At Issue - Carney's expanding Liberal tent

Episode Date: April 10, 2026

As former Conservative MP Marliyn Gladu's move to the Liberals further widens the views within caucus, could it impact upcoming byelections? What does another defection mean for Pierre Poilievre’s leadership? And, will Mark Carney address concerns around the independence of Senators? Rosemary Barton hosts Andrew Coyne, Althia Raj and Rob Shaw.

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Rosemary Barton this week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, April 9th. He's invited me to bring my experience, my talents, and my views into the large liberal tent. What also everyone knows in that caucus room is the fundamental rights that this party has fought for. This week we're asking what challenges come with this latest floor crossing? Plus, what does the loss of another MP mean for peer process? So what challenges come with running a caucus this big, this diverse in perspectives? What issues could arise from a tent this big? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down tonight. Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj,

and Rob Shaw joins us for in for Chantale Libert tonight. Good to see everybody. Nice of you to be here, Rob. Obviously, this has happened, another floor crosser, and it's happening just days before those three by-elections, which we believe will bring the Prime Minister, his majority. But let's start with Marilyn and what you made of that particular defection, Andrew? Well, as many people have said, if you picked a list of the people most likely to defect from the conservative as a liberal, she'd be nowhere on that list. She'd be on the list of least likely.

The other ones who've crossed have typically been people maybe in swing ridings who were worried about losing their seats or people who were more on the progressive end of things, who maybe weren't terribly keen on where the party was going ideologically. This is somebody who ran for leader of the party who's in an absolutely bluer-than-blue riding, who's in no danger of losing her seat, and who you think would be comfortable with, at least the right wing of the Conservative Party. So for her to cross, if she's accessible by the liberals,

then who isn't? And that must be setting hearts of flutter in both the liberal and the conservative camps right now. Yeah, and we'll talk about the consequences of this for Pierre Puehliv in the next block. But how difficult does this become for Mark Carney, Althea? Or maybe it doesn't. I mean, Marilyn Gladdy walked in with the prime minister

and she was greeted like a rock star herself. But it does seem as though there's lots of different moving parts of this Liberal Party. Well, in part because her appearance into the Liberal Party fold basically gives them a majority. To your point, they're widely expected to win the two Toronto by-elections on Monday, which are liberal safe seats. And so even MPs who perhaps have some concerns about some of, Ms. Gladu's previous comments. Recognize that this means three years of stability. It means that they do not have to worry about having an election,

that they can go on vacation in the summer, that the government will be able to do more things, that cabinet, sorry, that committees in the House will run smoothly according to how the government would like them to run. So I think there's part of that. I think also that on a personal level, like Marilyn Gladu is lovely. She's super charming.

She's, you know, a person with a deep sense of compassion for other people. I think that's perhaps how some people can see her convoy support, her concerns about those who were unvaccinated, being unfairly treated, having, you know, losing their job as being unable to travel. So I think there's an ideological consistency in her thinking. I think where the challenge becomes, comes twofold. If she gets into cabinet, you're going to have a lot of people screaming bloody murder in caucus.

And then you'll have this progressive wing of the party that already feels like they're not as influential as they would like to be when you look at like the pipeline, for example, the MOU with Alberta, who feel like, well, are my values represented in Mark Carney's party? And he outlined some values today, and we can talk about that. I'm not sure that the Prime Minister has actually been living those values. And so I think that creates a huge opportunity for the NDP. And those MPs and seats that could swing to the NDP are going to start feeling some pressure. It is, I mean, I think when Canadians see Floor Crossing Robb, that, you know, they see someone who ostensibly believed some things the day before and is now being defended by the Prime Minister and said that when it comes to these issues,

whether it be abortion or gay marriage or other things, that she will, she has, accepted the values of the Liberal Party. And that's, I think, the hard thing that's kind of hard sometimes for people to reconcile. Or at least, you know, accepted being quiet on them long enough. I mean, I have a question. Like, do any of us think that if Ms. Gladu had quit the Conservative Party last year and sought the liberal nomination in Sarnia that she would have been welcomed or approved? And I don't think so.

And so it's kind of surprising, you know, in one way to see the Prime Minister being able to overlook some of the things that you've mentioned there on her social. social issues. But on the other hand, I guess it's just an example of the sort of ends justify the means, you know, government that the ends is a majority. The means are anyone that Mr. Carney can take to get him there. And the question becomes, Rosie, you asked this at your year and interview with him. Is there anyone that he will not take to come to the party? We're still asking the question months later. Mr. Carney's asked it repeatedly today in this week. His answer is, well, okay, yeah, you got to vote with our values. but can you just slap a new coat of paint on anyone and scrub their social media feed and hope they keep quiet and boom, they become a liberal? There's got to be something more to it than that because it's kind of a remarkable move in many ways. Yeah. To be fair, I'm glad they didn't scrub her social media feed.

