At Issue - Carney's G7 hits and misses

Episode Date: June 19, 2026

Mark Carney's mixed-bag G7 trip wins big interest in Canadian oil, and another snub from Donald Trump. Analyzing the big challenges facing the Liberals in the fall. And the Conservatives call out Carney for skipping Question Period.Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Let's see if Toronto advisors know their group insurance providers. Who has extensive expertise in both traditional group benefits and special risk solutions? Beneva. Beneva. Looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. You're stronger with the right partner, Beneva. This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton.

This week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, June 18th. Moving to this position where that's been taken off the table, yes, that's worth. I would rather not have the USMCA. The primary reason I wanted it was because there was no way out of NAFTA, which was the worst trade agreement ever made, like ever. So this week we're asking, did the Prime Minister have an effective, a good G7 meeting? Plus, what challenges might the Liberals face when the House returns in September? So did the Prime Minister have an effective, a good G7 meeting?

Does it matter if Trump did not meet with Carney directly for a bilateral on the sidelines? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down for our final at issue. of the season, Chantelle Iber, Andrew Coyne, Elthia Raj. Andrew, I'm going to start with you on this one. I mean, there were lots of different threads out of the meeting. Iran, probably the big one, and Carney was praising at least the fact that they had reached a deal. But to go back to the president, they had a number of kind of conversations on the sidelines, but no sort of official conversation about any of the particular issues I don't think that needed to be addressed.

Does that matter at all, do you think? I don't really think so. It's a symbolic thing. I think the British press was very upset because Kier Starmor didn't get a bilateral either. But I don't think there was much that was going to go on in a meeting like that anyway. Most of the heavy lifting on Kuzma is being done by, you know, officials as they usually are. The whole G7 was a little bit of a farce. That's it more and more is these days, where, you know, the other G7 members pretended to be enthused about the Iran deal in return. return for Trump pretending to be enthused about taking the side of Ukraine in the Ukraine war. There's nothing to be enthused about with this Iran deal other than the war that was so ill-advised to begin with is now, we think, for the time being, over, but not without having achieved

any of the objectives that were supposedly behind it. It's hard to see why people were so excited, except that they've decided for the moment to go back to the flatter Trump strategy. Well, we saw what the result was of that was in the next day or two, Trump started talking about pulling out of Kuzma and Pete Hags is talking about pulling the troops out of Europe. So I don't know how many times you have to keep relearning this lesson that the flatter Trump strategy doesn't really work. That may be true, Chantel, but I also don't know that the insult Trump strategy works either. So I don't know what line you walk.

No, I agree that there is no line to walk because there is no line. So you kind of do what he can. And the insult Trump. I think the G6, the other six, mostly to start with, wanted the Iran issue, put to rest. Forget that the U.S. won or lost or whatever to restore some kind of normality as far as you can get back to normality these days in getting oil across the the strait and tamping down hostilities.

So that is one. That being said, considering that there is a July 1st kind of deadline, it's not a deadline you're dead on July 1st, but we are in that period. An optimum scenario would have been for the prime minister and the president not only to meet, but to send together a signal to their teams that they wanted this settled. And that didn't happen at the G7. And is that a problem, Althea, for the prime minister? Because they have been signaling that they don't think that they're going to meet that deadline.

But if there's no even conversation, as Chantal says, that we know of anyway, where they said, let's get this deal done. And the president turns around and says the same stuff he's been saying. I don't know how much that matters. Well, there was a discussion that happened on the sidelines between our chief negotiator and the minister in charge of the Canada-U.S. relation with their counterpart. I think it does signal that Trump does not want to come to the table and that perhaps Canada has not conceded enough to get Trump to want to have a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Carney. I don't think that we need to be worried about that, though.

I mean, it would have been a very positive signal had that happen. That signal is not there for obvious reasons. And the president kind of elaborated on those reasons after the G7 was over. I also don't think that we need to, you know, assume worst-case scenario because I think this is like pre-negotiation posturing and we will see what actually emerges in terms of later on the summer and into the fall. He is right, though, when he says that the Canadians and the Mexicans thought that the 60-year deadline to, you know, as a time span to renegotiate this deal meant that Trump would no longer be in office. That is true. They did pick that date because they did think that if he went a second term, he would be gone. But alas, he is still here. There was a line put in the final communique, Andrew, about other countries taking the lesson from Iran

