At Issue - Carney and Trump hold private tariff talks

Episode Date: June 6, 2025

<p>At Issue this week: Sources tell CBC/Radio-Canada that Carney and Trump have shared private calls and texts about tariffs. Premiers pitch their infrastructure projects to the prime minister. And does a new border security bill go too far? Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.</p>

At Desjardins Insurance, we know that when you own a cleaning company, things need to be tidy and organized at every step. That's why our agents go the extra mile to understand your business and provide tailored solutions for all its unique needs. You put your heart into your company, so we put our heart into making sure it's protected. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at Desjardins.com slash business coverage.

This is a CBC podcast. Hi there. I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, June 5th. This is being settled at the highest levels of the US government with the involvement of the highest elected officials. We won't negotiate in public and we'll let the Prime Minister do his work and we will let all ministers do their work. This week we're asking can a deal between the US and Canada be reached by the G7 meeting in a couple of weeks? What would that mean for the steel and aluminum tariffs?

Chantelle Baer, Ender Coyne, and Althea Raj join me to talk about that. Plus, can Ottawa and the provinces work together on nation building projects? So, can a deal be reached by the G7 in a couple of weeks? How does a doubling of tariffs on steel and aluminum fit into this? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it down tonight.

Chantelle Baer, Ender Coyne, Althea Raj, good to see all of you. I should say, obviously, what we confirmed today is there are talks between the president and the prime minister that we had not been aware of, but there are obviously other talks happening too. Dominique LeBlanc has been in Washington many times talking to Howard Lutnick, so it is happening at various levels of the government. And Chantelle, I happening at various levels of the government. And Chantelle, I wonder what you make of the idea that there is hope that this

might get done over the next two weeks or so. But at the same time the president's increased tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50 percent. Yeah, I'm not sure the word hope is necessarily the word do you want to use? It's not uncommon for the president and the prime minister to be speaking when there is a negotiation. But usually there's a framework. Like what are we negotiating? We have a deal with the U.S. It involves Mexico. We're not discussing with Mexico as far as I can tell in those conversations. If you are working through a deal that the U.S. president is interested in,

then why would you suddenly pull a rabbit out of your hat to double tariffs on steel and aluminum? And is it in the best interest of Canada to do a side deal with someone who is involved in a tweet fight with someone who he was a friend with last week? Even just two days ago, maybe. You're talking about Elon Musk. He's trying to build distance between Elon Musk and Donald Trump here. Andrew, what do you think of the little bits of information that we're getting here about where things are at

and the likelihood that this is something significant and sustainable, something that is sustaining? Well, we're going on very little bits of information. So I'm a bit at sixes and sevens. And you have to wonder, I mean, Chantel said, we already have a deal that's called NAFTA, or if you prefer, KUSMA. But it's a deal that Trump has blatantly ignored and brought in tariffs notwithstanding.

So what exactly is to be negotiated? What exactly is to be agreed with somebody who doesn't respect agreements that he's already negotiated and signed? What is the purpose of making concessions to such a person in exchange for him removing the tariffs or reducing them? How do we know he doesn't just, after that, put them back on and make a fresh set of demands? And ordinarily with, you might say, well that's preposterous, nobody would do that. With Trump, you know, everything is possible. So I'm skeptical on that front.

The second issue is, I thought the project was to try to reduce our dependence in the United States because of the untrustworthiness of Trump and his people and make ourselves less exposed and pursue other trade agreements. I can see a case for stalling, buying time, signing deals even though you know they're not going to be real deals in order to, because the longer time goes on the weaker presumably Trump becomes because he's such a combustible force, he's so unstable, etc. So as long as we're not giving up too much to get such a placeholder agreement, if that's what this turns out to be, that might have something to recommend it, but it's really

going to depend on what's negotiated and what's on the table here. And I mean you can do both things at the same time. Negotiate a deal, and that's what Melanie Jolie said today. Negotiate a deal and create other opportunity and strengthen the Canadian economy. But I take your point, Andrew, that you don't wanna negotiate away your strengths either. Althea, where do you think we are in this then, given how little we know?

I don't really know where we are. I think there are some signals that you can take out of what we have learned so far. One, clearly the Prime Minister has a good relationship with the President. Two, there is a lack of transparency or less transparency, if you want to be more generous, from this Prime Minister's office than there was under the Trudeau PMO. We have not been told about phone calls, for example. We have not been told about what exactly it is that they're negotiating.

