At Issue - Cracks in Canada’s united front on tariffs?

Episode Date: October 17, 2025

At Issue this week: How will the federal government keep a united front as tariff turmoil pits premiers against each other? The Liberals move on bail reform. And Pierre Poilievre accuses the RCMP of protecting Justin Trudeau from criminal charges. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Of the seven great nations that make up the G7, it is Canada that imposes the highest taxes on beer. 46% of what Canadians pay for beer is government taxation. When the G7 leaders get together, I bet Canada doesn't brag about that. Enough is enough. Help stop automatic beer tax hikes. Go to hereforbeer.ca and ask yourself, why does the best beer nation have the worst beer taxation? This is a CBC podcast. Hello there, I'm Rosemary Barton, this week on ad issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, October 16th.

I respect what they're doing, but there's no damn way we should drop tariffs on China. I'll tell you that. What we're asking for today is that that same respect, that that same concern, that same sense of emergency, is shared for the forest sector. There's times to hit back and there's times to talk, and right now is the time to talk. This week we're asking, are there cracks forming in Team Canada? How challenging are these tensions for Ottawa? Plus, the liberals unveiled their plan for bail reform. I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down tonight.

Chantale Ibert, Andrew Coyne, Altheiraj. Good to see you all. So this has started to bubble up probably last week, and then this week seems even more apparent as provinces try to, I suppose, rightly defend their own interests and their own trade issues, but it's also happening at the same time as these negotiations continue in Washington. What are you observing, Chantal, in terms of how the Team Canada approach has changed? Is there still a Team Canada approach? Because over the past few days, we've seen Saskatchewan and Alberta calling for a drop on tariffs on EVs to allow Canola to flow to China,

Well, Ontario is saying, no, we need to protect the auto industry, the premier of BC, saying you need to do more and the premier of New Brunswick for softwood lumber, and you're paying a lot of attention to auto and not enough to us. I think what you're seeing, I know this comes out of left field, is maybe the wisdom of Justin Trudeau's approach to the last negotiation, i.e. the creation of a kind of consultative council that brought together unions, various players from around the country, which he did leave behind, but I don't think has been activated by Mark Carney. What did these people accomplish?

They kind of got to talk or act as bridges to all these conflicting interests so that Canadians, Canadian governments, we're not negotiating with each other. And at this point, that is where this is going. And I mean, division is probably partly what certainly China is after and perhaps the United States as well, Andrew. Yes, I mean, there's a reason China chose canola. It was deliberately designed to prey upon our internal divisions. And I do think there's a danger of kind of jumping to China's tune here. There's no logical reason why tariffs on EVs and tariffs on canola should be linked.

It's China that's made that linkage. And if we do follow the logic of that and do what China demands of us, we've no assurance that we'll actually get any permanent peace with China any more than we will with Trump. With both of these people, these countries, these regimes, we're dealing with the issue that after they finished blackmailing us, they may just come back and blackmail us some more. So I think it's probably best if we looked at these things, I know this is hard to say to a politician and looked at them in isolation, does it make sense on its own merits to be tariffing EVs, Chinese EVs, it's complicated. If it was just a matter of trying to protect our industry and it was just part of that general attempt by the previous government to shoehorn the whole industry into industry into EVs, I'd say no.

If you're looking at through a broader lens of security where what you're trying to do is to keep China from. established than global dominance in this industry, that's a more complicated question. But simply looking at it as a trade-off of one region or another, I think that really goes down a really bad road for the country as a whole and particularly for our internal divisions. I mean, the problem, I guess, Althea, is that premiers do have to defend their industries and look as though they're standing up for their workers and the people and their provinces. And that leads us with them sort of working in opposite directions in some cases. Absolutely. I mean, that is their job. I think they're also being more vocal about it because the prime minister has not taken up the stage. So, you know, there's been a lot of talk from Mr. Carney about the negotiations, but self-imposed deadlines have been missed twice. There have been things that the federal government has negotiated away with nothing back in return. And there is no sense that

