At Issue - Does Carney’s China reset trip come with risks?

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney goes to China to try and reset the relationship. Quebec Premier François Legault resigns after plummeting polls and mounting pressure. Plus, how concerned should Canada be about Trump’s Greenland ambitions? Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always overdelivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairro.ca.

This is a CBC podcast. I'm Rosemary Barton. At issue is back, the first for 2026, Thursday, January 15th. Mine is the first visit of a Canadian Prime Minister to China in every decade. I believe the progress that we have made in the partnership. This week, we're asking what challenges does this new relationship with China mean for Canada? Plus, Francois Lago resigns as Premier of Quebec. So what's to be made of the partnership, renewed partnership between Canada and China?

What does it mean for Canada's relationship with the U.S.? I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down. We brought the gang back together again for the first time in 2026. Chantale LeBair, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj. Nice to see all of you again. My, how things have changed since we last got together. Andrew, I'm going to start with you on this one. What do you make of the way the Prime Minister is positioning Canada in relation to China?

it seems like we have been down this road before, where we try to reset the relationship and then something happens and it kind of falls apart. But what is your view? Yeah, I don't think we should be looking to, quote, unquote, reset the relationship as if we could go back to a time before the two Michaels. You know, we've hopefully learned from that experience. We've learned that we're not going to have and shouldn't try to have the kind of robust,

ever-deepening relationship, whatever the phrase we used to use with China. At one point, remember 10 years ago, people were talking about a free trade arrangement. That's not going to happen. We've learned that China is not that kind of partner. They're not going to become more liberal. There's a reason why relations went into the deep freeze. What's changed is America. What's changed is not the threat posed by China, but the threat posed by America.

And what makes the argument for a modest reopening, a very cautious reopening with all kinds of guardrails, is we need to diversify. We cannot be so dependent on the United States. So the case for making that modest reopening is to lessen our dependence in the United States without becoming overly dependent on China. So we've got to be, I think, very measured in how we approach us. We do not want to get ourselves in a situation where China can use that trade exposure as a weapon against us as it has in the past. We've got to be prepared, in other words, to walk away from whatever access we get if things turns our again. If, for example, China starts, you know, wants as an invasion of Taiwan or things short of that, we've got to be prepared to say, we're out of here.

Chantelle, you went in there? Yeah. The big difference between, you know, trying to go back to the previous era and today is that whatever steps we take towards China, and I agree with everything Andrew said, I was never one who bought the rationale under Jean-Fries with all those team Canada visits that the more we engage with China economically, the more democratic it will become. And I'm glad no one is serving that up anymore because we've been there and we know that that's not true. But the big difference is whatever baby steps we take stand to bring some retaliation from the country that used to be our main ally, the United States. And that makes everything even more complicated. Forget that public opinion in this country is a lot more

skeptical towards China, as it should be, than it used to be, that the Canadian delegation is saying, we are walking in this with our eyes wide open. But it's not the eyes wide open thing I mostly worry about. It's the behind your back United States reaction to it in this current environment, but I don't think we have a choice but to explore options. Yeah, I mean, that's the delicate balance here, Elthia, the Prime Minister has to walk. He has to try and find new trading relationships because of the United States, but he doesn't want to anger them further or create on another problem with the president. I think Goldie Heider from the Business Council of Canada called it a do-no-harm suggesting

that actually what Canada's number one focus should be is on Kuzma, keeping Kuzma, renegotiating Kizma basically as is as much as possible. And I think that that is probably why you actually haven't seen the movement that perhaps some expected to be announced during this visit. We're told that negotiations are still happening and I don't know what will be announced tomorrow, for example, but from the MOUs that you've seen so far, it's pretty tepid, I would say the relationships are thawing is probably the word I would use. Like they're taking stuff that were put on the back burner and turned off, basically, during the Trudeau era, an era where the Chinese actually had great hopes that big things could be accomplished because they love Pierre Elliott Trudeau and they thought that Justin Trudeau nicknamed Little Potato would bring them great things.