and turning to Canada for our natural resources, our energy. I wonder whether you thought that was a nod also to some of the trade conversations that are happening and the realization that this is kind of the direction that the Kearney government wants to go. in. Well, yeah, I mean, Carney drew an explicit connection with a lot of things, but between the oil thing, the AI thing with Anthropic, where they were cut off, and we've suddenly realized, oh, we can't necessarily rely on U.S. artificial intelligence either. That the theme that sort of is throughout this thing is we can't be exposed to bottlenecks. So, yeah, Canada's energy, supposing we're prepared to bring it to market, is

much more highly valued in this kind of world where we're very vulnerable, very aware of bottlenecks very much more in demand, and that was clearly part of the language that was trying to express. Do you think that Europe is, I mean, Germany obviously has some deals, Chantel, but is Europe interested in that conversation, even if it's going to upset Donald Trump and he wants to keep things? Not to a point, but the real issue is how long does it take for us to get to that point where we are a solution to a problem. And as the problem, still going to be the problem by the time we get the solution. You're talking pipelines, things that we're not even discussing,

and you're looking at a five to 10 year time frame. Meanwhile, though, while we live in this bubble where we are walking away from decarbonization, Europe is not. And at some point, there will be a gap between one and the... Oh, I'm not totally convinced that, words mean a lot in this case? The last 30 seconds to you there, I'll hear.

I would say I think it was a coup actually to have Canada mentioned by name in the declaration because if it does anything, actually, it will probably drive investment to Canadian projects. So I'm sure the government is very pleased to have that language agreed to by the parties in there. I think the other thing that the meeting highlighted, or rather what happened on the sidelines of the meeting, which was the CNN interview with the prime minister highlighted, is that a majority has now given Prime Minister Carney a much longer leash to take a much more an approach to Trump that is placating him.

Like, nobody at all thinks that this is a good deal. But the prime minister is not talking to Canadians. He is just talking to Donald Trump. And I don't know that he would have been able to do that, you know, six months ago because the prospect of an election was around the corner. Okay. Well, we'll talk a little bit more about what that majority has changed and the things he has ahead of him when we come back.

We'll look at the summer ahead. And those challenges that the Prime Minister and the Liberals might face back in September when the House returns from Alberta separatism to trade irritants and pipelines. What are some of the biggest issues on the horizon? That's next. So what could be the biggest challenges for the liberals in the months ahead leading up to when the House comes back?

Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. I said the by-elections because I think we're up to six now. Of course, the Prime Minister gets to decide when to call them, although there's time parameters, but that is something that's out there as well because the majority is fragile. But Chantelle, let me start with you. What do you think is sort of the big obstacle or the big shiny thing that the Prime Minister needs to keep an eye on in the months ahead? There's nothing that's big and shiny, but the by-elections probably belong at the bottom of the list.

Why? Because I don't think the Prime Minister is going to be calling by elections in the middle of an Alberta plebiscite in an election campaign in Quebec so that pushes it back to later in the fall for one, two. By the time the House comes back, the Conservatives will be missing an MP, the NDP will be missing

an MP and so will the Black Quebecoise so when it comes to the map of a majority, not a big change plus the Black Quebec is not about to bring down the government in the middle of an election campaign. So let's set that aside.

Okay. And look at the thing. Well, no, that means we'll have more fun in November or December. That's right. But look at these timelines. In theory, Alberta is supposed to present the federal government with a pipeline plan by July 1st. The federal government is supposed to decide that it gives it national interest project status, my meaning we're behind it and we're speeding it up by a couple.

October 1st, Quebec goes to the polls on the 5th. Alberta has the plebiscite and whether they want a referendum on separation on the 19th. So there is some interesting navigating. If you were in a canoe looking at these three dates, you would think you'll need to be good with your paddle. And that's basically where things will rest. And we will know on November 1st, whether Mark Carney is home safe and dry or well. we are in the storm. And how do you think he will navigate, if we continue this metaphor?

Andrew, how do you think he will navigate those things? Because it's the time frame and the pull from all those different things that is so fascinating that he's going to have to deal with. Well, and that's just one of the things he has to navigate. He's got a series of very difficult squares to circle or tradeoffs to weigh. So that's one of them. Energy versus the environment, building pipelines versus, I mean, Chantelle's right that right now the climate's kind of on the back burner, but it's not going to go away.

