At Issue - Carney sets up throne speech

Episode Date: May 23, 2025

At Issue this week: Prime Minister Mark Carney sets the stage for a throne speech with a mandate letter outlining tasks and priorities for his cabinet. Canada looks beyond the U.S. for allies. And, Liberal MPs will soon decide whether to give themselves the powers to order leadership reviews. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Other People's Problems was the first podcast to take you inside real-life therapy sessions. I'm Dr. Hilary McBride, and again, we're doing something new. The ketamine really broke down a lot of my barriers. This work has this sort of immediate transformational effect. Therapy Using Psychedelics is the new frontier in mental health. Come along for the trip. Other People's Problems Season 5, available now. This is a CBC Podcast.

Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, May 22nd. This one letter outlines the core priorities of Canada's new government, reflecting the mandate that Canadians have given to us. In particular, the government is charged to build the strongest economy in the G7. This week we're asking what's been made of the priorities in that one mandate letter? What can we expect from the speech from the throne? Next week, Chantelle Baer and Recoigne and Althea Raj join me to talk about that.

Plus, how is Canada's position on the world stage changing? So what's been made of the priorities in that one mandate letter? What can we expect from the throne speech next week? I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down tonight. Chantelle Iber, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj. Good to see all three of you back together again, as it should be. Chantelle, I'll start with you. We have seen mandate letters with the previous Prime Minister.

This Prime Minister decided it would just be one, and everyone would be grouped under the one mandate letter. What does that tell you, and what did you make of what was in it? Well, it is interesting in the sense that it feels more corporate than political, i.e. I read beyond the seven priorities, is that what it is? Every minister will be called over the next few months to tell the Prime Minister how he's contributing to making the shareholders happy. It's an interesting way to read it. I can't pass judgment on whether this is a better way to focus the government possibly than going into all kinds of grocery lists. What I'll be looking for is the same focus in the Tron speech.

Because if the Tron speech is a grocery list, which it often is, and those mandate letters all speak about focus, I'm going to convince myself that there are two brains working on this government and they don't talk. I know some people like the mandate letters. I'm not sure how useful they were, given that you couldn't go through them and sort of tick off all the things ministers had done, Andrew. So they seem to be sort of more of a communications device. And in that case, perhaps one letter is all you need if you're Mark Kearney. Yeah. Well, let me give the optimistic case with the proviso that, you know, we've been burned

before, including by this prime minister. But the old mandate letters, the Justin Trudeau mandate letters were very much a statement of power dominance of the prime minister. The ministers were basically his hired help and he gave each of them a to-do list and their job was basically just to do the things that the prime minister's office had told them to do. Not to bring forward their own ideas, to try to shape their own portfolios, but simply to respond to the demands of the Prime Minister's office.

The optimistic reading of this would be we have a set of priorities as a government. We have collective cabinet responsibility as a government for these priorities. But I would like to hear from you within the ambit of your own responsibilities. What your contribution would be to that? What your ideas are for it? There's even a mention of real cabinet government. Again, we've been burned before. But on the surface of it, leaving aside that we've been burned before, the optics of it

to me look better. They look more like cabinet government as we once knew it. What do you make of it, Althea? Is it a sign of that or is it a sign that that Mark Carney has a clear direction for himself? Maybe not as ministers. I Think the sign is that the government is not that organized and not that transparent Mandate letter is actually serve a very useful purpose to the running of government as and they tell the public service These are what your marching orders are. This is what the minister's focus will be

This is what we want you to work on it tells stakeholders. This is what the minister's focus will be. This is what we want you to work on. It tells stakeholders this is what's important to the government. It tells the minister what his job or her job actually is. And I hear Andrew's point, and it is true. There is mention about running a true cabinet government. But if you're a minister who doesn't fit in these seven priorities, what exactly is your job?

Like, there clearly could have been, these are the seven priorities of the government and these are the things that, like, we ran on that are included in our platform that we would like you to implement. Or, you know, they just had a law and cabinet retreat and they talked about, you know, they want to reduce government spending. They could have been a nod towards that. Like, they could have been more transparent with Canadians about where they're going, and they've chosen not to be.

So I think, if anything, this mandate letter is a communications document, but it is not a useful plan for anybody in the business of government at the moment because it doesn't really tell you anything. It is too vague. Yeah. I mean, I would hope behind closed doors at that cabinet retreat, people were sort of set, here's your job, here's your job description in some way. I don't know that that happened.