And the thing with being in power is that stuff happens that you don't expect. Nobody expected the two Michaels to be kidnapped. Nobody expected this whole thing on election interference to emerge, that people would be talking about foreign interference at Tim Hortons. And what struck me in the visit so far is that there's no discussion from Canadian leadership on values, the stuff that Andrew just talked about. My impression is this is business first in the hopes that Canadian workers will benefit, of course. But the focus is on the business relationship. And what is striking is the stuff that has been shelved, even though they say, you know, this is complimentary to the 2017 MOU that Justin Trudeau signed.

Actually, it's really not. The stuff that Trudeau signed was all about values and shared priorities on those soft things, like climate change. Now you have Canadian officials actually saying, yes, we will reopen the oil sands to Chinese development if they want to come in. You know, this is very, it's a very, very different government and very different priorities. Yeah, and a very different prime minister who, I will say in the interview I did with him before Christmas, Andrew, did talk about the guardrails that have to be in place with China, so you don't allow them access to, you know, artificial intelligence development

or data clouds. So, I mean, he has some awareness of how far this relationship can go. That's right. We've, you know, we've got to consider trade and national security together. and where they conflict, national security has to come first. What's complicates it even further, as I say, because the situation with the United States has become so dire, is that diversifying our trade is not just a trade matter, it's a national security matter vis-a-vis the United States. Right.

And this is why I'm not, I don't agree that Kuzma should be our first priority. We have no guarantee that Trump even wants one, first of all. Secondly, we can make all kinds of concessions to get it, and we've no assurance that he'll live up to his side of the bargain. Thirdly, even if he lives up to his side of the bargain and we get a Kuzma, what does it get used for in the future if we resume the kind of dependent relationship in the United States that we had in the past? With a normal U.S. administration, I wouldn't have a problem with 75% of our trade being with the Americans.

But with this administration and with the signal that it sends as to what has changed, what is broken in America, then I think our safety, whether we're talking about China or the United States, our safety lies in diversification. Our safety lies in not being overly dependent on either of them. Last minute to you, Chantel. I totally agree. Kuzma, you've got a precedent that's going around saying he couldn't care less about Kuzma. And to make it an obsession and a goal is probably a strategic error. The other thing about China that has changed is, climate is no longer a soft issue. China is the leading power on climate. And if we have an interest in climate, then we have some interest in getting along with China that goes beyond trade.

Quick, to be clear, there's nothing on climate in this agreement. You don't need it to have it. You need to have. No, no, I understand what you're saying. It is not where this government wants to take the conversation, that's clear. And I also, I think I agree with Andrew, but I don't think it's clear what this government is doing. It feels like it's walking on ex-shells with the U.S. administration, unwilling to chart a clear path away from it, because it doesn't want to antagonize the unpredictable neighbor that we have behind us. And that, I think, is basically the cloud over the China visit as well. Okay, we're going to leave this part here. Thank you all. Good to have you all back talking about things. When we come back, we'll take a look at the big domestic story of the wheat,

the resignation of Quebec, Premier Francois Legault. So what does the resignation mean for Quebec and for Canada? Could the CAQ see a rebound under a new leader? We've seen that story before. That's next. I can guarantee you that every single day I got up in the morning saying to myself, I want to do what is best for the people of Quebec. I didn't always succeed, but I can guarantee. I guarantee you that I tried. Here to break down Francois Legault's resignation, what it means for Quebec's provincial politics, what it could mean for the rest of the country.

Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. We will not surprisingly start with Chantal here. This was, I was surprised. You probably weren't Chantel, but tell us what this changes, because it does change things, potentially very dramatically in Quebec. It reshuffles the cards.

Basically, you were a kind of Justin Trudeau, scenario, I.E., there was no way that most voters wanted to consider a vote for the CAQ and for Francois de Gaugot again. The numbers, let me give you a sample from the latest poll that came out on Monday, 89% of Quebecers were looking at other options, and 11% were left voting for the CAQ. And obviously, Francois de Gaou was a big part of that, fatigue, on popularity. for months, he's been the least popular premier in the country. A new leader plus a new liberal leader, because that also happened over the Christmas break. Pablo Rheideghis quit and liberals are again looking for a leader.