And it's certainly given more political acuteness by what she described there, where you've got these twin referendums or elections in Alberta and Quebec, where, you know, if you build a pipeline to please Alberta, do you annoy Quebecers and vice versa? So that's one. Secondly, he's got to deal with this question of how do we diversify trade and defense alliances away from the United States. Well, still recognizing the reality that most of our trade is going to be with the United States. and for the time being there, they're supposed to be our protector. This is a dilemma that's facing, of course, all of the democratic countries. You see Europe going through this at the same time of how do we build something to replace NATO while keeping NATO in place.

But it's particularly acute for Canada since we're so dependent in the United States, both those things. Thirdly, he's got to try to, he's got a big defense buildup and other spending items, spending demands on his plate, at the same time as federal finances are pretty rapidly deteriorating. So that's a very difficult square to circle. And then finally, the political one is he's got to keep trying to reach across the center, center-right voters to keep the conservatives in check. But, you know, the NDP has not gone away. And the more that he departs from liberal orthodoxy on things like the environment, the more that he's a little bit exposed on the left flank. Not so great to trouble and undulyly at this point.

At this point, yeah. But that certainly could become that. Elfilla. I agree with everything. Chantelle and Andrew said, I would just possibly. add forest fires and Kizma to the mix in the summer, because if the country is burning, you know, it makes it a bit more difficult for the liberals to go full on and more fossil fuel investment. But I actually want to talk about what happened this week because I think it feeds

into a possible problem that the liberals need to be attuned to. Last week, Michael Sabia, speaking at the Eurasia group, this is the clerk of the Privy Council, talked about one of the things that Kearney government has that's an asset, which is trust from the public. And we have seen some softening of poll numbers in the sense that the NDP is rising. That's great news for the conservatives, even though they're not doing so great. What happened this week is that the liberals decided to use their majority to shut down debate and pass legislation. That is very controversial. Bills that were not studied, in some cases had no witness. that even testified as to whether this was good or bad.

In a finance bill, there were measures that basically give cabinet the right to overrule the health minister who decides that a pesticide is too toxic for the environment and should not be allowed to be used under any circumstances. We had the Lawful Access Bill that has gotten a bit more attention across the country. And the government completely shut down the debate. some cases that even backdated the ability of opposition members to bring forward amendments, so only government members could bring forward amendments. We have never seen anything like this, ever. We have talked a lot about these kind of moves during the Harper era, especially during his

majority government, and with reason. I think we deserve to talk and highlight what is happening in this case. And I bring it up because the trust issue, the government house leader talked about, he hoped the conspiracies around C-22, the Lawful Access Bill, would go away that people would, time would allow these to pass. He talked about tinfoil hat people. This is not a way to bring people along. If anything, it fuels conspiracies. So there was no reason to pass these bills. They could have taken the summer to study them and bring more Canadians on side. And I think that they are taking, they risk taking, I should say, Canadians votes for granted. Right now the vote...

Yeah, I think right now the vote is parked in the very same way that Pierre Puelev's vote was parked because people don't like the other options. So I think they need to be sensitive to this. Okay, so let's hear from everyone else then. Chantal? I agree that it's unprecedented to find the government using its

newly found majority, not obtained at the polls to speed up or force feed nine bills to the House of Commons. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. And I believe that in the end, it leads one to poor relationships between the parties, and you never know when you're going to need help from across the aisle in the instances. But it also leads to bad legislation, because no legislation that is brought in in a hurry is perfect.

And to not want to hear what others have to say about this is kind of leading you into a place that you're not going to like. a couple of years from now. Last minute or so to you there, Andrew. Well, just add a couple of things to that. One is it's playing to a certain stereotype, if you will, of liberals. You know, if the besetting sin of conservatives is a certain chippy defensiveness, the besetting sin of liberals is arrogance. And the smart ones in the liberal camp always know that that's their kryptonite.

So it's not good to be playing to that. It's not good for a guy who's kind of the top dog type as Mark Carney is to be seen to be too conscious of. of it. A little bit of personal humility and governmental humility is always becoming in somebody who is, in fact, the top dog. Final point I'll make it just as in addition to this in terms of the trust issue and maybe a sleeper on this is artificial intelligence, AI. The public is really worried, really scared by this. All the polls show it. That paper that the federal government brought out talked a lot about trust, but did very little in terms of concrete proposals to try to allay public fears in this.

The overriding message of the thing was full speed ahead. And that could come back to bite them. Yeah, they would probably point to the privacy legislation as trying to build trust. I'm not saying that it will. But in fact, it doesn't. It makes the Privacy Commission accountable to the government rather than accountable to parliament. Yes, and those are all bridges they will have to cross, I guess, in the fall. Okay.

