in his video okay we're going to leave this part there

when we come back though we're going to take a look at how the opposition parties are faring in the midst of all of this. So how are they balancing that support of Team Canada and then holding the government to account? That's next. Canadians are in a spirit of coming together to unite in hard times. Today's counter-tariffs are a measure that we support.

What we're saying is now more than ever the prime minister needs to reveal the deal that he had accepted but then opposed. Tell us the cost of the counter-tariffs and come up with a real plan to save Canadians' money and jobs. Here to break down how the opposition parties are faring in the midst of this trade war. Chantal, Andrew, and Lhea are all back. It's a difficult one if you're in the opposition to try and get attention on this issue,

to not look like you're criticizing the country. But Pierre Puelev, Andrew, I'll start with you, has tried to thread that needle by saying, I want to know what was on the table, although there are confidentiality agreements around that. And I want Parliament to be recalled. I can imagine where you land on the second, maybe not the first. I'm always in favor of recalling Parliament.

It's a safe harbor for him. He doesn't want to be just a cheerleader for the government. He doesn't want to be seen to be being a dog in the manger and not supporting the Canadian side. He's got people in his caucus and certainly in his base who are not treading that line quite as carefully and come out quite often sounding like they are blaming Canada for the mess all these demands to come back to the negotiating table,

to quote unquote, to fix the relationship as if it was just a sort of a marital spat. So he's got a tough road to hoe in that way as well, that he's got people who are not being as careful. So a safe thing to say is release the documents, particularly when you're quite assured that nobody's going to release the documents. Althea, do you think that there are legitimate things that the opposition parties are putting forward in relation to accountability and things that they should be asking the government at this moment?

I do. I also think that they are in a really hard position. And you could see that when Pierre Pahlia, for example, was asked on Monday, you know, do you support further escalation if the Americans, as they did today, retaliate, then what? And he refused to answer that question both in French and English when it was posed separately to him. I think that to Andrew's point, it's mostly that there are a lot of conservatives who don't actually see what the problem was in the deal that was floated originally. And so I do think he's trying to get at that argument while asking for something that he knows will not happen. In the same way, he has asked for a full economic analysis of everyone that will be affected in every sector.

He must know that that's kind of an impossible. ask at the moment. And so they are, the conservatives seem to be trying to ask for something that they know the government can't deliver on, perhaps to build that on that argument. Sure. The NDP, on the other hand, I think, has done a smart pivot for them on the economic investment conference that the prime minister must have next week in arguing that Mark Carney seems to be more interested in making sure that businesses survive and not that individuals and their families survive the crisis. I don't know that that is going to have huge legs because I do believe the government is mindful of that.

But that's probably his best lane at the moment, frankly. What do you make, Chantal, of how difficult it is to thread that needle for the opposition parties? Well, to the NPP's point, fairly hard to secure Canadian jobs if businesses are going under. So there is a squaring of circle that is not obvious here. As for the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Puelev, I don't think that on a major issue such as this one that is captivated the country, I've ever seen a conservative leader as isolated. And why do I say that? Because more than one or two premiers, especially the most influential ones, happen to be conservatives. And at this point, they are still walking in step.

We're a long way. Remember that picture on McLean's, the resistance where he saw Andrew Scheer on the conservative premiers? No picture like that is going to appear anytime soon. And then at the same time, you've got voices on that side of the spectrum, Jean Charié, James Moore, Jason Kenney, Aaron Otto, I'm just naming a few here, who are mostly constructively supportive of the government. So that kind of leaves Mr. Poitiev as not really part of the conversation because so many people identified to the conservative movement and the conservative party are actually actively engaged with the prime minister who can say, well, I'm not making this a partisan issue. Look at how I've opened my door to all these people and look at how they're being constructive about this issue.

So it's kind of a moot debate. I don't think for most Canadians, either Pierre Paulyev or Evie Lewis or if Francois Blanche, for that matter, are very much part of the conversation. Yeah, and this is a period, if you're an opposition leader, to just basically survive. The polling numbers are just off the charts

in terms of public support for walking away from the table and even for the counter-variant terrorists. I've seen numbers of 75, even 80%. Well, you can't get 80% of Canadians to agree on the time of day. So this is a period where you're not going to make a lot of yards against the government. You're just trying to hold on and wait until the climate is a bit more favorable for you, and it's not right now. But that's pretty bleak for someone like Pierre Puehlia of Altheo who's trying to stay in his job,

who's trying to advance his cause. That's pretty bleak. Pierre Pahliav has way bigger problems, frankly, than mounting a response to the current crisis. You know, one of the reason that he is taking the lane that he is taking is because the people that Chantal mentioned, many of the people who voted for Pierre Paulyev in that leadership race and who support him do not believe that those are true conservative voices. There is a schism that has opened very publicly this summer between the new influencers of the party and the old influencers of the party, and there are triff war is happening. And that is present also in caucus, except that the more traditional conservative members are keeping their mouth shut.