No. Okay, Chantal? Yeah, yeah. So I'm guessing to be totally cynical that if you can't find your way to contribute to those priorities, then you go to priority seven. That's the one that says about cutting costs. Spending less. Yes, and spending less. I mean, ministers for a long time have been told what to do.

I agree with Andrew on this, and that's why I don't want to pass judgment on these mandate letters because I think a more focused government where the marching orders are to be filled in by each department, maybe a good sign, but I don't know. Well, let's be clear. Any government is basically remembered for maybe two things. So if you can get your priority list down to seven, you've made a good start on focusing in the way that we'll actually get results.

I think the items on this list are not only what he ran on, but they're also, they helped move the party to the center. Several of them are covering off weaknesses that the previous government had, housing, immigration, productivity, et cetera. And some of them are very much directed at the Trump threat and the challenge that that presents. It's hard to quarrel with these as the main priorities of the government, and I'll just repeat, there's only so many things you're gonna get done

as a government anyway. Yeah, Althea, you made a face there. Well, two points. One, I think this actually sets up ministers fighting with each other because there's overlapping jurisdiction on a whole bunch of stuff. So, but setting that aside, to Andrew's point, yes, this reads exactly like, frankly, the conservative government that many in Puellev's own caucus wish they probably could have voted

for, because this is a very centrist and I would even say center-right focused mandate letter, which is interesting because Mark Carney is the prime minister of Canada because a whole bunch of progressives voted for him and there are issues in the way that we have typically understood them to be verbalized by the Liberal government were not part of his speech and are not part of this mandate letter. How much is... Okay, so I didn't make a face, but I would argue that these poor progressive... I'm going to start making faces. argue that these poor progressive voters voted with their eyes wide open. They were not promised

the Justin Trudeau repeat. So maybe they won't like it. That's another issue. But at this point, that is what they voted for. I don't disagree with that. Okay, Andrew, last word to you, though. You made no face. Well, Althea and Chantel are both right, which is to say, Carney basically ran, you could project onto him what you wanted to see. So center-right voters, there were lots of conservatives I talked to who said, you know, I've never voted liberal before, but I'll vote for this guy. You had NDPers voting for him because they thought he'd be in more progressive. You know, when you can get into that sweet spot, at least for the duration of the election

campaign, yeah. But this is when you start to define yourself, and he has the advantage that the NDP is flat on its back. So he's got a period now when you can actually go after center-right voters and try and cement a broader coalition than the one that got him into power. But if he's not careful, the NDP might rise up. That's right. That's right. So the throne speech will be something to watch delivered. Sorry, we had a lovely British accent. Okay, thank you. We're gonna leave that part there.

When we come back we'll take a look at how Canada is realigning its position on the world stage. From taking a role in support of Ukraine to bilateral meetings with European leaders last weekend, how is Canada's role in global politics changing in that sense? We are in a position now where we cooperate when necessary but not necessarily cooperate. So we have other options for that cooperation. We are pursuing those other options. You cooperation. We are pursuing those other options. You will see a very different set of partnerships, security and economic

going forward. So here to break down how the Prime Minister is preparing or trying to do that realignment, Chattel, Andrew and Althea. I thought that clip there from his press conference was quite telling because it sort of clarifies what he's been trying to do since he became prime minister even before the election. And we saw that again this week with this decision to go with the United Kingdom and France against, to speak about what was happening in the Middle East and to call on Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

So Althea, what do you make of what the Prime Minister is trying to do here and how he's doing it in terms of who he's speaking with and who he's trying to align with? I'm going to uncouple the two things I think. I think on the American front, he's frankly acting like any Canadian Prime Minister would. You don't want the Americans to be building something over us, or potentially over us, that we have no decision-making ability and no participation in, and we're just a sacrificial lamb, perhaps, in America's security. So that, I think, is like any conservative prime minister, liberal prime minister, the

golden dome that would have happened regardless. The one thing that we're seeing is, frankly, Mark Carney is introducing himself on the world stage because he doesn't know these individuals. So it's natural that he would want to build bridges, build relationships with people. So that fits like you would expect a new prime minister to do that. I think the difference on the Gaza front is that, frankly, the liberals got a bit of a wake-up call in the last election. They lost one seat, Yara Sacks' seat, because of the Jewish vote that migrated to the conservatives.

