At Issue - Canada-U.S. trade negotiations go off the rails

Episode Date: October 31, 2025

Canada-U.S. trade negotiations go off the rails after an anti-tariff ad angers Trump. Parties accuse each other of trying to force an election over the budget. And was Alberta justified in using the notwithstanding clause to get teachers back to work? Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Althia Raj and Jason Markusoff.

It's sneaky, underhanded. They don't want us to talk about it. But in Canada, beer tax increases are automatic. They go up automatically, yes. Even though at 46%, Canada already imposes the highest beer taxes of any country in the G7. Don't they realize automatic is not democratic? To help stop it, go to hereforbear.ca. And ask yourself, why does the best beer nation have the worst beer taxation?

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on ad issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, October 30th. We stand ready to pick up on those discussions when the United States wishes to pick up on those discussions. It's unbecoming of an ambassador. I've never heard of this in my entire life. So this week we're asking what's to be made at the 10th? tensions in Canada's trade negotiations? What will a meeting between Canada and China's leaders

mean for Canada's trade prospects, plus what's to be made of the political battle over the upcoming budget? So what's to be made of the tensions in those trade negotiations? What will a meeting, for instance, between Canada and China's leader mean for Canada's trade prospects? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down tonight, Chantelli Bear, Althea Raj, and in for Andrew Coyne tonight, Jason Marcosoff. Thank you all for being here. Nice to see you. Let's start maybe just with a state of play where we're at, Chantal, the fact that things are off, there was a little bit of an interaction between the president and the prime minister in South Korea, but it is very unclear where things go from here. Yeah, well, if I raise my glass at you at a dinner table,

I hope not too many people read many things into it. Okay, seriously, back room talks, are still happening. Both sides keep talking about this deal that didn't happen because of the ad. I frankly don't buy that because the subtext, what you also hear is how Canada wasn't flexible enough. And what you hear from the Canadian side, not from the official lines, because we are all protected from finding out exactly what is going on. but from backroom talks again that whatever it was on offer involved a list of concessions

that at least one person I spoke to as close to that said that that person had warned the prime minister that the second you sign off on this is the day we become totally unpopular in Canada so the notion that there was a great deal in the offing that got killed by this maybe it's lucky and why do I say that because clearly particularly public opinion in the U.S. is turning against tariffs, as are politicians. And that is interesting. It will take a while. It's not an instant solution, but it doesn't go the way of tariffs are great, as the President likes to say, and Americans like them. Yeah, I mean, I was thinking about that too, Althea. I do think the Prime Minister has said this before,

that time is on our quote-unquote side, Canada's side. And I did wonder whether there was some slow walking happening here on purpose. Again, I have no idea what the prime minister's strategy is, but I think that that's also plausible. Well, that was our strategy last time, but I think the Americans are onto us. I think what's telling is that I agree with Chantal. I don't believe this had anything to do with the ad. And in fact, the president suggested that the Canaan's were being unreasonable and that he likes the current status.

which is Kizma and additional tariffs, and he is in no hurry to change things. And frankly, I don't know why we would be in such a hurry to change things either, because without auto on the table, without softwood on the table, I think there is already a narrative that is starting to be craft, which is Mark Carney's government is willing to concede on things, whether that's the continuation of the border, defense spending, at the digital service tax, the reciprocity tariffs from August, and nothing seems to emerge from it. So why would the government continue along those lines? I think in a way it was a mixed blessing for them, so I agree with John thought. Jason, what do you think? A lot of Canadians

were, you know, some people may see it as a mixed blessing, but a lot of Canadians are waiting for something. Canadians in the auto sector, that's clear that they're not going to, we're I didn't get anything from this, and they seem like there's an existential crisis there for Canadians in the auto, sorry, in the steel sector and aluminum sector, you know, the idea of concessions and something, some kind of improvement was great. And if the idea was that the concession could be, you know, more oil being sold through a keystone pipeline or some kind of agreement there, that would have been a major boon for the problems. I mean, I think the challenge, and this is what Trump benefits from, is that people don't know what's real. 10% this threat, is that real, is what's to come on this? You know, the idea of a perpetual state of uncertainty is what he thrives on. And yes, there is an opportunity for Canadians to be patient,

but they know that there's a long time since there's been any kind of win. They can point to it all on that, and that's going to lay in their minds as well. I mean, I do think, I mean, maybe it was many things, but I do think it was also the ad. and I think some evidence of that is the way Ambassador Hoekstra approached the Ontario representative at that event the other night and used the F word and laid into him about it because I guess it embarrassed the president and at least upset him. But I don't know what you do to... Yeah, yeah. Seriously, it didn't at first and then it did.

