At Issue - Carney hints at ‘sacrifices’ in the next budget

Episode Date: October 24, 2025

At Issue this week: Prime Minister Mark Carney drops hints that ‘sacrifices’ are coming in the upcoming federal budget. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre tries to clarify his Trudeau jail time comments. Plus, Canada’s warming relations with India. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Of the seven great nations that make up the G7, it is Canada that imposes the highest taxes on beer. 46% of what Canadians pay for beer is government taxation. When the G7 leaders get together, I bet Canada doesn't brag about that. Enough is enough. Help stop automatic beer tax hikes. Go to hereforbeer.ca and ask yourself, why does the best beer nation have the worst beer taxation? This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton.

This week on at issue, the podcast edition, for Thursday, October 23rd. We will build a stronger economy where everyone has a chance to get ahead. And we will empower Canadians with new opportunities, better careers, and a lower cost of living. We won't transform our economy easily or in a few months. it will take some sacrifices. This was the sacrifice speech to Canadian youth. And he said it's going to take lots of time to reverse all the damage.

Mr. Carney, our youth have sacrificed enough. This week, we are asking what's to be made of that speech by the Prime Minister ahead of the budget and what does he mean about those sacrifices for Canadians. Plus, Pierre Paulyev attempts to clarify his Comments about the RCMP. So what's been made of Mark Carney's speech ahead of the budget? What are those sacrifices that he's talking about?

What could they mean for Canadians? I'm Rosemary Barton. Here to break it all down tonight. Shantali Baer, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj. Andrew, I'm going to start with you tonight. What did you make of what the Prime Minister was laying out there and preparing Canadians for? Well, it was pretty vague.

Lots of hints and illusions. Much of it we've heard before about, you know, we can't have the same relationship we have the United States. We've got to diversify our trade. We've got to build things faster than before. Somewhat contradictory in that he usually his habit is, and you've heard some of that, is to raise expectations and talk about all the daring do and the amazing things we're going to do. But as you say, mixed in with hints, again, of sacrifice,

which I can only assume means there'll be some spending cuts in the budget. We're still going to see. I think I see enormous deficits. And so it's going to be an interesting game with them to explain. both the size of the deficits and the size of the cuts and the size of the spending increases. It's going to be a communications challenge for them. What did you make of it, Althea?

Well, I think that Andrew basically laid out what they were trying to do with the speech, which is explain how you can possibly see a budget with, say, $90 billion or $100 billion deficit, and yet also feel that there's going to be cuts and that those cuts may be affecting you or that the expenses that you were hoping, the spending that you were hoping to see,

is not in the budget, at least not in the short term. So there's a lot of dampening of expectations. Beyond that, it wasn't clear to me what he was trying to communicate. If this was a kind of pre-election speech, because they haven't actually reached out, you know, early on with opposition leaders trying to say, okay, well, what do you want to see in the budget?

And who can I work with? And whose ideas can I incorporate to make sure that the budget sails through, how this is really the electoral budget, aside from, I have a plan, which he told us he had in the spring, right? He was a man with the plan. I have a plan.

This is my plan. It's going to take a long time to execute. So stick with me. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I think they're going to have to rethink what their communication messages in the weeks, I guess, when he comes back from APEC to come. Chantal? I'm with my colleagues.

I don't really understand what the point of that speech was. You do not bill an important speech from the prime minister. and then end up with kind of a rehash of the election campaign and whatever happened since. And if Mark Carney thought that he was speaking to Canadians, they would have tuned them out because they've heard all this and it doesn't amount. So if the lead is in 10 years,

we will have doubled our exports to non-U.S. markets. Really, okay, maybe you want to do that. I think we've heard that before, but not only that, the easiest day in that plan was yesterday when you said you wanted to do it. And the execution is something else. You're going to have to make sacrifices. Okay. So what are we talking about exactly?

To me, it sounded like a bit of a useless comms exercise. It was interesting. I mean, if he's laying the groundwork for a budget that is going to be a lot, whether it be the deficit, cuts and trying to understand, you know, what they're doing with the economy. It was interesting to me, Andrew, that he also said to people, this is going to take time. I don't know how much time a prime minister has to make those kinds of changes that he's talking about if Canadians are still feeling the pinch when it comes to inflation, particularly the cost of food.

