At Issue - How Carney's navigating the Iran war response

Episode Date: March 6, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney rides the line between keeping Canada back from the Iran war and supporting the U.S. mission, but won't 'categorically' rule out involvement. Pierre Poilievre tours Europe. And, what's behind the Liberals' growing lead in polls? Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Building a better world starts with a better way to build. That's why ADCO is leading with modular building solutions, delivering with innovation, speed, precision, consistency, and a dedication to quality that stands the test of time. We're moving people forward and driving the growth of communities. If you're looking for an advantage and a way to build the Canada of tomorrow, today, think ATCO. This is a CBC podcast. I'm Rosemary Barton this week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, March 5th.

You've asked a fundamental hypothetical in a conflict that can spread very broadly. Today's events, recent events, point to that. So one can never categorically rule out participation. We will stand by our allies, but it makes sense. The government's all over the map here, and it's really confusing to figure out what exactly their position is. This week we're asking what's to be made of Canada's position on the war in Iran. Plus, Pierre Paulyev tours Europe and calls for deeper ties with trusted allies. So what's to be made of how Mark Carney is framing Canada's role in the Middle East?

How is he responding to the growing conflict? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down tonight. Chantali Bear, Andrew Coyne, El Thee Raj. Good to see everyone. So a bit of an evolving message, I think, is fair to say, from the government, that got us to where we are now. And obviously it's an evolving situation, so some of that I understand. But Chantal, give me your sense

of how you think the Prime Minister is communicating his foreign policy approach in this instance. Okay, if there was a week that wasn't great for communicating on the fly when you're on the road and then trying to get your messages lined up while you don't really know

what you're talking about, this was it. That being said, I didn't know that they gave prizes for being the first to react to something that Donald Trump does of the magnitude of what happened with Iran, but apparently someone thought so, because the messaging become cloudy because the prime minister seemed to be in a hurry to support whatever was happening without having been consulted, as he said, without any assurances that it. was in line with international law and without knowing what any of Canada's allies would have to say about this. And the rest has been trying to reframe it in a more proper context because over the time that it took from this early support of the U.S. initiative, it became increasingly clear that it wasn't clear what Donald Trump and the U.S. was had signed up for for how long and what. which makes me less severe about the we can't exclude that we would be participating because I believe that's in the larger context of a larger conflict that spreads to NATO

and then our obligations kick in. But the problem is if you're doing this on the fly, you're doing a news conference, then you don't for three days talk to anyone, then you reframe, then you suddenly say, I can't rule it out because it's becoming a bit of a mess. Maybe the next time it would be nice to take a breath to reflect before taking the first position. Yeah, I mean, the Prime Minister's Office certainly says those comments were in relation to NATO and the fact that Turkey had been, well, they had attempted to strike in Turkey. Andrew, I mean, I was probably being generous in saying the position had evolved.

It has evolved, but it's also got increasingly muddy. And I don't know whose fault that is, and I don't know how much damage that could do to the Prime Minister. It's been tied inside out two or three times, but the original problem was the initial statement, which they've been trying to row back ever since. Right. And I agree in Tyler with Chantal that why the haste is really interesting to know, before you're going to decide whether the end justifies the means, it's a good idea if you, first of all, know what the end is.

end is, what the purpose of the exercise is, that's far from clear. Whether that purpose actually conforms with the purpose you would like it to be about. So the statement was about, well, this is going to prevent Iraq, Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It's far from clear that, anyway, that Iran was ever near a bomb, and certainly that whether the United States had other ambitions besides that is also up in the air. But secondly, you would like to know whether the means you've chosen are likely to achieve that end, whatever it is, and that's far from clear. The planning of this thing is so non-existent. And thirdly, you'd like to know that even if it's going to achieve its end and it's going to use appropriate means to achieve those ends,

whether it's going to do so at acceptable cost, whether in human lives or economic disruption or the destabilizing the region. And none of this homework appears to have been done when that initial statement was rushed out. As I say, they've since been walking it back. There's been a lot of debating about was this, you know, consistent with or in violation of the principles laid out in the Davos speech? In a sense, it's a bit of both, because the speech was about both pragmatism and principle. But where it's really offline, it seems to me, what the spirit and intent of Davos was, if there was any message that speech, it was work together with your allies. Come up with a common front. Don't be trying to curry favor one at a time with the hegemon,

because you'll just get played off against each other. And what did Carney do in the initial statement? That was a rush to try to curry favor, and it was just catastrophically ill-designed. I think, Althea, Andrew lays out the complications of this. Like, the goals of this mission, this conflict, have changed for Donald Trump, you know, from what he said Saturday to what he's saying now.