Basically, it means the cards are being reshuffled. It's too early to tell how. But I will just note that, no, there's not a Mark Carney, a Quebec, Mark Carney, that anybody so far has found in the wings. But there is one thing to say about the PQ that makes it a bit like the Pierre Paulyev Conservative Party, and that is the most unpopular signature policy on offer in the next election, is the promise of another referendum on sovereignty, with two-thirds of Quebecers saying we're not buying that.

So a change at the head of the governing party, a new liberal leader could that spoil the... the party of the Pats Quebecois and allow it to lose on its promise. I can't tell that. But for sure, the odds that the election will be more hard fought than it would have been otherwise have increased tremendously this week. And the reason I think it's relevant for the rest of us, obviously, other than we just care about these things that are interested,

is because of that last part, Andrew, there, that a referendum is not something that Quebecers necessarily want, but it is something that Patekebecois has promised. So, you know, figuring out how that might change things in terms of an issue set, I think, is important for the rest of us. Sean tells it it reshuffles the deck. I think it throws the deck up in the air. You've got now, in an election year,

both the incumbent party and one of the traditional parties of government electing a leader at the same time. you've got five parties in Quebec now with at least 10% of the vote in the polls. So the splits are just impossible to foretell. You have this wildcard not just of the promise of a referendum, but you also have the wild card of Donald Trump, which we've seen in the last months has upset everybody's apple card. And whether people would be willing to go near a referendum in particular

when this kind of existential challenges facing the country is also an imponderable. I think not, but we'll have to see. But right now the PQ is the party to beat. But the other problem the CQ is facing is this is no ordinary leader they've just lost. This is their founding leader. This is the embodiment of the party for many years. So losing him is not necessarily like losing Justin Trudeau for the Liberal Party, which has this, you know, 150-year brand behind.

behind it that Mark Carney could step into. This is a very different situation for whoever tries to assume that mantle of CAQ. Yeah, there's a real question about whether the party can exist without Francoe dey le go. I think that's fair. Althea, give me your thoughts. I mean, it could go the way of Brian Mulroney or it could go the way of Mark Carney, right? Like, nobody knows. What's most exciting is that, I mean, everybody mentioned it, you have two political parties who get to hit the reset button and get to be defined. by whoever they select as a leader. And I actually think for the CAC, that's a great opportunity

because it gets to, you know, hit the reset button for voters, like, what is the party now? What are our priorities now? It can wipe the slate clean from previous issues that plague the government. And it offers, for the rest of us in this country, two federalist options. So that's like a good thing for Canada, I would say. Post Saint-Pierm Plymande, the PQ leader, also in the last two months, has put his foot in his mouth.

Some of you may recall how he was very critical calling basically Quebec art groups traitors for congratulating Mark Miller, the new heritage minister on his post. And some people, even who are friendly to the nationalist cause, were kind of questioning his behavior if he had the leadership chops required to be the Premier of Quebec. And so I do think, you know, the headline is like this is the worst week for him. Because, again, I forget who mentioned it was like Pierre Poliév. He has been the last two years leading in public opinion polls. And it is true. 65% of Quebecers do not want a referendum and would not support a referendum. And so now you have to, maybe you don't like the Liberal Party and you think it's too Anglo and it's too West Island, Montreal.

while there's the potential of having a new leader that can give you an alternative option and kind of like Quebecers get to vote for the Black Quebecois, even if they're not sovereign to us. There's like a none of the above option that has emerged that wasn't necessarily there before. Last thoughts to you, Chantal. Everything that's been happening with the Trump administration

since the year began is kind of playing against the Patskevico and the sense that just it's anecdotal, but the anguished. level, and I'm sure that's true outside Quebec, too. But we're back to the anxiety level of last January, which was a time when the Trump thing was the big thing. Well, we are back at that.