No, it's still there. No, it's still there. She's been an MP for a long time. That would take a long time. Andrew, that does, though, raise the question about, you know, how people would view the prime minister. I don't think anyone's having issues with it immediately, but I do wonder how that affects people's view of the Prime Minister overall. Yeah, I mean, I don't think he has too much to worry about from the progressives in the Liberal Party

because he owns this party. They have their seats because of him. He has a sky-high approval rating. They're not going to make serious trouble for him. But he is in danger of, with a lot of the other actions he's been taking, presenting himself as being so unprincipled and so devoid of any kind of. kind of ideological moorings that people have a hard time taking a read of them, and particularly voters on the left of the left side of the spectrum. So, I mean, I'm all for big tent parties

with, you know, ideological diversity with them, but at some point the tent becomes a circus. And this is, you know, in a way it's kind of a reversion, as with so many things that Carney is doing, to the Liberal Party pre-Justin Trudeau. Yes. Who remade it in a much more ideological vein. But there used to be within the Liberal Party pretty hard-car social conservatives. They were an odd fit, but at the time it wasn't seen as being inconsistent. So maybe if Jean-Cartrain could make that straddle, then so can Mark Carney, I suppose.

Does that become challenging, though, in spite of what you said, they're healthy, about when people get a majority, things get easier for the prime minister. It does, I think, require someone who's pretty adept at managing a caucus, and I don't know if the prime minister has those abilities. he's going to start to appoint somebody. He's going to have to start appointing somebody to do that. I agree with what Andrew said. I do think there were a lot of caucus members who felt,

especially in the last year of the Justin Trudeau government, that the party was too ideological, too focused on identity issues, not thinking enough about how to appeal to voters, not just in Western Canada, but in rural Canada. Some of the policy prescriptions seemed out of touch with what MPs felt their voters wanted. And you kind of have a really drastic shift,

a much more business-friendly, liberal government. And some people, yes, have suggested that it resembles the Jean-Crette and Paul Martin era. But I think what is perhaps the beginning seeds of discontent are more on those values that Andrew mentioned. You know, like the prime minister talked about how a very important value for the Liberal Party is defending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that is something that you see throughout the policy prescriptions that liberal delegates in Montreal will be debating over the next two days.

But, you know, the Prime Minister said nothing when Alberta invoked the notwithstanding clause on labor rights, for example, just a few months ago. So you have, you know, what values are you living by? I think he needs to start showing liberals that. The other thing I thought was interesting today was how he said, some people come to the Liberal Party because of those values, and others come because of the mission. And so you don't need to be a champion of those values. You need to believe in his mission about

building Canada strong, the crisis of the moment with Donald Trump. I thought it was an interesting distinction that the prime minister made. Let me bring in Rob on that point, because it does speak to the moment we're in, perhaps, rather than just values. It also speaks to the context that we're. Yeah, and I guess I'll be interested to see the Liberal Convention, and I'll read Althea's reporting from on the ground there too, because thousands of members there, surely some of them believe in something more than just, you know, Mark Carney. They must believe in a party that stands for something. How flexible are they? Maybe the values are just winning. Maybe they want to see the party for, you know, how it is and not how they would like it to be, to paraphrase Mr. Carney. And yes, his argument that this is about supporting government's agenda at a crime. critical time. You're joining a mission. I guess it resonates when you're winning and when the

U.S. President is scaring everyone. But when this government picks up baggage like they all do and the mission gets muddy and the agenda gets controversial, you're going to have these ex-conservatives lurking in the background, knowingly out of step on big social issues, ready to cause trouble, kind of like Michael Maugh and forced labor in China. And they become problems as well, even though their votes that the prime minister needs. Okay. We're going to leave this first part there. Thank you all for that part of it. When we come back, we will take a look at the other flip side of things, what this means for Pierre Pueleev and the Conservatives. So is Pierre Paulyev still safe as leader of his party? Can he hold on after another MP leaves his team?

That's next. Mark Carney is saying to Canadians, your vote does not count, that he will overpower the decision that you made. Our mandate and my leadership does not come from dirty backroom deals. It comes from the people of Canada. So what does the latest crossing mean for Pierre Paulyev? Can he keep his hold on his leadership and his caucus? Let's bring everyone back. Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj and Rob Shah. Althea, you're in Montreal, but knowing you, you've been talking to people over the past 24 hours. We're also hearing that there could be more people crossing the floor. What do you make of how Mr. Paulyev responded to this and whether you get the sense that he can stay?

