At Issue - Carney’s infrastructure fast track

Episode Date: September 12, 2025

At Issue this week: What the first projects on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s approval fast track signal about the government’s direction. MPs prepare to return to Parliament , but have the dynamics shifted? And Conservatives target the Temporary Foreign Workers program. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Bingo! Woohoo! Celebrate a win for your community at a charitable bingo and gaming center. Each game you play has a real-world impact on thousands of Ontario charities facing challenges such as food and security, educational needs, and rehabilitation. So come choose from a wide variety of entertainment options. And remember, when you play, local charities win. See how we play. Visit charitablegaming.ca.

Please play responsibly. Charitable gaming, community good. This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rose Murray Barton. We're back this week on ad issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, September 11th. Our plan for major nation building projects is anchored in new corridors that connect our economy, enhance our security, and build transportation networks across this vast country and to the wider world. This week, we're asking what's to be made of the Liberals' list of projects so far. Do their choices reflect their focus for the future?

Plus, what can we expect when the House of Commons returns next week? So what is to be made of the Liberals' list of major projects? Do their choices reflect their focus for the future? I'm Rosemary Barton. Welcome back to the at-issue panel, Chantelle Iber, Andrew Coyne, and Altheiraj. I had many, many people demanding your return through the summer. So glad to see you all back here with me. Let's start with the announcement today.

five projects that have been identified that were sort of, you know, further along in their development and approval. What do these projects tell us, Chantal, about what the prime minister and what the government are trying to do? One, they're a bit of a test run in the sense that, as you said, many of those projects have already been in the works. So the government is not, I think the government is trying to trigger more private sector interest by going with projects. that are already on the drawing board or way past that to showcase how this works. I'm going to talk to you about the politics of it. I talked it landed well, and why do I say that? Because we are here in Edmonton today where Mr. Carney made the announcement.

Premier Smith has no pipelines in the list, and yet she is all over social media saying how great a meeting she had with Mark Carney and how positive and optimistic she is about what is to come. I looked at the reaction in Manitoba, Wab canoe, also happy. I think the Quebec government is happy. It's a rare day when you announce things like that and the response from the provinces

is so far positive. Yeah, Tim Houston also saying this gives him hope for the province, but Daniel Smith's reaction was pretty extraordinary saying, oh my gosh, they finally get it. So you're right to point that out, Chantel. Andrew, what did you make of it? Yeah, I sort of feel sorry for Pierre Poyev.

He keeps getting undercut by Conservative Premiers. He was pouring cold water all over this, and then Daniel Smith emerges to say what a triumph is. I mean, it's early days. This is the first slice of these things. There are more promise to come. As Chantelle said, these ones are not terribly surprising or edgy in their choices. We'll have to see in the totality when more projects are unveiled as to how much of an actual shift in policy it represents. It still concerns me as a matter of policy that rather than try to reduce the red tape and overly intrusive regulatory process in general for projects in general, we're doing it where we leave all the cumbersome regulations in place, but we give a buy to particular favored projects.

You'll notice these were carefully distributed across the country, what tells you how intensely political this is. I think I'd rather that economics were guiding these things than politics. Althea. I think what's interesting is that these are mostly fully baked projects, but even then in their selling to Canadians, I think the liberals have glossed over some of the hindrins that are still to come. Like LNG2 is not a project without its critics. It does not have unanimous indigenous agreement to move forward. So on some core constituencies, we don't know what the criticisms will be at because we also don't know what loopholes. the government is going to use C5-4 to give them a carve-out, we assume that's why they're on the list in order to get the project done. So I don't want to be tripe, but the devil is in the details. The other thing is that the five were the big ones

that are moving forward, and then there is the sub-list of like, well, we're going to help these projects see the light of day. And the one that has Daniel Smith really excited is obviously Pathways Plus, but it's also one that will have core liberal constituencies really anxious because in the selling, of that, the prime minister basically said that if that project can go forward, and it's not certainly not a done deal that carbon capture actually works or will work in this way, then, yeah,

yes to a new oil pipeline. That is not going to be a message very well received, even within the liberal caucus, never mind people who voted liberal just this spring. Do you think that that is, I mean, obviously the prime minister says it is possible. He's never going to say no from the get-go, But there's no private proponent. It's not clear to me where that pipeline would come from. Is that even a conversation, Chantel, that you think will happen when discussing these major projects moving forward? I think the wise thing to do at this point is to have the conversation on how they're using the legislation. I don't disagree with Andrew on the notion that if you think that regulations are in the way,

well, change the regulations. Don't give yourselves the power. Every time you see a project you like, then let's not bother with the rules on the environment or on a variety of other issues. But to not have a pipeline is wise, because what happens when you have the word pipeline, it sucks the oxygen out of the discussion

and polarizes it on pipelines. Two, let's see if there is a private sector proposal on it, Because at this point, it's not happening. And why is it not happening? Because even if you believe Mark Carney is going to be in government for two or three years, and the next government will still be of that persuasion, it's hard to believe that it will be enough to just say this isn't the national interest to make it happen across provinces.