We're going to take a short break. When we come back, we'll look at the conservatives attacking Mark Carney's question period attendance. That's next. He's messed now more than 100 question. periods. He's been in Ottawa, 64 of those days where he didn't attend question period to not answer to Canadians. I think the Prime Minister should be expected to be there cheering on our national men's soccer team in Vancouver. So is the Prime Minister's question period attendance an issue? Let's bring everyone back. Shantelle, Andrew, Elthea. I mean, it sort of goes back to what we were

talking about before a little bit, I think. You know, entitlement, arrogance, trust, all those things. except the question period sometimes really isn't great. So that's the part that sort of gives me pause. Well, is this the best place for the prime minister to be? I don't know. And certainly Pierre Pueleev is not always there because he wants to grill the prime minister. Is this an issue, Althea, you think?

Yes, Pierre Pueleev is also much more often there than Prime Minister Carney is. The real issue is not that the prime minister wanted to cheer the men's soccer team. It's not that he's at the G7. It's that when he's in Ottawa, upstairs in his office, sometimes he does not make the effort to go down the stairs and answer the opposition's questions. And why it matters, it's because it's called the House of Commons.

We are the Commons. Those questions, even though sometimes they're kind of stupid, they are asked on our behalf. And, you know, Justin Trudeau did not have as great an attendance as Stephen Harper, but he came every Wednesday and answered every single question. This Prime Minister does not do that. So I think it is a lack of respect of Parliament, and it feeds into a narrative that the opposition is certainly trying to create,

that he's more of a CEO prime minister than a parliamentary leader. We'll see if the public cares. Yeah, I mean, I think that's the question, Chantal. I don't know if people care how question period unfolds, and if the prime minister is there, and maybe it doesn't matter if they care or not. Maybe he should be there because that's part of his job. I don't think the measure of sighing it's okay to dodge question period

is whether people care or not. It is whether you have some respect. You cannot be the person who is preaching around the world respect for institutions. And then treat the institution where you are accountable as a place that is of no interest to you. And Mark Carney has the same obligations as Brian Marloni, Stephen Harper, and whoever came and Justin Trudeau. And they all managed to show up in the House of Commons. a lot more often than he did. But what he's basically saying is, we need to respect institutions,

but I'm not showing up to the one that I'm held to show up at. And I don't think that that is very healthy for democracy or for our parliamentary system. I wonder if he thinks, Andrew, and I don't know what he thinks, but I wonder if it's that it's not serious enough. You know what I mean? Because that's how he projects himself as a serious person in a serious time. Not nearly a service is going to a soccer game.

Look, it's disgraceful. You know, question period, God knows, is nobody's idea of a graduate seminar on political theory. But it's the only thing we got. And for all of its failings, for all the ways it can be improved, it's a pretty good thing. Donald Trump, instead of being questioned by the polite, respectful reporters of the White House press corps, who were trying to be fair to him, had to stand up every day and be questioned by, skilled political opponents who are not trying to be fair, who are trying to catch him out, who are trying to throw him off his game, he'd be in a very different position and a much more

accountable position. So for all of its, you know, for all of its, you know, ugliness and bloodsport aspects of it, it's how we keep powerful people to account in this country. And when the most powerful person in the country feels it's beneath him to show up, it sends really bad signals and it weakens one of the last lines of accountability we've got. think it's something that the conservatives can get some traction with, because obviously it was done with a cake and, you know, some jokes this week, but if it continues to be a trend? Actually, the cake is part now, I guess, of a parliamentary tradition. The NDP brought out a cake in 2009 to mark the 50th time the liberals were voting with the conservatives, despite Michael

Ignatia signaling that Mr. Harper's time was up. That's a good memory you have there, my friend. That's good. So, well, it's not often you have a cake in the Post of Commons. And so that drove, you know, it kind of helps cement an idea in people's head that the, like, were the liberals really opposed to what Mr. Harper was doing? And I think perhaps this will also help cement in the public's mind, hey, you know, Prime Minister Carney is not showing up to question period. So if you want something to stay with people, you bring a cake. That is the message that I got from that. Got to have a gimmick.

Thank you all. That's our final at issue for the season, believe it. or not, we're going to take a summer off or try to anyway. We'll be back in September when the House returns. It's been a busy year filled with pipelines, politics, by-elections, floor crossings, leadership conventions for sending your questions and your comments all season. We hope we've helped you understand things. I'm Rosemary Barton. Thanks for listening to us all season long. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.