And they lost a... I mean, we don't know yet exactly because all the deep dives haven't actually happened. But a lot of MPs believe that they lost part of their Muslim vote, in part because of what was happening in Gaza, and that the government wasn't very good at communicating what it actually was doing in Gaza in terms of the aid that was going, and felt that the government needed to take a more public stance. And you saw the liberal government under Justin Trudeau kind of move in that direction. I think what you're seeing now is that there's not just the liberal voter base, but frankly,

a lot of Canadians, regardless of what religious background you have, you're seeing humanity as suffering and whatever religion you are, you're human first. And I think that is what you are seeing the government respond to. And I think you're going to frankly see more of it. Yeah, but it was interesting to see, you know, put aside the issue itself, but the decision to, you know, for Canada to go with France and the United Kingdom and to continue to be or trying to be a forceful presence in this coalition of the willing, Andrew. Like there is something happening here that Canadians need to be aware of.

Yeah, I'm not sure what it adds up to at this point. I think these are pretty mixed bag of decisions. Althea said it was what any previous government would have done to get involved with the ballistic missile defense. Well, the last time it came up under Paul Martin, they decided to stay out of it. And frankly, I would be more comfortable with being involved in something that was under George Bush Jr. than under Donald Trump. So I'm not against the principle of missile defense, but the execution of it and the people

in charge of it give one pause. So the fact that the government's even willing to go near it is interesting, shall we say. The decision on or the statement on Gaza to me was pretty much in line with the Justin Trudeau government. And look, nobody would be saying that Israel is above criticism, but the government of either Trudeau or Mark Carney would be in a better place to offer criticism if it had shown a clearer sign of understanding that Israel does indeed have a right to defend itself and the right to defend itself extends to waging war on its enemies.

That Hamas bears responsibility not only for the war, but for the continuation of the war since it refuses to surrender or to lay down its arms. So it's not to say that Israel is above criticism, but the government, as I say, has not established a great track record to be in a position to offer constructive criticism. Beyond that, I think he's just laying down marks on Ukraine, of course, very solid. But I think it's also just behooves him to be out making connections, displaying those connections to the public. This is obviously a strong suit for him personally, is that he's got a Rolodex as long as your arm, and people will take his calls, and he's treated with respect in international circles.

But just to go back to what he actually said, right? We will cooperate when we see opportunities to cooperate with the United States, but if not, then we will have other places. And that to me seems fundamentally sort of what he's trying to lay the groundwork for there. Yeah, Chantal? Oh yeah, maybe so. He also said that it wasn't automatic anymore that Canada would line up with the US on defense. Well, but the thing is it did not. The ballistic missile shield, they call it golden or whatever color you want, was rejected by previous governments. So I'm reading this and it does not jive with the word picking and choosing because we're at this point picking, going with this proposal, which will be debated to death if it goes true. I figure

that the reason why Mark Carney went there is not so much that he believes we should have a golden shield over us, but that it is not for Canada to be the person in the country that says, we're not playing in your movie, it's a stupid idea. That the costs, they, I mean, for 40 years, Canada has said no to this, and still the US is not under a shield that we're not under. So why would this time be different? I also note that on the other issue, and on the larger scale, Mr.

Carney tends to line up with France and the UK, which plays well in Canada because the UK and Canada and France speak to both main language groups in this country and it's an alignment that tends to get a pass from Canadians regardless of the issue. Yeah, and that's what he did on that first trip, right? Before the election was talking about the founding peoples to try and signal that. I mean, maybe he doesn't think that golden dome

is even gonna happen, given what Chantel has said there. Yeah, yeah. It may be that he's storing up some credit that he may not even have to use to give him some room on decisions like the f-35 for example Which is going to be a really really tough one if the consensus is that they don't want to continue with the whole purchase Through the f-35 but to get a European fighter jet. That's gonna be really hard really hard to stick out with the Americans It's also it remember he he went and the Prime Minister went and purchased that Australian

over the Horizon radar system for Canada's north. So he has also made moves in a different direction for Canada's sovereignty there, Althea. Actually, I was going to mention those two things. But I also think the geopolitical situation, and I don't want to add against my argument, but Aaron O'Toole also suggested this and was pooh-poohed in the last election. But I think things have changed. I think the risks that we understand towards the Americans and towards us have changed and so I think that conversation has changed.

But the most important thing I think on the moving away from the US is on the F-35 decision. Because then when he's talking about we're going to, so much money, like what did he say, 75% of our defense spending goes to the Americans. If we're uncoupling that money, that's far more significant in terms of something long term than trying to appease the orange man down south for the remainder of his term on something that's probably not going to get done while he's still president.