But, Andrew, the Prime Minister keeps saying, yeah, go ahead, go ahead, Andrew. Oh, just to build on that point, it's one thing to remove regulatory roadblocks, is another thing to sort of stick your neck out politically and see it through in the face of opposition from indigenous groups or from particular provinces that want to stick an o'er in the works. So, you know, it's one thing to say, yes, it's true that there's no private sector proponent at this point. And you can trot out the economic arguments. You know, we've got a whole bunch of capacity that came online with the Trans Mountain, the world economy situation is very unsettled. But what's also true is even if all the economic ducks were in a row, it's not clear that pipel. would get built because people would worry about the political risk. So ultimately, you've got to

politically de-risk these proposals, and we've yet to see really definitively whether the government's willing to spend political capital to do that. Althea, you want it in there? Well, the previous liberal government did de-risk a pipeline by buying the project and getting it done. And I think we're assuming that it will only be private capital, but I don't know that we should be assuming that. Daniel Smith is incredibly enthusiastic about something on the horizon, and I don't know what that is, but clearly there's an announcement in the works that has her excited enough that she is tweeting about it. So I think we should not close ourselves to the possibility that there may be other funding mechanisms and there may be

other things coming down the pipeline that we are not sure. exactly what kind of framework they're going to take. Sure. Sure. Shut out last word, yeah. The litmus test of a successful pipeline endeavor is not the province of Alberta. It's the province of BC, Ontario, indigenous

people, Quebec. So we are back where we were whatever Mark Carney wants. He can't do it without provincial support across the board and without community support across the board. And that's not obvious under any funding

mechanism. But the list allows him, it gives him carrots and sticks to negotiate with the provinces. I don't think we should forget that either. Okay, we're going to leave this part of the conversation there. When we come back, though, we are going to look ahead the return of the House of Commons next week.

What can we expect from MPs, the government, the opposition when they return next week? How have the dynamic shifted, if at all? That's next. We're all here to get big things done for Canadians at a scale and a pace that hasn't happened for generations. The message to Mark Carney and the Liberals is they need to do one thing. Get out of the way.

So how has the summer changed the dynamics that we might see in the House of Commons on Monday? How is the government doing so far on delivering on its ambitious agenda? Let's bring everybody back, Chantal, Andrew Althea. I mean, I almost just want to say to all three of you, so what has changed over the summer? Like, what is different now? and how will that shape what we might see on Monday? So I'll start with you on that, Andrew. Well, we've got a little bit more of a picture of the government's agenda.

You know, over the summer months, we heard about the rapid spending increases that had really only been hinted at in the election campaign. In fact, nothing of the scale that we was subsequently announced. You know, similarly, we're now hearing or heard over the summer months about big spending cuts to make room for those spending increases. So we'll see the scale of those. So they're starting to fill in the gas,

but it's still pretty early days. A lot of the summer was frittered away on not particularly successful talks with the Americans on the trade front. I can't really blame whoever would be the prime minister in that case. It would be extremely difficult to make any progress with Donald Trump as a negotiating partner. But that took up a lot of the oxygen.

And of course, we now have Pierre Plouyev back in the House of Commons. He was kind of sat on his back foot after that election campaign. That took a lot of his energies and the thing. And he still has to face this leadership review in January. I think the biggest problem he's facing is the liberals seem to be moving pretty sharply to the right, taking up a lot of space that might have been occupied by the conservatives, and it's forcing him to go even further to the right to take up policy sentences that he knows the liberals can't follow him on. Yeah, they do seem to be continuing sort of what they did during