It depends on how he executes. I think the public is more ready for, I'll use the A word, austerity than maybe people give them credit for. There's a cycle to these things. And people, I think, were and are pretty spooked by what's going on the world around them. But that will depend upon how the government manages it. If you look like you're in control of events rather than events controlling you, I think people will follow where you lead. That was certainly the case with the Mark and Kretchen cuts in the mid to late 90s. They looked like they had a plan and they knew what they were doing and they were confident about it. And people are much more prepared to follow where you lead

if you look like that. If you look like you're always playing catch-up, like you're always one step behind events, and any government right now would be somewhat forgiven for that because the events are so strange when you're dealing with, you know, basically a deliberate self-inflicted recession in the United States that has reverberations for everywhere around the world, and they attempt to basically cripple our car industry. These are things that nobody could really plan for. So I don't think the public is as complacent as perhaps sometimes people suggest or as unwilling to see changes, including cuts to spending, but it will depend, as I say, on the way in which the government executes the plan.

Sure. Chantel? But my point wasn't whether the public is, and I agree with Andrew on his assessment, it was on whether you bill a major prime ministerial speech that turned out to be a non-event. And that's where we started from. Today we learned that the government is going to tariff in some ways, Talantis and GM for leaving workers adrift in Ontario to move to the U.S. or to not do what they had committed to do. Well, that would have been news.

But the speech did not say that. It actually didn't say very much. The only line I stayed stuck on because I'm watching for that. is that we will know what the climate policy will be in the budget, and it will be different from the current policy, because it says results and not objectives and not prohibition. So I'm figuring that more of the Trudeau climate policy is going to get dumped on November 4th. Yeah, the deal that they came to today was only done today.

So I guess it would have been good to have it. last night, but it's not a deal. No. But it's not a deal that they came to today. It's an announcement of things they're going to do. That's right. Yeah. Altheo, you weigh in there. Because there were some other breadcrumbs like that important one that Chantal points out,

the language of which you can interpret as Chantel is doing. But it's basically a now you have to wait two weeks to see what I'm talking about. Nothing he said about that climate plan, though, was new aside from the fact that it's going to be in the budget. And the other things that he said were going to be in the budget, you kind of scratch your head. and wonder, like, why are you, why do you want to make this a confidence vote, like the immigration levels? Why are they putting the immigration plan in the budget and possibly making that a confidence measure? And then also the language about the cuts. Like, there's going to be stuff possibly that is affecting programs that some people value.

But he referred to it as wasteful spending. So there's a lot of, I think, head scratching going on about, like, what exactly they're trying to do with this budget and why they're packaging all this together. And to Chanty's point, I agree with her. You know, when the prime minister's office says the prime minister is going to have a live address, you think a monumental event is happening. Like last time Justin Trudeau had a live event,

it was because we're declaring a trade war with our southern neighbor, the United States. Like that is like we're breaking through network programming. The prime minister is telling the country a very serious message. If we, who frankly are paid to like watch this all day long cannot figure out what the prime minister's message really was yesterday, there is no reason the prime minister's office needed to call this

a live address. If you'd call it a speech to university students, maybe we wouldn't have covered it, and maybe that's why they're trying to get our attention. This is not a monumental event that deserves all the thinking that we're kind of trying to parse what he's saying, what he's not saying. If he has a

message, let him say it. Just to be clear, though, it wasn't an address to the nation, because that's something that you have to negotiate with broadcasters it appears all. Yes, but They called it on the itinerary live address. And everybody got an attorney. And even the prime minister's office was trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Oh, it's not that important minimizing it.

Last quick word to you, Andrew. Well, now that we've raked them over the calls, can I put in a good word for vagueness and opaque them? Which is, you know, supposedly the budget is supposed to be secret. It's supposed to, its contents are supposed to be involved on budget day. In recent years, that's the country. that's become, it's become farcical in recent years where you or I could be prosecuted if we reveal the results, but governments reveal virtually the entire contents of the budget

before the budget. So if this is another one of Carney's sort of old schoolisms that we're not actually going to have the budget revealed those before budget day, there might be something to be said for that. Well, I'm skeptical on that one. Join the club because there is not with ideas. There will be more strip teasing over the next few of weeks.

Okay, all right, we're going to leave that there. Thank you all for that. When we come back, we'll take a look at Pierre Puelev, trying to walk back his comments about the RCMP. What's been made of the blowback that the conservative leader is still facing? Is this an issue for his caucus? That's next.