And many of them have checked out. And some of them are wondering whether they can announce their leader. And others are just decided to the fact that he probably will not leave, that they will not win a vote. And even if he did, if he ran again, he'd probably win the support of the party once more. So there's a very unhappy, unhappy people in that caucus and very conflicted voices online who are talking to us that have nothing to do with the trade war, frankly. But that has exposed those deep cleavages. Okay, going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Quebec's provincial election, how the U.S. trade war is impacting that race.

That's next. We are heading for hard times and Quebec will not back down in the face of Trump. In fact, we will use every tool available to the state to buy more Quebec-made products in order to protect our jobs, protect our economy. So how is the trade war affecting that election? How's that shaping up? Is it taking precedent over anything else? Bring everyone back, Chantal.

Andrew Nelthea. Chantel, start with you because you're in Quebec. You go where you want to go, but it is interesting how the trade war is, at least at the beginning of this week, factoring into this election. It's certainly top of mind for voters, but that does not translate into top of mind in the election. in the sense that when you talk to people, and this is a fairly different experience from past Quebec elections, to tell you the truth, when voters talk on the street casually,

they only talk Trump and tariff, but they don't seem to be tying it to the election. Or if they are, they're doing it in kind of a negative way, as in, okay, so the Patsk, Quebec one may be leaving, but it has been stuck at 30% or below in voting in 10%. since June. And the concern here is, well, if we elect the Parts-Khebeco, will they be spending, it's not the sovereignty thing. People know how to say no if that's what they want to do. It's the notion that electing the PQ could lead, even if you want change, to two years of

Canada-Keebec fights that are not needed in the circumstances. At the same time, Premier Freshette, yes, it's gone up in the polls as best premier, but people have gone into this election thinking that they want change and a different party. And she doesn't seem to be able to break out of that. I'd say at this point the campaign, if it ever takes off, is not yet taken off. And it is more likely than not likely

that we will end up with a minority government that will lead us to do this again sooner rather than later. Yeah, I mean, five parties too on the ballot means that the splits are all going to be really crazy in some regions. Althea, what are you watching? I'm not sure I'm ready to make that prediction of a minority government. But I will say that Donald Trump has been a gift to incumbent political parties. I mean, David E.B. has other gifts coming his way these days. but Donald Trump is a gift to him.

Donald Trump was a gift to Doug Ford during the last election, the snap election he called. It was obviously a gift to the federal liberals. And it is a gift to Madame Frischette because they are able to say and to show themselves leading. You know, she paused the election campaign to run off and govern in the same way that Prime Minister Carney did, I think, two or three times. during the last campaign. And towards the end, there were people suggesting that, well, this is opportunistic or do you really need to be doing this?

But it does remind people that they can lead. And this is what they would do if they were leading. And it crowds out the conversation from being on other things. So it has been a, it's been interesting to watch. The other thing I find that's been interesting to watch as an outside observer, because I don't live in Quebec. But it's like, where did the liberal leader go? A year ago, or just even six months ago, it seemed like the liberals were on their way to a victory. And it kind of seems like the leader is MIA.

Yeah. Andrew? I think Madame Fischette launched her campaign by more or less overtly saying, I'm running against Donald Trump. So it's rarely quite as overt as that, but that's clearly been a gift to her. The CAQ is being counted out earlier, now very much alive. I think one interesting thing is to see Mark Carney attending, you know, signing ceremonies with the CAQ Premier rather than hanging around with the Quebec Liberals, which may indicate where he

thinks things are going. It hasn't moved a lot in terms of the party numbers yet, but you are seeing some movement for her personally. And oftentimes in election, people make up their mind about the leader first, and then they decide about the party. So if there's going to be any movement, that may be a good sign for the CAQ. The other gift, of course, for Trump, and I think Chantal alluded

to this, is, you know, it's always a mark against the PQ for a certain kind of voter that, oh, they're going to bring on a referendum, but especially, you can argue, I mean, he tried to put that off as saying we're not going to hold it as long as Donald Trump is president, but it's still, I think there's so much uncertain in the air that it's not a great selling point for him for any non-committed voter. No, last 20 seconds there to you, Chantal? I would say the greater gift to Madame Frischette has been Mark Carney.

He is the most popular politician in Quebec, and the fact that all those in the place kind of send a message, look, we can get along. You couldn't have done that with most previous prime ministers. But that has worked for her. As for the Quebec liberals, well, they vanished because they have not found their space now that they can't claim to be the only federalist option on the ballot. The easy life was to say if you don't find the PQ and sovereignty, you need to vote for us. Well, a lot of Francophone voters are saying, well, not really.

There are other options on the ballot now. Just one other thing is it's not just that there's five parties on the ballot. There's five parties with more than 10% of the vote. That's right. The splits are going to be insane. Yeah. Okay, we'll talk about it again. Well, that's a date.

That's at issue for this week. What do you think about Canada's counter tariffs? Do support the government's move? Are you worried about the escalation and U.S. response? Let us know. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.c. You can catch me. We're back on Roseprey Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m.

Eastern. And we will be back here in your podcast. next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.