Are they just working on the 50% tariffs on aluminum and steel? Are they working on something that's greater than that? They have not told us what it is that they're actually working on. Chantan made a really good point. As far as we know, there's no Mexico involved in this. So what does that mean for the Kuzma talks

that are supposed to happen next year? What does it mean for our relationship with China, which emerged as a pivotal point in the First Minister's meeting, where you had Manitoba and Saskatchewan, for example, calling on the federal government to get rid of the tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles so that we can have more market access. If we are trying to actually get closer to the Americans, are we saying that the enemy

of my friend is also now my new enemy? What are all these relationships? We actually don't know a lot about what is happening, and I think that itself is rather noteworthy. I mean, the prime minister has made it very clear that that negotiations aren't going to happen in public so I you know we don't expect every little thing. The framework, what is it that you actually are negotiating? You know we talked about Algoma for example and so St. Marie you know the liberals won that seat because those steelworkers thought

Mark Carney's gonna safeguard their jobs. Yep, yep, yep. Yes, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be more transparent. I'm just saying this is what he has told us it would be like. Anyway, Chantal, you get in there. Yeah, well, the last time we had the prime minister calling the president as we were negotiating,

let's go back to Brian Mulroney, we got to have a say on whether we wanted to accept this deal. Sure. Do we know that this is going to be the case? And then about that good relationship between Mark Carney and Donald Trump, how much is it worth? How long does it last? Watching what we're watching today. What is the point of doing this?

And then what framework? Because usually in the past we have negotiated deals including the last time Trump was president it involved Congress That it wasn't a phone conversation. We're gonna do this for and what is the legal value of that? So no mean that I don't know. I find it more worrisome to tell you the truth than encouraging. I mean, the ambassador, the US ambassador to Canada has given more hints than anyone else in government anyway,

saying that it could be- While warning that there should be no leaks. Yeah, yeah, exactly. That it's something about content in US-made cars, or something around rare earth minerals. I mean, the things you would expect to be on the table, but what exactly is being, you know, what Canada is willing to put there, I don't know. Andrew, I'll give you the last word here. Well, the only other thing I'd add is there's things that are officially on the table and

officially part of an agreement, and there's things that may be unofficially. So I believe we're about to discuss this border security bill. Is it inconceivable that there were understandings given in terms of what kind of legislation we would bring forth on that front that would be part of an unspoken penumbra of agreements around the actual agreement? Okay, we will talk about the border deal. First though, we're going to talk about the First Minister's meeting. When we come back, we'll have a look at how that meeting between the premiers and the prime minister went.

So the premier of Ontario bought into the meeting, but will multiple levels of government be able to work together on those so-called nation building projects? That's next. The Prime Minister's Meeting Very productive, it was very respectful. Around the table, we're united united. Sure there might be some differences from coast to coast to coast, but we have one goal, is to build infrastructure projects.

More projects will come forth. It's not like the gate doesn't come down all of a sudden. Projects will also fall by the wayside because they won't necessarily meet all those criteria. It's a living list. So here to talk more about that First Minister's meeting, Chantel, Andrew and Althea are back. Althea, what did you make of the outcome and the tone? I mean, it was the first First Minister's meeting since the election. I'm not sure the tone will stay that positive,

but I'm obviously very cynical. So what did you make of it, Althea? It would be hard to remain this positive in the weeks, never mind months and years to come. I don't recall a First Minister's meeting having this level of love for a lack of love and admiration coming out of that press conference. I think, obviously, as it is often repeated, the devil is in the detail. The government is likely to come out with its One Economy bill as early as tomorrow

because it's on the notice paper. And I will say that I think there's some causes for concern. It's one thing to have all the premieres saying kumbaya and like there's a gift for you and there's going to be a gift for me and we're all going to be richer and isn't this great. But what we've learned from the border bill that Andrew mentioned in the first block, this is the first piece of legislation that Mark Carney's government tabled this week, is that this government is unafraid of introducing legislation that the conservatives could not

pass before also is unafraid to use this crisis with the US border to table legislation that has nothing to do with the US border. So I think that we might need to look quite carefully at this bill to make sure that there are no poison pills in it and that the rule of law is maintained, that indigenous rights are maintained. I mean, the memo we talked about last week. A lot of people have concerns because it appears that they're going to give

the ability to circumvent laws that are actually on the books, according to that memo to a minister. So I think there's a lot of, we should not be singing Kumbaya just yet, I guess I will say. Yeah. And we are going to talk about the border in the next segment, which you'll have to watch on YouTube. But Chatelle, what did you make of the meeting?