And to the point of, would the Trump issue be a factor, I totally believe that there stays at this level. People all week did not talk to me about Francois Lugo. They talked to me about Greenland. and Donald Trump, I'm not talking people like us. And that does tell you something about where people's minds are and they are not on a referendum at this point. And that's a very good throw because we're going to talk about that in our bonus round

on YouTube and the podcast. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll discuss Donald Trump's Greenland threats, what they could meet for Canada and NATO. If we don't go in, Russia's going to go in and China's going to go in. and there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it, but we can do everything about it. So what do the threats mean?

What should we be thinking about them? Let's bring everyone back. Chantelle, Andrew, and Althea. Chantal mentioned that there's lots of people talking about them. Lots of people I know, too, are just asking questions and I think legitimately concerned, too, about what that is signaling and how we should take it. Althea, why don't we start with you on this one?

How challenging is this moment for Canada, given some of the things the president has been saying? Very. And I think clearly to discuss our first block, the fact that they're not really sure and they don't want to antagonize the Americans explain while we seem to be sitting on the sideline of this Denmark, German, French, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish boat trip over to Greenland. I would say what really concerns me about this is that it's not clear to me what the off-ramp is for Donald Trump to stop talking. about this. The other thing that's really concerning is now that he's lumped in as a Greenland is required for the Golden Dome. Well, if that's one of the reasons why he wants to go to Greenland,

that is also one of the reasons he could easily use for saying he needs to acquire Canada. I mean, we are a much more difficult problem than Greenland. But I don't know how you walk that back and what that means for us will be very difficult if the government doesn't decide which lane it wants to be in and it has not made that clear yet. Andrew, what do you think we should be, what do you think the government should be doing here in this moment because it is, we are kind of literally stuck in the middle. Well, and potentially very close to a massive international crisis. If anybody who thinks, oh, this is just Trump blowing steam and nobody takes it seriously,

the Danes take it pretty seriously. The European countries that are sending troops to Greenland are taking it pretty seriously. The U.S. senators who are desperately trying to pass legislation to prohibit it are taking it pretty seriously. It is a massive undertaking. It's insanity, of course, but if Trump were insane enough to try, it has the potential to blow up in his face like nothing on Earth. At a minimum, it would destroy NATO. And when I say destroy NATO, that would mean a massive European nation.

retaliation, whether in the form of economic measures, in the form of expelling U.S. military bases, you know, the idea that this would just be some passing contrataun that we would all forget about is not going to be the case. At worst, it could be a shooting war. And these are the kinds of situations that force countries to take sides. And we would be in an extremely exposed situation where every principle would suggest that we should be lining up with the Europeans on this, but it would require some pretty brazen defiance of the United States. So we are potentially very close to a very decisive moment for the history of the country. So to be fair, the prime minister did state that the future of Greenlanders and for Denmark

to decide. That being said, we do not have a choice but to take this seriously because if we ever were in the same kind of trouble, and that's totally possible. if you look at, I agree with Andrew's term insanity of this, we would want our allies to speak up and not look the other way. And if we would want them to do that, we cannot just sit on the sidelines and say it's all going to be okay. But the irony of all this is, well, two things. Massive disapproval in the U.S., at least so far, from public opinion, there is, there is, there is, There's no, let's do this movement in the U.S. Just compounds disapproval of Donald Trump.

But the other thing is the U.S. has a deal with Greenland. It has a military base there. It has the potential to put more soldiers, more boots on the ground, totally legally in Greenland. So you kind of wonder where that obsession will lead, but I do agree that the consequences could be serious and that we need to be engaged on this because it could be us.

Okay, on that rather a bleak note, we'll end it there. Thank you all for being here. That is at issue for this week. Are you concerned about Trump's Greenland threats? Are you worried about what it could all mean for this country? Send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. Remember, you can always catch me on Rosemary Barton Live. That's Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern.

We will be back in your feeds. Next week, happy 2026 to all of you. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.