So it's kind of hard to know how to respond, given it's not really understood what provoked this, what is causing this. what the end is. All the more reason to pause, to apply the principles that you say that you have, and to consult. And frankly, it doesn't seem like anything was done. I feel like Chantat was even a little bit generous. Like, the speech, she could have been more severe.

She did say that. I will be more severe. Okay. The Davos speech was about principled pragmatism. What we saw was pragmatism, perhaps, some can debate that, but definitely not an example of the principles that he outlined at Davos, of which respect for the UN Charter was. Then you compile that with the fact that Cabinet wasn't consulted on this. They seem to have realized that, hey, maybe some liberals who have a voice like Lloyd Axworthy and Bob. Bob Ray and others, Will Greaves, the Victoria MP, some of the caucus members might be

uncomfortable with the fact that we are not actually supporting something that respects international law. And then they, as Andrew talked about, they walked it back. But to me, it was worse than that. He said in that Mumbai chat with the journalist that actually he had had discussions with Donald Trump. So he painted a picture that he was aware this was going to happen. so that actually he was consulted.

And then the strikes happen, and then the Canadian government issues its statement. And then a few days later in Australia, the prime minister tells us, well, this was entirely predictable. I knew this was going to happen, basically. Well, if that was the case, to all the Canadians who are living in the Gulf, why didn't the Canadian government in that initial statement say, get on a commercial flight and get out of Dubai and get out of Oman and come back home, right? Like there is, you can have it both ways.

And this is a speech that seems, sorry, a statement that seems to want to have it both ways. And the prime minister's statements after are making it worse because you're not sure what it is that he actually believes in. He says, I'm not an international law expert. Well, clearly you don't have any around you either because you should know better. I mean, it didn't, it didn't, it didn't, I don't think that he knew like the timing or anything. I think there have been conversations about Iran, but I don't get the impression that he knew. I wasn't consulted and then say I had discussions with Donald Trump. I get it.

I get it. Chantelle, then Andrew, then I got to go. So one, I believe that they would have handled it better if they'd been on the same time zone. Yes. As people that they should have talked to and the fact that they were on the road did not help. But that doesn't explain why you rush to judgment. There is no excuse for that. But second, I frankly, having traveled and you have to with the prime minister and his entourage,

he's not surrounded by fools. So usually on a trip like this, there will be people. I am Marcande Blanchard. I'm not looking at you, but with diplomatic experience, but will go and talk to journalists and try to contextualize what the boss has been saying. That doesn't seem to have been happening in any way. shape or form, if Brian Mulroney had run the free trade campaign in that way, he would have lost because that campaign was won by Matt Lortsey and Eric Bernie coming to the back

of the plane to explain things to journalists. And so at some point, I think this prime minister is going to have to think that he's not kind of ordering a board. He's talking to Canadian voters and he's not doing it properly. Last word to you, Andrew. This is not just about international law is it sometimes dismissed the niceties of international law. This is about logic and common sense. If you don't have a clear sense of why you're doing something, if there's no pressing need for it, if you don't have a plan, if you don't have a strategy, if you don't haven't worked out what you're going to do once the fighting is over, if you've got no idea what the consequences of what you're doing, then you shouldn't be doing it for a hundred other

reasons besides international law. What international law and domestic law has the function of doing, nevertheless, is forcing governments to lay out their plan, to lay out their Casas Bally, why they have to take this awful step of going to war, in public hearings or in private, it would become some combination of both, but making it clear to others besides just themselves and persuading others just besides themselves of the necessity and value of doing so. They couldn't do that in this case. I don't think they were inclined to pursue the proper procedures anyway, but one of the reasons why they wouldn't have is they had no clue what they were doing or why they were doing this.

