At Issue - How is Mark Carney balancing energy ambitions and climate concerns?

Episode Date: May 15, 2026

The Liberals announce their plans to double Canada’s electricity grid by 2050 and build on changes to project approvals with progress on pipeline and an industrial price on carbon - but is the caucus behind him? Plus, the UCP government says it will appeal a court decision to quash a separatist petition. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Let's see if Toronto advisors know their life insurance providers. Hey there, who offers term plus life insurance a flexible solution with really low premiums? Oh, uh, Beneva. Correct. Who makes it easier to protect your clients with high approval rates and several built-in benefits? Veniva. You got it. Who offers whole life insurance with a whole lot of cash value? Beneva. Am I on TV?

No, not today. Looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. You're stronger with the right partner, Beneva. This is a CBC podcast. Hello there. I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, May 14th. Canada will double its electricity generation over the course of the next two decades. To create the conditions to build the clean grid of the future, we need a carbon pricing market that actually works.

We will also advance potential pipeline to transport at least one million barrels of low emission Alberta oil a day to new markets. This week, we're asking, how is Mark Carney balancing his energy ambitions with his commitments to climate protections? And what are the political fallouts of those choices? So how might these measures enhance the Prime Minister's energy ambitions? How do they fit with last week's changes to project approvals? How do they fit with the overall agenda on climate change and fighting climate change?

I'm Rosemary Barton. Here to break it all down. Chantal A bear, Andrew Coyne, Altheiraj. There's a lot to talk about. So I will not talk much and get your perspectives on all of this. What did you make of how this piece today, Chantal, fits into what you understand to be the government's climate goals and energy development goals? Do tell. Thank you.

I understand that fighting climate change is not necessarily the government's priority. And I'm not even sure that they're trying to find a way to balance fighting climate change. change, at least in the near future, with economic growth. And I think what we saw on Friday, relaxed rules for project approval, what we saw today, relaxed rules on clean electricity regulations, and what we will see tomorrow, it all fits in that picture. And what does that picture say? I don't think it's just pipeline driven, although there is a lot of focus on pipelines.

I think it's mostly economic growth falling back on what Canada's strengths used to be and still are and natural resources. But as for the advancing the climate agenda, seriously, this is a methodical dismantling of the climate, but not just the climate, the environmental protection framework. And we'll talk more about what the political fallout of that might be. But, Andrew, your perspective on how you make sense of what the Carney government's putting in the window here? I wouldn't put in quite a stark terms as Chantel, but I certainly, you know, there's certainly been a shift. I think there's still a balance to be struck, but they're changing the balance. Sure. And you could argue in their defense that we're in a very different world than we were in five or ten years ago.

And governing is always triage. You're always dealing with multiple crises at the same time. and you have to decide which is the most, you know, the most absolutely urgent priority at this particular moment. You could make an argument that in the face of our security needs, in the face of our economic needs, particularly given the attack basically we're under from the President of the United States, that economic resilience and economic interconnectedness is also important

is very much the priority at this point, certainly of this government. I think there's some political reasons which we can get into later as well for this, but there's no doubt that at the end of this, we will not be hitting our 2030 targets. We're hardly alone in that. Much of the democratic world is not going to hit its 2030 targets. That doesn't make it any better for us, but it doesn't mean that we're a loner on this either.

Though the Prime Minister does say net zero is still in the window, but you're quite right that he doesn't say the targets for 2030 quite the same way they were before Althea. I think he even told us today that he would update us, on the climate plans and the emission reduction targets in due course. It's no longer a question of 2030 or 2035. I think we were having that discussion last fall. I think net zero by 2050 is actually in question.

And the reason I kind of laughed at the way you frame the question to Chautel is because it's really not actually clear what the government's vision and direction is. On the one hand, they have made some really ambitious announcement, the nature announcement. I think it was back in March, billions of dollars to protect Canada's land and oceans. There are good parts, ambitious parts of the clean electricity strategy that was announced today. But at the same time, you also have a lot of warning signs. And the government seems to be really perplexed when you criticize some of the things that they have put in their own bills. Like, I wonder even their discussion paper from last week if they're actually aware. of what it is that they're giving themselves the power to do.

If we just start with the Friday discussion paper from last week, I think you can view that in a way as addressing some of the criticisms on C5, the Building Canada Act, that gave Cabinet a lot of leeway to just, you know, take a project and to say that these laws don't apply to it. In a way, it's more honest because the government is saying, these are the things that we actually want to codify in the law. There will be predictability for, project builders. But they're also, like I wrote about this today, there's a measure in there that

basically says that cabinet gives itself the ability to override the jeopardy test, which is sorry to get into the weeds here, but if there is an endangered species and their habitat, their critical habitat is going to be affected to the point where they could go into extinction, you're not allowed to give a permit for that. And the cabinet, the government is now saying, we would like to be able to do that. And I've been told that this is about the southern resident killer whale population in the Salish Sea. And they seem completely outraged that we would even have put a picture of the whale on the news story. Like, do they not realize the impacts of some of the things that they're proposing? I don't know. I know, and we'll get into this, but caucus is not aware, generally speaking,

but I actually even wonder if some of the cabinet ministers are aware of the steps and the lengths to which some of the things that they're proposing are very unlike traditional liberal parties of the past, including Paul Martin and Jean-Genstein. Just to be clear, Steve McKinnon actually said that that was not true, that that was not what they are going to do when it comes to the same thing. Well, actually, what he told me is we had a discussion because I was like, what is it that you think is not true? and he says we're not going to consciously make a decision to kill the whales. Well, I didn't write that you were going to make a conscious decision to kill the whales. I said this measure that you're

giving yourself is intended because you're not going to get a permit otherwise because their habitat is affected. Okay, Andrew and then Chantal. In the government's defense, and maybe in better defense than Stephen McKinnon offered, they're also proposing to spend