Okay, got to leave it there. We're going to continue the conversation and talk about Liberal MPs talking about the Reform Act. We'll see whether they vote on it on Sunday. You can catch that on YouTube and the Addis Shea podcast. We're going to take a short break, but when we come back, we'll talk about Liberal MPs discussing giving themselves more power to force out a leader when or if needed. That's next.

So could the Reform Act help the Liberals avoid another messy breakup? Let's bring everyone back. Chantel, Andrea, and Althea, this is one where you both, you all have admitted you could talk for about 30 minutes about this. But the fact that liberals are actually considering this, Chantel, what do you make of that? A mixture of post Trudeau traumatic stress, which has led a number of MPs, and that's something Mark Carney has to keep in mind. This is not a new government. No. This is a government that is filled with people who have lived through the

past decade and a number of MPs are thinking if we had had this tool we might have been able to change the course of things and sent a clearer signal to our leader that he needed to go. So that's one. The other one is stress from the cabinet shuffle and the message that many MPs got from that cabinet that Mark Carney introduced, that not only are they not in cabinet, none of them, but that there is now a waiting room.

Those are secretary of state chairs that is filled with people who presumably are the people who will be first in line to take on real ministerial jobs. That does make for a caucus that feels freer about its options, because most of its members are thinking the message is, I don't have a shot at ever being in cabinet over the next two to four years. Yeah, Andrew has a whole section about this in his new book. So if you want to know all his deep thoughts, you can read it. But we'll just go with a minute thought from you now, Andrew. Well, Chantel certainly laid out the landscape. I mean, it's a question of, are there

more people who are grieved at not being in cabinet than are people who are hopeful of getting into it? Certainly you saw that nobody except for, I mean, it's a question of are there more people who are grieved at not being in cabinet than are people who are hopeful of getting into it? Certainly you saw that nobody except for I think Nader's and Smith's was willing to go on the record about it. And I think that's telling. And I think what will really tell the tale is it's probably not going to be a secret ballot. And if it's not a secret ballot, as we've seen time and time again, governments aren't

willing or parties aren't willing to do it because they don't want to get offside with the leader and the leadership of the party. However, times have changed to some extent. The example of Aaron O'Toole, who was pushed out in two days versus Justin Trudeau, for whom it took two years, is certainly instructive. And it may be that we'll see. We'll see whether enough liberals have learned that lesson. But I'm skeptical. My prediction is they wonive and it may be that we'll see. We'll see whether enough liberals have learned that lesson but I'm skeptical.

My prediction is they won't do it. Althea, you usually know whether liberals wear their heads around. What do you think? I don't know if they're gonna do it. I think one thing that they need to remember is actually if they had the Reform Act, they'd probably have Christie Freeland as a leader

and they probably would have lost the election. Because caucus would have picked within caucus who that leader would have been. And some people are thinking about that, most are not. Most are angry that they are not in cabinet. I don't think it has much to do with the post-traumatic stress of the Trudeau era, I think it is anger and disappointment. And the thing that makes Mark Carney not a new government is that his MPs have been, the ones in the back bench, sitting there for 10 years waiting for their turn to come up.

And they thought, oh, well, when there's a new leader, my number, it will be my turn. I will get my shot. And then they discovered, nope, nope, sorry, back to you, Shantaz, turn to the waiting room you go. And now there's two waiting rooms because not just secretaries of state, but parliamentary secretaries as well. So there's a lot of disappointment. And frankly, I think in the center, the prime minister's office, has not handled this well at all. I mean, they didn't even call this caucus meeting.

It was basically called because caucus was upset and asked the dean of the liberal caucus, Hetty Fry, to call a caucus meeting. And if they had better people in the prime minister's office, I'm looking at a few of you, you know who you are, you need to do your job better, because if not that caucus is going to come back and make your life a living hell for the next few months

and maybe years. Just call Justin Trudeau if you want proof of that. I would have thought Wayne Long's ascension to the ministry would have calmed people down and given them some hope. There's way more than Wayne Long who were agitating to see Justin Trudeau. But still, you would have thought that would have given them some hope. Quickly, Chantel. Oh, I'm curious.

I mean, Mark currently wouldn't say, but he could say, I don't want to exhaust my welcome, so I'm giving you this power. I'm not sure he understands caucus dynamics as well as he should at this point. I agree with Althea that he does need people in his office to do a better job of explaining it. Okay, got to leave it there. Good conversation. Again, that is at issue for this week.

What do you think of the government's priorities so far? What are you going to be watching for when King Charles delivers that speech to the throne? Let us know. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be back here in your feeds early next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.