the election, eating his lunch a little bit, Althea, whether it be on, I mean, even when they come back, the government has said one of their first pieces of legislation will be bail legislation, which is something the conservatives have been after for a law. long time. So it does kind of place them in a difficult position. I'm confident Pierre probably will fight his way out, but I wonder what it'll mean for him. I think two things happen with bail reform. One, the conservatives have been hammering it and it's occupying a lot of oxygen and it's on like people's social media feed in Vancouver, in Toronto, for example. So it may not match the crime stats, but people feel like it's a really big issue. And people often know somebody

who's experienced a crime and they therefore feel, you know, there's more immediacy to it. The other thing is the Liberals lost a bunch of seats, and there were a lot of seats that were uncomfortably close because they failed to see crime as a really relevant issue, especially in the GTA. So I'm not surprised that that's coming back on the agenda. I think the thing that has changed over the summer is it's not clear who the Liberals dance partner will be in the House of Commons because of the policy stances that Mr. Kearney has taken

and some of the policy stances that his caucus fear he will take, notably on climate change, who is going to support his budget? There was talk earlier in the year that the Black Quebecois would give the government one year to get it stuck in a row, and that was kind of like the reprieve. But I don't see why I Francois Blanchet would support the liberal government's agenda on climate, on an austerity budget, using Mr. Carney's own words, on possible cuts in culture. Why would the bloc side with the liberals on this? The NDP, there's absolutely nothing than the budget, at least as it's been explained to us so far,

that would see the NDP vote for this. So is Pierre Paulyev going to support the Carney agenda? Yeah, I mean, he might have to, right? But, Chantal, what does that tell you about how things have shifted and what? we should watch for. I think many Canadians are going with Andrew's reasoning over the tariff issue and what did not happen all summer. But some shine has gone off the armor, notwithstanding that. The only rational thing that many voters are coming to is they can't see, and I agree with Andrew, what else or who else would have done better. But what I believe will be

the real conversation changer, and not just in Parliament, but in public opinion will be the budget, because a budget is a document that does reveal the real character of the government. And at this point, I think many Canadians are in a wait-and-see attitude. They're not too sure what is the character of this government. Does it have any red lines, anything that is not negotiable? And I agree with Althea. I would be amazed if the bloc found its way to support the kind of budget that we are being told to expect. And I think the NDP will also struggle.

So for the first time, the government's status as a minority government is about to be really tested in the House of Commons. Andrew? I can see all those arguments, but I just cannot see. You'd have to get all three of the main office. opposition parties to vote against at the same time. I mean, unless the budget is a complete, you know, failure with the public, when the liberals are six to nine points ahead of the conservatives, when the NDP is flat on its back, they have managed to swallow themselves in the past

and avoid taking principled stands on things that you'd think the NDP would take on. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I just can't see it. But it is true that what Canadians will be, and we'll talk obviously lots more about the budget, what Canadians really probably don't know, and certainly I don't even understand, is where all that austerity is coming from? Where are those cuts are coming from? And what Mr. Carney said about those things during the election campaign. I mean, that is going to be, that is going to be difficult to manage, I think, Althea. Well, I think that's the thing that's going to be revealed this fall is, like, who actually is Mark Carney? Because, you know, we didn't test him as an opposition

leader for months or years. He said a lot of things in the lead-up to the liberal leadership that he didn't include, notably on climate, in the spring election platform. He said a lot of things in the spring election platform. For example, that Pierre Polyev was the one that was going to cut Pharmacare, that Pierre Poliab was going to cut foreign aid, that Pure Polyev was going to make all these big cuts to government, and Mr. Carney was only going to make $13 billion worth of cuts. We're now looking at more like $29 billion worth of cuts. He said he wasn't going to to cut the public service. He was only going to cap it, but it's really hard to see how he gets to 15% of savings in each government, almost every government department within the next three

years without actually slashing the size of the public service. And I will just note here that he has a writing with a lot of public servants in it. So it's, you know, he gave a certain picture during the campaign that doesn't seem like it's going to be the picture that people see in the budget. But that being said, because there's so much public spending in defense, for example, and possibly some of these projects that we're seeing, you're still going to have, you may call it an austerity budget, but it is a budget that it's going to be badly in the red ink with tens of billions of dollars of deficits. So it will give credence also that the conservatives say, well, we can't support this.

It's a big spending budget. And that's the reason I can't imagine the official opposition supporting the budget. But I also don't believe that Pierre Poitjev, who is campaigning for his job, wants to give his members the impression that he supports the liberal budget and they'll lead up to a leadership review. Actually, the bloc, if it's going to come to that, would rather bring down the government in the fall than in the spring. Why?