I went too far and saying the prime minister, former prime minister should be in jail. That's not what I said. That's not what I heard. What did you say? repeat what you said. Sure, I'll tell you what I said. I was asked about the scandals of the last 10 years of the liberal government. And what would I do if such scandals and corruption were to happen when I become Prime Minister? And I said I would have zero tolerance for corruption. Nobody is above the law. So where does this leave the conservative leader? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal and Drew and Althea. Shantelle, I'll start with you. We talked about this last week on the third block because it seemed like it was maybe a one-day story. We're a week. later, and he's still struggling with it. What do you make of it? That it will remain a major error in judgment, and the fact that he now is trying to put a lot of smoke around what he said,

which is something he hasn't done very often in the past, shows that it landed very badly, not just with the public in general, but with the Conservative Caucus and with many Conservatives, Let me give you an example of how bad a week that was. There was one day on National News Watch online where five stories were about Pierre Poitiev and all of them were negative. I don't think he's ever been at the target of such a storm from all corners since he became leader.

Yeah, a storm that he created Elthia. Like he didn't have to go down that road and he didn't have to choose that kind of language. He chose to do that interview. He chose to answer that question the way he did. He is trying, it's true. He did not say Justin Trudeau should be jail, period. But he did say if the RCNP had been doing its job and not covering up for him,

then he would have been criminally charged. And he said many of the scandals of the Trudeau era should have involved jail time. And then he went on to say that, frankly, the leadership of the RCMP is just despicable. So that unleashed a flurry of commentary, including from Dimitri Soutis, Stephen Harper's former Director of Communications, and a bunch of other conservatives came out of the woodwork. And a lot of MPs who actually support Pierre Puelev and would probably put themselves on the quite the right side of the Conservative Party.

We're really just annoyed because this is the leader who told them at the very beginning of the fall sitting that they should focus on the things that you unite them, Talk about crime, talk about jobs, talk about the economy, talk about affordability. What is he doing? Talking about something that is not any of those things. So this is like the first time, really, that there are people within caucus who are like, maybe there is something to this whole, like, he's not ready to be prime minister yet. Of course, we talked also about the rumors of the potential floor crossers.

There's a lot of unhappy people who feel like now they're just flailing around. Mr. Puelev is struggling with his own messaging. He was trying to say that is not the entire leadership of the RCMP. He really just meant Brenda Lucky that was like earlier in the week. Now he's saying he never said those words when actually everybody can see that he actually did say those words. And it's interesting to, you know, I don't know, what will tomorrow's line be?

Yeah, and they were trying to start the week with this letter to the prime minister about what they wanted to see in the budget. And it, you know, it got some pickup, but very little, Andrew. So it really stepped on all of the messaging that they were trying to, as Althea point, out, like put out there because they think it's important and they agree with the message there. Yeah, and MPs will be familiar with the kind of thumping they take when they go off message.

So when the leader goes off message, it's a particularly probably a moment of payback, perhaps. To reiterate Chantelle's point, you know, the playbook for Pierre Pauyev and Jenny Byrne has never ever apologized for anything. So anytime you're even explaining, it clearly must have ruffled a lot of feathers within the conservative caucus. I think it was not just the comments here. And again, the problem is not the suggestion that the Prime Minister might have broken the law, because he may well have. The problem is, as a political leader, to make such a statement without any supporting evidence,

you just look like a wild man. But I think it also crystallized or became a moment for people who were bothered by his general messaging strategy long before this, to kind of, this was their kind of break point where they could really press home their advantage because he's so clearly overstepped. The problem the conservatives have is, while there may be a lot of people within the party, particularly within the parliamentary caucus who might not be terribly keen on this kind of messaging,

there's a large section of their base that's really keen on this, who not only want to see Justin Trudeau in jail, but want to see their leader saying improper things, making people like us upset, violating norms, shaking up things, fighting, quote-unquote. And that's really who he's playing to. And ultimately, the question before the party and for the leader is, and it's the age-old question for the conservatives, are you going to get to power just by energizing your own base and ginning out the people who are already supporting you,

supporting you, or do you need to start reaching out to people who aren't with you yet? And part of the reason not with you is they've got a lot of doubts about your leader. Last word to you, Chantel. And Pierre Poyev's message, since he became leader, is being if you're not with me, you're the enemy. but there's not enough, there are more enemies than there are people in the base that Andrew describes. So at some point, that base is not only more into red meat, if you want to call it that, than the average Canadian, it turns off the average Canadian. And that's a major issue. And increasingly what conservatives are seeing is it's not the party brand, that's the issue, it's the leader.

And if that continues into January, it could lead to some interesting results in the bad sense of the word for Pierre Puelev or party unity. The Conservatives, the party are two points behind the Liberals and the polls. The leader is 20 points behind Mark Carney. Last quick word to you, Althea. I agree with everything, Shalda, I said. I think it's really interesting to see the kind of reflections that are happening at the moment within the Conservative Party and the commentary also. is the Conservative Party that was trying to get those 60-plus men that basically voted for Mark Carney last time.