The last time I saw the premiers and the prime minister so united was at Nietzsche League. We know how that ended. And my only point here, and by the way, message to Premier Ford, he wasn't there 10 years ago when the premiers first met Justin Trudeau. But it was also a very convivial outing with one exception, Saskatchewan. So let's not pay too much attention to this. What happened on the next day, the premier of BC was away on a trade mission, said, I'm not doing this pipeline stuff. What did Passo Lugo actually say? I don't see a project, so I don't have to say if I'm for it or not. There is nothing that happened this week

that tells you what will happen in the future or that tells you whether the people who were happy this week and singing Kumbaya will still be there in a year and many provinces. Yeah, because some of the conditions that the Prime Minister mentioned at that press conference, duty to consult from indigenous communities being one of them, means that some projects are not going to get green lit, right?

And so that immediately then will upset some parts of the country, Andrew. And I don't think you can, with a nation-building project, keep everybody happy. Sure, but at this point he hasn't revealed which projects he's going to accept and which projects he isn't. So it's in everybody's interest to be very friendly with the Prime Minister at this point. So yeah, you know, we've seen this movie before, maybe not with the same intensity and fervour, but as Fountel mentioned, when Justin Trudeau first came in, the premiers were mostly pretty keen on him because at least he was meeting with him, whereas Stephen Harper wouldn't.

Yes, yeah, that's right. It's as old as the hills, is you enthuse about the new person, you talk about how open you are to their proposals so that when you have to eventually bury them, you can say, it wasn't because I was opposed to it from the start. You know, at the end of the day in the fullness of time, having given it due consideration,

I was forced to bring myself to say I could not support this. So as I say, we've seen that movie before. We've certainly seen premiers talking a good game about interprovincial trade since forever. We had the agreement in internal trade in the 1990s. We had the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 2017, neither of which amounted to much more than a hill of beans. We will see, maybe this time is different. The premiers are all signing bilateral agreements

with each other that don't bind them to do anything, but give the illusion of momentum. So we'll see on that front whether the internal trade thing actually advances or not. And then on the major projects, I think as was mentioned, it's fine to say, well, we decree that these things will be done within two years, but you haven't actually escaped your constitutional obligations to negotiate with indigenous groups. You haven't really waved away, or you can try, but you

can't really wave away the political obstacles that you've faced with these projects or some of the environmental concerns. So maybe there's a new will to push further. Maybe there's legislation that you can pass that will thread that needle and won't be unconstitutional. But again, I, you know, point, I'll believe it when I see it. But, but, I think what you're saying is important, and Chantal, I'll let you in there. The context is different, right? There is a seeming desire to build up the country right across the country, whether it stays around, I don't know, but Chantal. That sounds to me more like a slogan than something that people have internalized, to tell you the truth. Yes, there was a mood to reconcile with Quebec when I used the Meatshlake

example. My only hope is that Mark Carney, who is not a long-time politician, realizes that he's building on no foundation from this meeting. That is not what it provides. And the BC Premier David Debe kind of issued a wake-up call on this. There is also the not small issue of keeping his own caucus in line on this. Do you seriously think that the liberals who lost a lot of skin on defending climate policies, starting with former environment minister, Steven Gidebo, are just gonna sit there and say it's okay to just go back

and work on the premise of a conservative agenda on some of these projects. I'm not convinced Well, they they sat there when he abolished the carbon tax. So I don't know a lot of they cheered him on Yeah, they sat there when they abolished the carbon tax to get reelected Yeah, but at some point speaking for this province for instance Stephen Gidbill is this province, for instance. Stephen Gidebo is the person who is given social license to Mark Carney in this province on the environment.

So if you think it's a good idea that he walks away because one is dismantling everything that the Trudeau government has done on climate, think again. OK, last minute to you, Althea. Well, I think so that raises an important point. It's not just the 44 seats in Quebec, it's the 20 seats in British Columbia. There's a reason why Premier Eby came out and basically said, and we've been talking around it, but no to the Northern Gateway pipeline. You know, the Liberals were re-elected based on progressive votes, and there's only so far you can push

before your progressive bits of your caucus, which is a significant amount of them, realize that they don't see themselves in the government. It's great that you're courting progressive conservatives and blue liberals, but at some point, there will be decisions that will have to be made. And I think if the bill that they plan to table looks like the bill that Doug Ford has tabled in Ontario, for example, that is going to be made and I think if the bill that they plan to table looks like the bill that Doug Ford has tabled in Ontario for example that is going to

be a really big internal caucus challenge. 20 seconds to you Andrew. I take that point but I don't know where the caucus has to go. I think he's I think he sees that he's got much more opportunity to his right than he has danger to his left and I think for now that calculation is correct. Okay, I gotta leave it there. That's what Brian Maroney believed about Houston Bouchard by the way. Okay, okay, I gotta leave it there.