Because the Quebec election will be coming. Come spring, all the energy is going to be focused on the provincial scene in Quebec. So I think this is going to be maybe a bit of a real. reality check on Canadians, but also on the liberals over the next four months. Okay, that's all got me kind of nervous, this conversation. But don't worry, we're going to talk again on Monday when the House comes back. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll look at the concerns laid out by conservatives primarily and others about the temporary foreign workers program and the calls for change. That's nice.

I would say to everybody, don't blame immigrant people. My wife is an immigrant. The people did not cause this problem. It is the liberal government. It's clear that we have to work to continue to improve our overall immigration policies. So what's been made of conservative focus on this program and on immigration? We'll bring everyone back for one more round. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea.

Althea, what do you understand of why the conservatives are focusing on this program in particular, but also they really want to make immigration a central issue coming back to the House. I think it's popular for them. I think it helps drive engagement. I think it will help Mr. Polyev in the Conservative Leadership Review in January. I think it's also something that they can help them fundraise on. But it's also a policy stance that, frankly, if Pierre Poiliev had been elected prime minister, he would not take.

Calling for the complete elimination of the program is something that no prime minister would do. And, you know, even Justin Trudeau, when he was in opposition, railed against this program, criticized it heavily. Mr. Carney, when in his previous jobs, have also criticized this program. There are a lot of problems with the program, starting with the migrants themselves, who are often abused. Mark Miller, when he was immigration minister, was planning on bringing in reforms that would allow people to have open permits within their sector so they could move around in case there's, like, a bad apple employer. There's a lot of fraud. in the system that needs to be cleaned up, but the idea that you would completely wipe it out

when there actually is a need, especially in the regions, that's not like a responsible stance from my sitting prime minister. So I think it's also being struck as a policy position so that the conservatives know the liberals won't follow. It's also because, Andrew, we are seeing and have seen for some time concerns around immigration in public opinion polling in a way that we hadn't seen in a while. And I guess it's trying to tap into some of that anxiety probably too. Yeah, I appreciate him saying that don't blame immigrants themselves, but he's not going to turn away the votes of people who are blame immigrants. So it can't lose for him in that sense that he taps into partly that anxiety around immigration in general, which, to be fair, this particular program and a couple of other programs that the liberals let get out of control. I'm in favor of high immigration, but high but controlled immigration, and it was hard to say that the system was really well controlled.

The problem he's facing is the liberals have already tightened up these programs quite considerably. I mean, in addition to the temporary foreign workers, he's been saying we need hard caps so that the population of the country actually falls in absolute terms. That's where we're headed this year for the first time in our history, the population is actually going to fall. So if he's going to continue to differentiate himself, as Althea said, he has to go where the liberals will not go. And in this case, it's promising to scrap a program altogether that really just needs to be, well, it's already been substantially reformed, probably could do. do with some further reforms? I see a bit of a different game. I believe Mr. Puelev is trying to expand this tent by piggybacking the youth unemployment

numbers and by tying this program to the fact that kids and young people can't find jobs. And I was looking at some numbers this week. It used to be that the NDP had kind of a good hold on younger voters. and the Conservatives were nowhere. And that proposition is no longer valid. And if you think about the offensive that Mr. Polyev led to bring over blue-collar workers, I would argue he is successfully done,

you can see that the other piece of that puzzle is younger voters, and in particular younger men, which is a constituency that will be sensitive to a lot of his other arguments. So I think that is play, But I also agree with Althea, even the Quebec government that has used concerns over language and culture has been under incredible pressure from the regions in Quebec to maintain a presence of temporary foreign workers because they're basically essential and not just to agriculture, but a number of industries. Can I just add that going after the youth vote is not a new thing? Like Pierre Paulyev started to do. do that in his leadership bid back in 2022 when he spoke about how young people cannot move out of their parents' basement because they couldn't afford rent. And it's a constituency

that they have been consistently engaging with and that helped them in the last election. And so this is just one more issue to keep that constituency mobilized and engaged. Okay. I'm glad you're all back. But there's a lot of other factors that, there's a lot of other factors that work in youth unemployment than the temporary foreign workers. obviously. That is at issue for this week. Glad to be back. What do you think of the Liberals' list of projects?

Do you think that they are going to help the country respond to the uncertainty with the United States? Let us know. You can always email us at Ask.catsc.c.c. And my show is back to Rosemary Barton Live, Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. Meanwhile, we'll be back in your podcast feeds next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to CBC.com. slash podcasts.