Well, he responded very forcefully. He wants to fight. It feels like the conservative caucus has kind of like butter knives out. Like there's nobody actually that wants to like stash him forcefully. So they're all like spreading discontent, but they're not really going out and doing the deed, right? I mean, you think back to how Pierre Paulyev acted and, you know, his emissaries around the aeronotouille. finestration and it's really not quite the same thing. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Marilyn Gladys' floor crossing.

Primarily is that you had, one, an MP that you thought the liberals would not take, so you did not respond to, you know, concerns that they were underused, that they were not going on the media and, you know, speaking out often, that they were not, given portfolios to sink their teeth in. So, like, he needs to realize that there are people who have capabilities who want to do more than they are being given. He also has a senior leadership management problem. There is a lot of dissatisfied conservatives over the team around Pierre Puehliav. He has not addressed that. So he really should be looking inwards and trying to fix problems rather than just going out and saying that he has a mandate from

conservators with 87%. It would be much easier to believe his argument and give it credence when he says the prime minister is involved in backroom deals or dirty deals. I mean, the prime minister is involved in backroom deals. But he also, you know, tried to fix his leadership vote as best as he could to get the highest percentage. It is not like every single member of the Conservative Party had a vote in January. And I think he needs to recognize that. The other thing is when he starts talking about what distinguishes the Liberal Party

from the Conservative Party, he's using things, words like affordability, safety, national security. These are things Mark Carney is addressing. So he needs a message that goes beyond what the Liberal Prime Minister has basically stolen from the conservative platform and made his own

because the marker of differentiation seems to be that Pierre Paulyev is willing to be more extreme, far more right-wing. And I'm not sure that that's where the electorate is at. And I'm not sure that that's going to help him either with the electorate or with his caucus. Rob, I could fend off a butter knife for a while. But I don't know if I could. Eventually it might start to puncture. I don't know.

Where do you think this sits at this point? Well, we continue the culinary analogies. You could stick a fork in him and he's done, I guess. I don't know. But he's in very dangerous territory. here. You know, he did try to fall back on that 87% endorsement. He does have that core group of allies. They're buying him time, but if he can't stop the bleeding from his caucus, then his time is short. And how he's going to use that time, I think, you know, calling this a dirty backroom deal,

yes, telling conservative MPs, they need to remember that they looked voters in the eyes when they ran as conservatives and then coming out in favor of recall legislation. It seems more like a threat than an inspirational speech. It's one of those old beatings will continue until the morale of improves approach. And he might be better to use his time to make amends with his caucus members who harbor grudges against how he treated them when he looked like he was going to win. And it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy at a little point. If 40% of the caucus is worried it can't win under him like the Toronto Star is reporting, you know, the defections make him look weak. The weakness makes people lose confidence in him. And then the lack of confidence makes others leave.

And you get this death by a thousand tiny little breadknife cuts. Yeah. And his response seems to be to revert to his previous approach. I would say when he is under threat and under pressure, that's kind of how he responds. And maybe that makes sense to circle the wagons, Andrew, but I'm not sure that it's, I'm not sure that it's enough in this case. Well, he had a bad day to day. I think, you know, I think a lot of people would say his performance has improved in recent weeks. He's struck a better tone. He's sounded more prime ministerial. But look, if you've been treating people in a high-handed fashion when you were riding high, they're going to remember it when you're riding low, and it's hard to turn around and say, oh, actually, I care deeply about your feelings as a member of caucus. Worse than that, if they've concluded that you can't win, that's a hard thing to turn around in a hurry. But on the other hand, I don't think the conservatives need to act with overmuch haste.

They don't have anybody waiting in the wings who's obviously superior. They don't have any need to act in a hurry. There's no election in the offing. So it seems to me there's a merit in holding their horses and waiting for a while for two reasons. One is you give probably ever a chance to show whether he can raise his game in a more sustained fashion. You give the liberals chances to get into trouble because there's trouble on the way in terms of the world situation, the economic situation. And you give the people who might contend with him or succeed him a chance to develop their profile and build a team, et cetera. So what's the point of acting in like right in haste right now?

know? Well, because politicians don't always act rationally as we know. We'll see whether they give them more time or not, but I agree that Althea with Althea, there's no, it's only butter knives for now. I'm going to I'm just, I enjoy that analogy so much, I'm going to steal it for the rest of the day.

We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Senate independence and questions about how senators are going to be appointed. That's next. So will the future of Senate appointments be addressed by the PM? When will they be addressed? And are there issues with the current system of appointments and how that's all shaking down.