Okay. When we return, we'll take a look at Pierre Paulyev's message to Europe on his overseas story. So what's been made of the opposition leaders calls for strengthened ties with European allies? That's next. We need to be stronger at home so that we can have unbreakable leverage abroad. And one of the ways you do that is by having more options and deepening old friendships. We need to double down and deepen our ties with our older and most trusted friends. instead of shrinking markets behind tariffs,

we should expand opportunities among friends. So we're here to break down the opposition leaders' calls for those deeper ties. Chantal, Andrew, and Elthia are all back. I should say that this is the first of some trips that Pierre Paulyev is going to do. He's also going to go to the U.S., I understand, and there would be other trips of this nature. Whatever the strategy here is, Elthia, do you think it's working? Look, I don't think it's doing him any harm.

He's supposed to go to New York City, as you mentioned, and his U.S. base trips. But it strikes me that some of the venues and some of the content of the speeches kind of makes him sound like he's like president of the debating club. And Mark Carney is the professor at the university. Like it feels like he's focusing on small potatoes. But some of the things that have happened over the past week, including giving an interview to our former colleague, Peter Mansbridge,

have proven to be quite revealing. You know, that interview in which he talked about how he doesn't want an election. He talked glowingly about, frankly, the prime minister. It is a completely different shift in tone, the strategy of talking into media that he has never spoken to before. Down, you know, the way his office even relates to journalists is so different. And you kind of wonder, well, A, is it going to last? Also, like, where was this kind of more constructive dialogue?

Like, I don't actually think the leader of the official opposition should be praising the prime minister. I think having a good opposition is a good thing for our democracy. But you also want a person who can recognize good things as well as criticize bad things. And I think that is where Pierre Puehliv is finding himself right now. And I think that is perhaps more significant than going to London or Berlin and talking about building an Anglo-Saxon alliance. It just showed to me, Andrew, like how difficult. I mean, he said it to Peter as well, how difficult a job it is to get into the conversation at a time like this. When the prime minister is doing things and all Pierre Puelev can do is talk about things and criticize things.

It's just, it's hard. Yes, being oppositions and leader is a very tough job at the best of times. It's even harder in the kind of maelstrom we're in right now. But that's obviously not the only problem he's facing. He's got problems of his own making that he's frankly in the past behaved like a bit of a weirdo. This is the normalization, the mainstreamization of Pierre Paulyeva, and it's good as far as it goes. He's looked a lot more like somebody people could actually feel they've met from time to time.

The Mansbridge interview, the speech that he gave in Toronto the other day, and on this foreign tour, it's notable on this foreign tour who he's meeting and who he's not meeting. He's meeting with center-right, responsible adults, not with, let's say, the AFD in Germany, as some of his MPs have done in the past. So all of that is to the good. He's not quite looking prime ministerial yet, but he's certainly looking more like a mainstream political leader. Chantal?

I can't hurt, right? Because at this point, he is dragging the party down. So the first audience for this, I believe, is his shadow cabinet and his caucus. To convince them that if they're going to be engaged in the current trade battle with the U.S., they can do so from the opposition benches, which wasn't obvious until two weeks ago and should have been obvious a year ago. As for the trip, I mean, you're not going to get a real bump in the polls from doing that, but you will probably take down some negatives.

You're going to look like you can go and have serious adult speeches in other countries. what you're proposing, I don't think it goes down well with a lot of voters, not conservatives, that you go to Germany and tell them, if I'm prime minister, I'm going to, you know, bulldoze my way to pipelines. Not a great selling point in some areas of the country. And the Anglo-Saxon alliance, well, let's be easy on this in Quebec because, yeah, really, how exciting. But still, it's an interesting. shift. And me, I think that the leader of the opposition should not be at the back end call of the prime minister, but in this situation, it stands to benefit more by saying I can do better than

this guy, rather than saying, I'll do everything that he doesn't do. Yeah. I mean, the other, go ahead, Althea, go ahead. I would say one of the things that I think is really useful about his message at the moment is the focus on Kizma and trade with the United States. And whereas we just talked about the Prime Minister's statement as a nod to Donald Trump, partly because he's afraid of what will happen with Kuzman is trying to curry favor, I believe, with the President of the United States. We have, in Pierre Pauly, have someone who's constantly putting that at the forefront. And a lot of people in the business community, especially in Ontario, where I am at the moment, want the government to be focused on Kuzma.