And what that tells me is the ad was effective. And in the end, you're not going to win. I mean, in what universe does the U.S. ambassador give orders to Canadian lawmakers? And in what universe does that work for Canada? The ad was obviously effective. Public opinion in the U.S. What was it that CNN poll 49% of 49 plus 49 Canada is a friend, minus 10, Donald Trump is doing well? at some point

you've got to decide whether you're going to spend your time kissing rings for no purpose or whether you're going to stand up but the notion that we should say the U.S. ambassador is now using F words which I can use because I'm French but I'm not going to

and that's a sign that we should just get on our knees that sounds really demeaning plus there was a poll this week that basically showed that the majority of Canadians actually think, and more than almost half of liberals,

that we're being too timid in our handling of the U.S.-Canada file. So at some point, you've got to decide who you are the prime minister to. But does that mean we don't have to seek a resolution, then Althea? Like we just, as you said, just live with what we have for now. I think we just need to be smart and not keep conceding on things. without, you know, like our eye should be on the big prize, which is Kuzma, and making sure that that renegotiated deal gives us certainty because a thing that is killing us at the moment is uncertainty.

And whether it's the U.S. ambassador trying to make himself relevant with his F-bombs, I wasn't at the dinner, so I don't really know what happened. But to me, that is, that's a side show. The president actually hurt himself by raising the ad, because then it got everybody talking about the ad on Fox News, on MSNBC, on CNN. And it made the ad much more of a target. It got lawmakers talking about the ad. And frankly, it hurt his case of the Supreme Court

because it's supposed to be about reasons and not emotions. So that makes little sense. In terms of our strategy, I'm not actually sure what our strategy is, but it seems like it would be much better to keep our eye on the big prize. And these side deals that we don't even know if Donald Trump's going to honor them, why would we concede big things on to get temporary reprieve? Yeah. And maybe that is the strategy because it, you know, it is the prime minister who continues to say we have the best deal with the United States because of Kuzma and the other things.

It's just the sectoral tariffs that continue to be painful, Jason. Yeah, and he's been patient. He's not struck the deals like Korea just signed where there remains a 15% tariff or France or England. And what a time for Karni to, for Trump to have this fit of peak. And of course, you know, one of the pieces we know about Mark Carney is his strategy is not going to fight peak with peak. But for Mark Carney to be waiting into, you know, on Friday, this meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, which of course very controversial with a lot of Canadians, both in, you know, academia and in public, who are worried about the security and various other consequences of that. But when Donald Trump is showing just how irrational he is,

that he will raise tariffs, starting to raise tariffs by 10% because he didn't like something he's heard about on TV that many Canadians may be much more welcoming of an embrace of once seen as a pariah state. Okay, we're going to leave this part of the conversation there. When we come back, we'll look at the political battle shipping up over the budget and concerns about the vote. So can the liberals get the support they need to pass the budget?

Is there a threat of another election? That's next. I'm not sugar-coting it to people. Yes, we have to make tough choices. We certainly hope the opposition leader will order his troops to vote for it, instead of ordering the very nervous ones to vote against it and cause a very expensive Christmas election. That member and the prime minister are trying to provoke a costly election on their costly budget.

So what's to be made at the politics behind the budget? Does any party really want an election? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal Elthea and Jason Marcusoff in for Andrew. Elthea, I'm going to start with you. What are you hearing? Where do you think things stand? Well, to answer your question, does anybody want an election? Generally speaking, no. Is there the threat of an election? Yes. Are the numbers there for the liberals? Yes. If they're they want it. The conservatives don't actually want an election, but they believe that their membership do, and so they will vote against it, though Pierre Pahliav, the conservative leader, was pretty clear, interestingly, that he didn't give, sorry, a clear answer when he was asked if all of his members were going to be at the vote and be voting against it. So that's worth noting. The NDP caucus is really split, but they don't have that much to lose. They could abstain, but if there are lots

cuts, as we keep hearing that there are, if there's a lot of job losses, I can't see how the NDP votes for this budget. The best-likely scenario is that the block supports the budget, which frankly was always the best-likely scenario. No, no, but it was. If they had started talking to the block in the summer, because Yv Francois-Blanchev told them after the election, you know, this is a moment that calls for us to collaborate and work together. And if we all put our partisanship aside, you know, I'm willing to work cooperatively, let's talk. And the liberals did not talk to him. And then, I'm sorry to say, but the House leader, the Liberal House leader, Steve McKinn