Here to break down the state of the Senate, Andrew, Althea and Rob, normally I'd let you go first, but these two already wrote about it this week, so they must have had mind-meld, so I'll let them go first. Andrew, there are eight vacancies right now. I don't know that we have any idea how the Prime Minister plans to appoint people to the Senate,

and both have you laid out some of the challenges. What do you think is the sort of the current thought process and what they need to be thinking about? Well, everything one hears or reads is that the people around Carney and Carney himself are not terribly inclined to continue with the process that Justin Trudeau instituted. So once again, they're rewinding back to the days prior to Justin Trudeau. Look, to some extent, the Trudeau reforms were a bit of a sham. They weren't necessarily card-carrying liberals, although more and more of them were towards the end. But they were certainly reliably small, ill liberal and progressive.

They voted with the government, his appointees 80% of the time. because he was in there for a long enough time and because Stephen Harper left so many vacancies when he left, we now have a Senate that is about 90% appointed by liberal prime ministers. Well, that's not going to cause much trouble for Mark Carney, but at some point liberals, believe it or not, will be replaced in power by probably the conservatives. Yes. And there's real potential for crisis at that point, partly because a lot of these senators have gotten used to the idea that they're not there

because their patronage appointments or partisan hacks, but because they have a mandate of virtue. and the Senate's been getting friskier and friskier over the last couple of decades. And you had people, for example, saying that if Pierre Pauly ever were to get in there and to invoke the notwithstanding clause that they would defeat that legislation in the Senate. There's real potential for a crisis brewing. I think we need to revisit this question of how do we defang the Senate. And the main point is that we've got to stop this idea that there's any legitimacy to the Senate

defeating legislation passed by the House of Commons. The Senate has the power to restrain itself. I think it should do so. Althea made a face, so she gets to go next. Well, I would say the Senate has been remarkably restrained. In fact, I would take issue with the setup piece that said that the government wants to appoint a government leader. They have a government leader, Piazmaou,

who is a partisan liberal, was a Quebec liberal, who has been pressuring senators quite successfully, to pass legislation incredibly swiftly. We had legislation in the Trudeau era that was studied for more than a year, that dozens and dozens of amendments were made, that the government accepted those amendments. Here you have so much debate between independents who are trying to make, you know, very minor amendments and sending that message back to the House of Commons.

The House of Commons says, yeah, thanks, no thanks. And so far, the Senate has not pushed and said, no, we insist on our amendment. So I don't know that we can say that we need to defang them. I think that some Canadianism, I think that there's not enough fangs, frankly. The other interesting thing that's happened, well, there's so many things that are interesting that are happening in the Senate. Well, you only have like 30 seconds. But because the conservative opposition, so there's a dozen conservative senators, are voting with basically the, the friendlier senators to the Kearney government,

you have the Generation A and Generation B from the Trudeau era, who are the first wave that Andrew alluded to, who are more independent and frankly more progressive, who are saying, wait a second. You know, we need to study some of these measures, including measures that, frankly, were not studied in the House. The House did not do its job. And the senators are saying, well, we will hear from,

expert witnesses, and we will suggest amendments. And that's not happening in the House of Commons. So you don't actually have a duplication of work between the chambers. You have senators who are acting as a check and are being intimidated by government and those acting on behalf of government to fall in line and do nothing. Let me get Robin, because I'm sure that everybody in BC sits around their dinner table and talks about the Senate. Maybe they do. I don't know. Maybe you do. Maybe you do.

You know, I feel obliged to represent the Western view that the further you get from the Rideau Canal, the less people care about the Senate and becomes really a conversation about abolition. You know, Alberta's Premier is putting that idea on the referendum. Premier David Eby launched on the Senate just a couple months ago here because they were considering gutting Bill C-12 that was supposed to stop the extortion suspects on the refugee status issue. And he just, he came out. He had this great quote about, you know, that we look to the Senate for sober second thought. And, you know, I question whether basically there's any sobriety in the Senate chamber at all, which, you know, look, if the prime minister wants to expend political capital on any type of Senate reform, he can go big the further he gets from Ottawa because there is a lot of appetite for doing big things to the Senate, including and up to getting rid of it. Okay, got to leave it there. That is at issue for this week. Thank you all for being here.

Rob, thank you for bench hitting. That is at issue for this week. What do you think about MPs crossing the floor? Do you think this is just part for the course? Would you like to see a by-election when it happens? You can send us an email always at Ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton live. That's Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We will be back here on Monday for special coverage of those federal by-elections.

That starts at 8 p.m. Eastern. Thank you for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.