Chantel gets the last word. That is that issue on the national. As I said, we're gonna continue the conversation and we are in fact gonna talk about the Liberals new border legislation. Catch that on YouTube, also on the podcast. We're gonna take a short break here, but as promised, we will talk about the Liberals new border legislation. Catch that on YouTube, also on the podcast. We're going to take a short break here but as promised we will talk about the Liberals border bill. That's next. This is about delivering a win for Canada and ensuring that our borders are safer,

our communities are safer and of course we're responding to some of the concerns that have been posed by the White House. So we're here to break down this new border legislation, what it might mean for Canadians, Châtel, Andrew and Althea. Althea, I'll start with you because you did write about it and the deeper you look at the legislation, the more you start to raise some questions about what the bill is trying to do and whether it's in fact going beyond the scope of what the minister was talking about there. It's such an enormous bill.

It's 140 pages. It amends more than a dozen laws, has 16 parts. And I think we need to go beyond the headlines on this bill because the things that the government says that this bill is about, I don't think most people will find them controversial when it comes to like how you classify drugs, for example, and some of the powers that you're giving authorities to crack down on organized crime. But the government, I don't know, public service, whoever you want to describe motive to, law enforcement agencies have clearly used this opportunity to sneak things in here that have been vetoed by lawmakers previously

in at least two or three different parliaments because they were seen as going too far. I mean, some of the measures in this bill date back to Vic Cave's era under the Stephen Harper government where it was like you're either with us or you're with the child pornographers because they were lowering the bar so low to get access to your personal information online. It's not just about what's online. There are things here that, to me, make, frankly, no sense and are a real dangerous slippery slope, and I worry that there's not enough public scrutiny on it. For example, you can ask your internet service provider to hand over your information voluntarily,

any information they legally hold about you, and the government will protect them from being criminally or civilly sued. They don't have to get a warrant. They can just ask for it. And these are heavily regulated industries, so they would have an incentive to just be like, okay, well, I don't want to cause any problems with the government. It's just filled with little example like that throughout the bill.

And you realize what it means when there is no NDP, for example, there to raise the concerns because some of the things that were raised and were not passed were because of the NDP in the block in previous parliaments. Yeah, I mean, it is remarkable that those things that Althea is talking about there, Chantel, are conservative.

They're conservative ideas, policy ideas that didn't make it through in Stephen Harper's government being brought back here. I mean you can like them or hate them, but they are stolen or borrowed from a previous conservative government. I'm told by people who know better than I do that the civil service, as it should, looking at the probability of a conservative government, did draft a few bills and that they provided the canvas for legislation such as this one. But it is clearly a Trojan horse legislation and I find that very troubling.

Beyond the substance, I totally agree with Elpia on the substance, I am troubled by the notion that we have a new government that believes that it should introduce such measures under the guise of reinforcing the border. It speaks to the opposite of transparency, wanting to have debate, and get to the best legislation for Canadians. This one infringes on privacy rights in a way that no legislation I've seen before come forward and it is not even the point of the bill. It does make me wonder too Andrew whether what you said was right whether some of this is something

that the U.S. is asking for and it's an attempt to placate them, but I have no idea if that's true. It's hard to know where this comes from. It certainly wasn't talked about in any great detail before this. You do get the feeling this was sort of on the shelf somewhere because there's a permanent element of the bureaucracy that's always pushing for this kind of thing, particularly the law and order part of it. But it's not just the warrantless demands for information about Internet subscribers

or letting Canada Post open your mail or the various privacy concerns as real and pressing as they are. I think I'm equally troubled by this stuff on the refugee side. I thought it was a precept of this country and of other law-abiding democracies, that we don't deport people without a hearing. I don't care whether you've been here two weeks or a year. You have your right as a basic human right to have your day in court, to be heard if you're going to be sent back to some country where you argue you're in fear for your life.

So I mean, this is what they're talking about in the United States. This is the stuff that people are up in arms against Donald Trump for. So for us to be picking this particular moment, to be introducing legislation that would allow for asylum claimants to be sent back without a hearing, to be deported back to the United States under the safe third country agreement, when it is clear to me and it's clear to a lot of other people that the United States is no longer a safe third country. I think we ought to look at these things very carefully. I'm not saying there aren't problems at the border. I'm not saying there might be worse problems as people come flooding

up fleeing the United States. There's obviously management issues there about how we control the flow. But simply throwing our hands up and saying we're not going to give you a hearing, we'll just have a, we'll make a sort of a, you know, the feel of our elbow decision about whether or not you're at risk if we send you back. That doesn't sound like my Canada. It does sound like we will talk more about this. I appreciate you all weighing in though for a first go. Thank you.

That is at issue for this week. What do you think of the Liberals' new border legislation? How do you feel about the Prime Minister talking with the President to try and get to a deal? Send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live, Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be back here in your podcast feed next week. Thank you so much for listening.