basically used his pulpit to insult the block repeatedly. So why would they want to support him? And so they poisoned the relationships. But that was still the best case scenario for them, the easy for the picking votes, if you wish. So they're in a bit of a pickle, but I do think that they are individual members that they could go out and get those three missing votes, starting with, of course, Elizabeth May, who has said very clearly that if there's no fossil fuel subsidies, she's willing to vote for the

budget, assuming there's no poison pill there for her. So, yeah, the other problem, though, is that a lot of liberals actually think that there is a strategic advantage of going now, because it will never look rosier than it is now. And if Mark Carney wants his majority and he seems to be governing as if he has one, maybe they should start planning it. for one. And frankly, they have started planning for one. Okay, I'm going to get Chantel, and then Jason, I'll get your take from a little further away, Chantel.

The bloc will not support the budget. And even by late summer, they did warn the government that it wasn't on. And those 18 conditions, six of which are non-negotiable, are basically meant to say, we are not going to support the budget.

The Francois Blanchet wants to go to the polls before a possible PQ win in Quebec City, which would complicate his own life and leave him vulnerable if we end up in a referendum. Yes, no kind of environment. The problem the opposition has, the NDP and the Conservatives, there's a Petula Clark French song that says everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. And that's basically where they are. They would all want to oppose the budget, but neither of them really want an election. And I think of the two parties, the NDP probably is less adverse to an election

because they figure they can hang on to their seven seats. If they did last time, they can do it again and maybe add a few more. The conservatives and Pia Prueleev have to be worried looking at the numbers that this would terminate Pia Pia Pueleev's career. I forget that leadership review. But at some point, something is going to have to give, and there is an extra danger here. What if they all decide to go to heaven on budget day?

By saying we oppose this budget, thinking that they're not going to have to die because they will keep people away on the vote. If you were the prime minister, you could, on the basis of those statements on budget day, go to the Governor General and say the three, the main opposition parties do not want to support the budget. And so I'm asking you to dissolve this parliament

because I don't have the support of the opposition for my budget without going to the vote. And that is a risk because I do believe that the notion that it would be that the liberals actually should want a majority and are increasingly thinking that they can get one is a dangerous one for the opposition parties. as they try to call everybody else's bluff. Okay, Jason, so like if I was a Canadian listening to this, I would not be thrilled.

I just, I don't know that Canadians have the appetite for another election or even want to contemplate that this is happening. What do you think? And the parties all know that. They know that one of the, you know, if we wound up an election, they'd have to make sure they can properly blame the other guys. Nobody is going to want to be blamed for the election. It's not that you necessarily lose the election because they blame you,

but it certainly hurts you at the start of an election that that happens. But right now, these parties, there is nothing. There's no real downside at this point to bluffing, to revealing their hand. Everybody wants to strengthen their hand, have the highest negotiating hand, certainly until the liberals play their cards, which is the budget, which will test, you know,

which could test what the country's pain threshold is for size of deficit. We're at an interesting point now where Pierre Pauliev seems to be okay if the deficit is a mere $42 billion, which is an interesting political place to be. And, you know, what the country's pain tolerance is for spending cuts with all these warnings bringing down the boom that there's going to be some kind of sacrifices, some kind of hard hardships for Canadians of various colors. but, you know, until they see that, there's no real point in saying where you're going to go or what you're going to do for the opposition parties.

Last 30 seconds or so to you there, Altheo. I think the fact that, you know, you're both suggesting that the Canadians don't want to have an election should give the liberals pause, frankly, because they win when voter turnout is high. And in the spring, you had people very worried about Donald Trump and his threats about the 51st state, and you don't have that anymore. And so if you get into this feeling of complacency, the liberals might think, oh, the polling members are great in Quebec, in Ontario, and Atlantic Canada.