that there is a really emboldened action coming from the federal government. So they all know that their negotiations underway as we speak in Washington, and they want to plead their case, and so they're doing so publicly, because at the very least, let's say there is a deal done next week, and it's not what they want. They will be able to say, I advocated on your behalf. I think what's more concerning, frankly, is what Canada is willing to trade away for temporary peace? Because we have no, to Andrew's point,

no indication that Donald Trump will keep his word. So if we are willing to trade away, we've seen reports about supply management, for example. I don't want to get to a discussion about supply management, but if we're willing to trade away certain key things, what will be less when we actually want to discuss Kuzma? And those, I think, are the bigger issues here. Sure. Chantal. And that was the point about having a bigger attempt that included Brian Mulroney and the unions and people who actually speak to diverse interests in this country. To haggle this out here rather than in public, people are being kept in the dark. It's not the same thing to say we're going to brief premiers at some point on what's happening.

But if you want them to be having that negotiation in public, you are going to come with a weaker hand to any negotiation because they are going to be defending as they should their own provinces' interest. And at this point, Mark Carney is failing to give them a national purpose or sustain the national purpose that was there when he took office. I do wonder, Andrew, how much sort of the vacuum of information, like the last. of information for the premiers about where the negotiations are at, which might be needed, I don't know, but I do wonder whether that is also contributing to the problem. If they're close to a deal, what's on the table, what is the broader strategy, maybe that's making things worse not knowing. Yeah, I mean, I have no problem with the premiers advocating for their province's interests

and complaining, if you will, that if they think those interests are being overlooked, as long as they're not trying to negotiate themselves or intrude themselves overly much into the proper jurisdiction of the federal government. But as you and as Chantel have said, if the feds want them to be quieter, they're gonna have to give them something to do so. And it may be simply sharing information, it may be something grubbier than that.

But they can't just simply order them to shush. And usually it's better when you take people into their confidence, into your confidence, if you want them to be team players. Althea? I think one of the things that seems very odd in this round of negotiations is it feels like a sense of panic. And I say this just from like the buzz around the capital, our capital.

The last time around in the lead-up to Kuzma, we knew what the negotiation strategy was. Well, maybe at the time we didn't realize that the King government wanted to kick the can down the road until the deadline had basically was coming up to deadline point and Donald Trump would have to agree with what was being discussed, but we knew we were making inroads with American legislators and American businessman and getting them to lobby on our behalf. That strategy is not working. The King government has set that aside. But what is the new strategy? Because it seems like they themselves keep changing their strategy. Every few weeks, months, they're in a new approach. So that is also what is leading, I think, to confusion with business leaders, with the

premieres with other people whose livelihood depend on what happens next. And there is not much, you know, are we getting, are we really just going after temporary side deals? Or are these going to be permanent side deals that are supposed to stick beyond Kuzma? There needs to be more communication, frankly, because otherwise you'll have more and more people speaking out. And we have to change the game. We're not going to keep Stalanta. for example, here, by throwing subsidized at them, and we're certainly not going to keep them by threatening them with lawsuits.

The only way you're going to get investment to locate in a permanent way in the country is if we're such an attractive destination for investment that they'll do so even in the face of whatever Donald Trump throws at them. So we've got to be thinking about a much larger game of how do we make ourselves so attractive as a location for investment

that we're not having to basically fight with one-arm tied behind a bracket. We can't fight the Americans on tariffs. We can't fight them on subsidies. We can't fight them on subsidies. on overall competitiveness. I mean, I presumably that's what Mark Carney says he's trying to do as well. You know, whether it's working or not, I don't know.

But last 32, Shantau. Okay, two things. On the auto industry front, we do have two advantages that no American administration can take away. The dollar is lower and health care. If you're going to negotiate work contracts and invest somewhere, it's a lot less costly to do so on Canada. These have been advantages we've had for decades. As for what the strategy is, I agree with the sense of panic.

But I also think that this is a government that is now becoming more political than policy-oriented than what they're trying to get is a win, any win, before, as soon as possible and ideally before the budget. Okay. But any win is not necessarily a win. You know, like that's the same. Something that's not a loss. I did say this was about politics and not about policy. Okay, we're going to stop this conversation, this part of it anyway.