I feel like the government is not focused enough on that. And so I think, as we expect, it's going to be a rocky road ahead, having him. kind of carve out that space for himself is a really good thing. Although Dominic LeBlanc heading down to meet with Secretary Greer and those conversations are happening too. But like it feels like they've left sectoral tariffs off the table. They're not pursuing that strategy anymore. So you have, that's what I mean by that.

Okay. Okay. I got to leave it there. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the latest liberal lead in the polls and what's behind those numbers. So what's behind the lead? and can the party sustain these numbers?

Let's bring everyone back, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. I would note that on March 9th is the one-year anniversary of Mark Carney becoming a liberal leader. I can't believe it's been a year. This seems like a long honeymoon to me, Andrew, and I don't know where it's not going to stay this high, but it does make me wonder again, and I don't, it makes me wonder how liberals cannot want an election. You know, not to put that out there.

But listen, these are kind of crazy high numbers. I don't think it's honeymoon. I mean, he had the honeymoon initially, and then his support kind of faded for a while. So they've kind of come back now in the last couple months. I think obviously Donald Trump is helping a great deal in that regard. The hotter he makes things, the more nervous people become, the more, at least in the present circumstances,

they're looking to Mark Carney and the government of the day. I also think, though, that he's found a kind of a sweet spot ideologically that people are comfortable with. I think we all have stories about conservatives who will say, you know, I've voted a conservative all my life, but I could see myself voting for Mark Carney. That's a pretty powerful position to be in. What I think is really noteworthy

is what's happening in both Alberta and Quebec, where liberal support is growing and support for sovereignty of one kind of another is declining. Whatever your partisan stripe, that last part is good news. Chantal. Yeah.

And some of those provincial events are actually helping. into liberals federally. If you look at Quebec, the Black Quebecoa always does better when there's a federalist government in power in Quebec City and does it more poorly when there's a threat of a referendum. So provincial and we're headed into an election where the PQ is still leading, but losing its lead, is promising a referendum. So that kind of helps the liberals. No one wants to go through that. Federally, the really high numbers in Quebec

for the liberals. And then Alberta is an interesting case because, yes, Daniel Smith is trying to keep herself on top of her own party by catering to the notion of a referendum. But there are many members

or people, voters who vote conservative in Alberta who are thinking we're not into that. And that translates into more liberal support. Can they hold it. I think that we have seen, and I will tie it in part to the vote of confidence that the conservatives gave Pierre Puelev. Ever since then, every poll, there are eight polls in February that I've looked at. The margin in five of those is over 10 points in favor of the liberals.

So clearly, the conservatives were happy to keep Mr. Puelev, but maybe voters in general were hoping for another outcome. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't talk about one poll. It's because, as Althea says, it's an overwhelming trend for the liberals. As Chantal said, sorry, Althea. That's okay. I agree with what Chantel said. That's what the surveys show and say.

What to say? I don't know if it's going to last. It seems like it's lasting because, as Andrew said, there's Donald Trump that many Canadians view as an existential threat. And they believe that Mark Carney is the leader best place to address that threat. There is also deep malaise within the Canadian electorate over Pierre Puellev. I think also partly the NDP has not done itself any favors. I mean, polling at 5% is like green party territory. Like that these numbers are unbelievable for the party.

I was even speaking to somebody in the party today and they were like, you know, like. It's not unheard of. Like, Justin Trudeau in June of 2016 was polling, like, high in mid-60s. But the party as a whole was not exactly where we are now, where the Liberal Party is now. So it's very interesting, but politics changes on a dime. And I don't think that those will be the numbers in a year from now. For people that we're listening to this on the podcast, go back and you'll have to rewind on video so you can see the face Althea made

because that doesn't translate well to the podcast. It was one of shock. Okay, thanks everyone. That's at issue for this week. What do you think about how Canada is addressing the conflict in the Middle East? Let us know. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can always catch me on Rosemary Barton Live.

That's Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. we will be back here in your feeds next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.