But if there's nothing mobilizing people to the polls, they should be far less comfortable than the polls suggest they are. We're going to take a short break. When we come back, we'll talk about Alberta's use of the notwithstanding clause to force teachers back to work. That's next. As notwithstanding clause is part of our constitutional. institution. And part of the reason why it's there is that sometimes there are a lot of different

interests that have to be mediated. And those interests have to be mediated by elected politicians. So what's to be made of the use of the notwithstanding clause in this case? Does it add to concerns over the, some people say, the overuse of this from time to time. Chantal, Elthia and Jason, join me again. Chantelle, you know, I wanted to talk about this first of all because you guys all like talking about it, but also because it is part of a bigger conversation happening right now when it comes to the notwithstanding clause in Quebec's use of it, but also Doug Ford's use of it. What do you make of Alberta's decision here? Well, it's part of a pattern, increasingly provincial governments, and maybe a Pierre Puev-run federal government would use the clause

rather routinely, and the more you use it, basically what you're saying is we have a charter of rights, and freedom, but when it's convenient, we use it preemptively. We don't even wait for courts to say your law is unconstitutional because it's protected from a challenge based on the Charter. But all this only will get resolved one way or another when the Supreme Court hears the challenge to Quebec's secularism legislation, which involves arguments from the the provinces, pro and cons, and the federal government against, about whether you should be using the notwithstanding clause preemptively, whether you should use it repeatedly, and what that does

to the Charter of Rights. And I, for one, cannot tell you what the Supreme Court will say about this, because the only time it did opine on the use of the clause, it basically reinforced or said the way the provinces are using it now is totally constitutional. Jason, I should also preface this by saying your wife is a teacher, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about the notwithstanding clause. But give me your take of what's happening here and how it plays into what Shantel's talking about, sort of the broader conversation around this.

I think back to last year when Danielle Smith made a big show as premier of tabling an expanded Bill of Rights to give a whole bunch of new Alberta Bill of Rights, She already had one, but she beefed it up with special protections for the right to not be vaccinated, the right to bear arms, or the right to safely hold guns, right for private property. And she was talking in the legislature about how sacrosanct and immutable rights are. She seems to have had a change of mind this year. If this quashing of a teacher strike by using the notwithstanding clause, Stokes, a discussion about whether premiers are overusing the clause,

just wait for the coming weeks where it's speculated and, you know, the government has suggested that they're going to be using it three more times with regards to some of their past legislation on transgender youth and education rights. Althea. So I think we need to be really clear that she did not need to use the notwithstanding clause. The UCP government could have sent the teachers back to schools and forced them into binding arbitration. There are dispute resolution boards in Alberta. There's three other avenues that she could have pursued to send the teachers back to the classroom.

And she chose not to do this. The bill is draconian. Like it ban strikes for three years. It prevents arbitration boards from even like weighing on whether or not it impedes on rights to Jason's point. It doesn't just use the notwithstanding clause, but it says the Alberta Bill of Rights and the human rights Act are not applicable to this law. It's really quite something. What is most concerning is that, you know, we've also seen very recently in Quebec with its Constitution Act of 2025, Bill 1, also basically saying that its bill is not subject to the Canadian Constitution and

the notwithstanding clause and charter rights is that we're normalizing the use of the notwithstanding clause. So it becomes less, frankly, newsworthy. that premiers are using it. It's not, this is not normal. We should not normalize the use of politicians' breaching rights. They should have to justify why they are digging into this tool in their toolbox. And by constantly using it, they don't need to do that more and more and more. And then there are fewer and fewer checks on their power.

And we need to ask ourselves, who does that serve? In the last three years, you know, in 2022, Doug Ford basically tried to do this. And there was an outcry. And that outcry is kind of more like a murmur in Alberta this time around. And that perhaps is a reflection of how frequently premiers across this country have decided to invoke the clause or threatened to invoke the clause. It would be that. But another big factor in the Alberta case is that we're just not the same, we don't have the same unionization rates. were the same belief or public support for labor.

So when there was a threat of a general strike in the case of Rob Ford using it, you know, that really cowed him. In Alberta, people may be riding with the teachers, maybe supporting the teachers in their dispute with the province, but do they support the labor movement in general here? Not so much. But, I mean, it's more than a labor movement. Like, this is not, this is wider than just what is part of the collective agreement

with the teachers and whether or not you support the teachers. This is a much bigger deal. Last word, Chantelle. Last word. But on that basis, at this point, the only recourse on this, especially if public opinion, as Jason states in Alberta or in Quebec, does not rise up against it is whether the Supreme Court believes that it should put some frames around it. I don't know that that will happen. But it is a very significant case for the balance. the rule of law and political and parliamentary power in this country.

Thank you all for being here, Jason. Thank you for stepping in. That's at issue for this week. We are getting ready for the federal budget. That's on November 4th on Tuesday, and we do want to hear from you, too. Are you making any sacrifices to make ends meet, to pay the bills? Are you worried about your job? Have you had to change your retirement plans?

Send your questions and thoughts to ask at cbc.ca. We will be back here in your podcast feeds on Tuesday for the federal budget. Thank you for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to CBC.ca.com slash podcasts.