Bail reform is coming. Next week, will it be enough to satisfy critics right across the country? That's right. We're fixing ineffective policies from the past and building a stronger, safer future with tough new law. big new resources and practical solutions. We don't need Mr. Carney to simply repeat more liberal promises on reverse onus. We need to scrap liberal bail.

So what's been made of the changes the liberals are proposing? How do they match up with the many calls for reform? Let's bring everyone back, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. Althea, I'll start with you. We will see, obviously, the full piece of legislation next week. But these are some key measures the liberals put forward. how do they align with sort of what the complaints were and what the conservatives have been asking for?

It's interesting that Mr. Puelly have said that because he should have just accused them of plagiarism. Reverse onus is actually one of his own MPs' bills that is part of the concerted effort to put crime at the top of the public agenda. These are mostly promises that the liberals had made, that frankly they lifted from the conservatives because the conservatives were very good at convincing the country

a bit like on the carbon price that the major issue is a small number of exceptional cases where we have violent repeat offenders who have been let go on bail and have reoffended for a variety of reasons. I don't know that what will be tabled or what we expect to be tabled what Mr. Carney said today will really make a dent in the problem because a lot of it is actually resource driven. We don't have enough crowns. There's not enough room in jails. There's not enough information sharing across the country. A lot of the problems are the fact that you don't have a complete picture of the accused in front of you.

So you don't know that they have all these other charges in British Columbia, say, when you're hearing about them in Toronto. So there's a lot of things that the government could bring forward. There's a lot of they could talk about, and Mr. Carney did, to his credit, today when he talked about mental health and addiction services. The Justice Minister is meeting with his provincial counterparts. I'm told that there is not going to be federal dollars attached to that. But maybe there will be because when you think about it,

and I think it's worth saying that as in reminding people, we are incarcerating at the moment. About 80% of people who are in jail are either awaiting their trial or they are waiting for their bail hearing. And about half of people who have their case heard are actually found to not be guilty. So you can't put everybody in jail. First of all, we don't have the space for all of these people.

And we cannot make laws for the exceptions because so many people are actually innocent. Shantau. Okay, so I'm going to do the cynical thing here. If I were thinking that maybe I'm going to be in an election sooner rather than later and I were a minority government, I would be slowly but surely taking leaves out of the, conservative playbook so that they can't play with it.

And on substance, there are so many reasons why this announcement needs a sustained policy effort that I'm not sure that I'm going to see. And I have to conclude that it came up very early on a week where there were many other priorities as some kind of a life insurance in case of an election. Andrew? Yeah, I mean, this goes back to the last election campaign when both parties actually moved towards each other. They both dropped policies that they thought were losers for them politically.

So the conservatives dropped their opposition to subsidies to the media, and the liberals adopted basically conservative bail and sentencing policies. As Elthea mentioned, you know, in Ontario, something like 80% of the prison population are people who are on remand. They're awaiting trial for, they've not been convicted of anything that they've been accused of. That's higher than in the United States. It's three times as high as in the UK or France. So we've already done it for murders. We've done it for sexual offenders. Now I think we're going to do it for like car theft. Are we going to get to 90 percent? Are we going to get to 90 percent? At what point do you say, what's happened to the presumption

of innocence? I know it's great politics. But it certainly again shows If you thought Mark Carney was going to be the high-minded technocrat who would, you know, just do what was right for the country, I think he's showing a very, very long political streak. Last 20 seconds to you there, Althea. The government, I don't think this is coming last minute. Like, they have been consulting on this throughout the summer. I'm actually surprised that it took this long for the legislation to be tabled. But I agree that they are trying to squeeze the conservatives and basically be just as, tough, like take away another issue

that the conservatives have. And frankly, it's also kind of a reminder to a lot of the backbench in Mr. Qualiev's caucus that, like, maybe the leader that you have is not the leader that you want for a whole bunch of other reasons that I know we'll talk about in the next

block. We're going to take a short break here, but when we come back, we'll talk about Pure Puoliev accusing the RCMP of, quote, despicable leadership. That's next. If the RCMP had been doing its job and not covering up for him, then he would have been criminally charged. It was clear that there's no interference. I don't take any orders from any political individual. So what's to be made of Pierre Paulyev's comments against the RCMP? Let's bring everyone back, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea.