We were trying to get them back in the fold. This kind of messaging does not appeal to them. And so the questions is, like, what does this Conservative Party stand for? Is this the party that supports institutions or is this a party that wants to break everything down? And all the concerns about the Trumpism of Pierre Puellev in the last spring election are now back at the forefront. So it's a really bad week for them.

We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Canada's changing relationship with India. That's next. So this joint statement will discuss our mutual plans for re-engagement. It will inform Canadians and Indians alike that we are collectively committed to advancing this relationship now and in the long term. From a Canadian standpoint, we consider it extremely important. to protect the domestic population from foreign interference.

The foreign affairs minister also met with Prime Minister Modi on her trip, and India is now inviting Prime Minister Carney for a bilateral meeting. So what's been made of this shifting dynamic? Let's bring everyone back, Chantal, Andrew, Althea. I should point out that Anita Anand also said in a story by the Canadian press that Canada is now a strategic partner with China. So there's some things going on here with countries where we had had serious. issues. And I guess you know, you want to have some sort of relationship with places, but it's

interesting to me that this is the direction it's going right now. Althea, what do you make of the things that the minister was saying and why Canada is doing this right now? It's very clear that Mark Carney, the new prime minister, is a very different vision of trade than the previous prime minister. As Justin Trudeau talked about trade in terms of values and using trade agreements to lift people's economic situations, to support labor rights, for example, and was ready to take a very strong stance on India, for example, because of what happened where I am in British Columbia. Mr. Carney and voiced by Minister Anon have a very different view,

which is basically economic considerations, strump everything else. She said we are seeking to ensure that our trade policy serves our domestic economy, and you can see everything basically through that lens. I think there's also a political angle to this story, frankly. In the last election, Polly Sai, which is a polling firm run by Dan Arnold, the former liberal poster, did an exit survey, and they found that the liberals had lost their huge increase with South Asian voters, going from 16% to 4%, and that the conservatives had won Hindu voters by 14 points. So there's domestic considerations while you want to realign for political.

political partisan reasons. There are also economic reasons why you want to chase new trade deals that could be worth, we've seen numbers saying $50 billion, a free trade deal could be worth for Canada and India. I don't see it as much as a liberal shift is a re-normal shift, back to where Justin Trudeau was in 2015. Justin Trudeau didn't come to office, not wanting to do more trade with China or India, the contrary. and events eventually got in the way.

Mark Carney says he wants to double exports to non-U.S. markets over the next decade. It's going to be very hard to do unless you engage with India and China. And I suspect that's what's driving this circumstances, but also this promise. Whether it will pan out, whether it is wise, I can't tell you. But if you're going to do 50% less, with the U.S. and shifted somewhere else, the big markets are not in Europe, and such places they are, India and China.

I should point out that the Prime Minister is hoping to meet with Xi Jinping at the APEC summit that he's leading for on Friday. Andrew, what do you make of it? I mean, I take everyone's point. There are economic interests at play, but there is recent history as well that you would think would also be part of it. I'm all for letting trade be about trade, but it seems to me if there's one thing that trumps that, it's national security. So if we're going to be signing these free trade treaty with India and strategic partnership, whatever that means with China,

will part of the terms of that be that they'll stop killing our citizens, that they'll stop intimidating the diaspora, that they'll stop meddling in our politics and trying to place their agents in strategic locations in our country, Will they stop trying to divide and intimidate us? You know, that seems to me a really important point. And if it's all just let bygones be bygones, they get a free kick. And now we reward them with renewed trade and diplomatic relations. Well, then we sort of look a bit like Patsy's, frankly. It's a strange kind of liberalism that we're getting, I have to say, from Mark Carney.

You know, we've got these very draconian new law and refugees. where they don't, they're not going to get an independent hearing if they've stayed here too long. They're going to tighten up bail even further, even though we have one of the Democratic world's highest proportions of the prison population that's awaiting trial without bail. You know, now we're going to cozy up to autocrats and dictators. It's a trip. It's a new, this is a new version of liberalism. Okay, we're going to leave it there. Thank you all for that conversation. That is at issue, the podcast edition for this week. Hey, listen, we're preparing for the federal budget on November 4th.

and we want to hear from you, Canadians of all ages, across the country, from coast to coast to coast. What are you hoping to see in the budget when it comes to the cost of living? What challenges are you facing? What sacrifices have you made to pay the bills? What concerns do you have? Have you had to change your retirement plans? Change any plans? Send your questions and thoughts to ask at cbc.ca.

We appreciate it. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be back here in your podcast feeds next week. We thank you for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.