So on top of this, then, the Pierre Paulyev's office made a series of comments about this, and specifically also said that he wasn't talking about the current commissioner. He was talking about a previous commissioner given that this all happened some time ago. It's kind of a curious thing to be talking about, a curious way to target the national police force. I'm not sure I fully understand why he's going after sort of old news, Chantal. And it's the second time in two weeks that Pierre Poil of an aspiring prime minister is casting doubts as to how the rule of law is applied in this country. This was one, but the other was tweets about the sentences imposed on the people responsible for the Ottawa convoy, the trucker's occupation of downtown

Ottawa. And in both cases, it basically led to the conclusion that the leader of the official opposition doesn't believe that Canada's justice system is operating or that it's not under undue influence. That is a very dangerous slope. You only need to see what's happening south of the border to figure it out. And it's a slippery slope for Mr. Poitiev. And why do I say that? Not because of his leadership review, but because there are MPs in this caucus who are growing increasingly uncomfortable with those types of comments. Althea, what do you make of what he was trying to get at here. I don't know. And I have so many messages from conservatives asking me what I think he's trying to get. They don't understand it either, frankly. I think there's a few different scenarios that you can

see this through. I will say that it is, you know, rather shocking for a party leader that was so tired of the Trump comparisons to basically be borrowing his language, suggesting that his political opponent should have been put in jail, that the cops are not doing their job because of political reasons, and to add to Chantas' list from earlier in the week, he was also attacking DEI policies. Either he is very worried about the leadership review and is looking to mobilize support, which I find really hard to believe, or he's trying to flush out his critics, which could very well be the case, because Chantyat is right. There are a number of caucus members, and I feel like the list is growing, who are wondering what is going on. Because these clips, there will be an election,

and they're going to be used by the liberals. There is no doubt about it. So I think you could see it that way, or maybe he's just trying to frankly test them to see whether or not they are going to try to mount an opposition against him. And some have talked about it, but I have not thought it was going to happen,

but with more and more behavior like this, I don't know, maybe the weeks ahead will be, far more interesting than we thought. Or he just believes this. Or these are things that he thinks and beliefs. I mean, that's the other possibility, right? Like, less strategic, but that could be in the world. You're right, but the risk that he's taking is not that there will be a caucus revolt.

It's that some of us caucus members will cross the floor and find that they have more conservative. Or they could sit on their own, like Chuck Strall and company against Stockwell Day. That is how Stockwell Day went down because he made comments about judges. That's right. That's right. Andrew. I want to be careful. There is a legitimate question about whether crimes were committed in the S&C-Lavent affair. It was certainly contrary to all the conventions of the separation of powers. It was certainly found to be in contraption of the ethics code. There's also historically been some reason to doubt just how entirely independent the RCMP has been of political power.

and there were questions raised about how well was the, how able was the RCMP to actually pursue this investigation when they couldn't get cabinet conferences, couldn't get people to talk to them, et cetera. All of that is a long way from the leader of the opposition definitively stating the prime minister is guilty of crimes, the RCNP is covering up for them, they're despicable, et cetera, et cetera. So there's a real question of judgment here,

quite apart from the legitimate issues that underlie it. And it is, once again, he seems to be additioning for the role of the opposition leader rather than for the prime minister. So it's not to say that there aren't some questions that can be legitimately asked, but if you're going to make those kinds of statements, you better have the evidence to back it up. That is at issue for this week. What do you think about how the provinces are fighting over Canada's tariff response? And what do you think about the liberals' proposals for bail reform? Is that enough to combat crime in this country? Let us know.

You can send us an email at ask at cbcbc.ca. catch me on Rosemary Barton Live, Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We, of course, will be back here next week. Thank you for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.com slash podcasts.