$250 million on improving whale habitats, on traffic control. They're going to quintuple the distance that ships have to stay away from the whales. So, you know, whether the net effect of this will be as catastrophic as being suggested, I'm not so clear. I think you can see a throughline in some of this government's approach where rather than the flat bands that we might have had in the past, they will have more sculpted regulations that more directly approach and deal with the specific problems that are being concerned about. But to Althea's point, Chantal, is it that the government,

is not maybe fully aware of the consequences of some of the things that they're putting forward, or is it, to Andrew's point, that they think that there's a window to do things that wasn't there previously? I think it's a mix of both, but I'm a real life. So let me go back to electricity for a second. If you're seriously going to talk about what the prime minister said today, then the litmus test should be the agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador and electricity. It's nice to have good news conferences, but if you can't even get two provinces whose interest is to do whatever they have to do, then I don't know what exactly we're talking about except allowing natural gas to provide more electricity, which goes against our climate

objectives. On the issue of Wales, the reaction is really interesting, because what it tells the government, if it didn't notice, you can have all these news conferences with ambitious targets, but once you put a phase, a whale, or whatever, on the issue, the dynamics shift dramatically. That's right. And at some point, that is going to happen, and they better be prepared for this. Because in the abstract, for instance, let's have a pipeline to the north of BC. Okay? in the real life, that gives a face to a battle that I suspect they will lose.

So I hope they know the difference between concept and when the rubber, the rubber hits the road. Yeah, quickly. They have two things going for them, I think, at least for the time being. One is they're the liberals. People are much less likely to think bad of them on this file than they would if the conservatives did the same measures. Secondly, the prime minister has a lot of personal trust.

with the public. That's a potentially degrading asset. These kinds of things can eat into that. But for now, I think a lot of Canadians will be inclined to say, well, if this is where he thinks we need to go, I'm okay with that. Last 30 seconds. Yeah, but it's not something you can do overnight. It goes over a year. And the history of this country over projects that go over years is no one has enough political capital if they're not prepared. Elthea, you get the last word, 30 seconds.

I think the question of trust is really the key question. And I think so much about politics these days is about trust. And I think some of the decisions the prime minister has made so far speak to that trust because people are surprised by what they thought he stood for and what he's putting in the window, whether that's floating the idea of privatizing ports and airports or, you know, potentially making it easier to affect the critical habitat of an endangered whale. that speaks to an image that people did not have about Mark Carney. And I think that that is the danger in the moves that he is making

because they're catching people by surprise. Okay, that sort of leads us to the next part of this conversation. So thank you for that. We'll leave it here when we come back. We'll look at how all of this might play out inside the Liberal Caucus and beyond. So the PM says it's a pragmatic approach to development. Is that pragmatism going to be appreciated inside his own caucus? That's next.

This is the approach of this government. is we are focused on investing to get results. We are focused on practical steps that are going to get results. It doesn't do us good to be talking past each other. What it does do us good is to come together, specific projects. You know, in the end, this is not, these aren't words on a page. So what are the political risks and fallout from some of these proposals and changes is, or will his caucus be united behind them?

Let's bring everyone back, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea? probably the answer is no. The caucus won't be united. But one of the things the prime minister says to explain some of this is that word he uses pragmatism, getting things done as opposed to putting forward goals that don't get achieved. And then, of course, the other context that he also talked about a bit today is Alberta separatism. So, Andrew, I'll get you to weigh on on first, on whether this is potentially super difficult for him to manage inside his own caucus and then beyond. I wouldn't say super difficult.

There will definitely be complaints. We're hearing complaints, mostly off the record from liberal MPs already. But there's a reason why they're 15 points ahead of the Conservatives, why they're in government, and the reason is Mark Carney. And they are not going to be overly exercised, at least in public, about trying to call trouble for that. Now, he has a very narrow majority, but not as narrow as some people are letting on. He can still lose three seats and still have a majority, because right now they're at 174, 169.

And even if you did fall into minority, it's not the end of the world. So I don't think the capacity to make trouble is as great as is being made out, but we shall see. I think there's, as you suggest, there are also a regional dimension to this, which is I think all these different announcements all fit together with the MOU announcement. And I think it's to stamp, certainly on Albertan's minds, that this is a government that's very different from the previous government, that when they say they want to build a pipeline, they mean it. It's not just for show.

He has the advantage that there will be a gap in time between any Alberta referendum and any Quebec referendum. And if there would be time for the liberals to pivot back towards the greener side of the spectrum before then, and they're not above that degree of flexibility. Chantelle, you want it in there. I watched an editorial cartoon in Laplace this week, which I talked was more dangerous to Mark Carney than just about anything. were saying, and it showed Stephen Gilboe, watching Mark Carney pull a paper bag off his head,

and there was Stephen Harper. And I think that does reflex on ease, and he is a prime minister who owes that majority to, in large part, but not exclusively to Quebec. I find it hard to believe that all those liberals who said they were willing to fight for their lives to put attacks on pollution are all suddenly comfortable and only one of them is uncomfortable enough to possibly leave caucus. But if that's the case, I guess that's very liberal of them. The elasticity is always amazing. You're talking about Stephen Gilbo, though, is the person who maybe will see part of this as a red line for sure.

At some point, that's probably going to happen. And I live in this writing. I'm not sure. that the liberals keep it. I'm not sure they lose it, but it's a toss-up. Okay, Althea, you, on that issue about caucus, within the context of Alberta separation and national unity. I think the bigger debate, honestly, within caucus at the moment, is on the climate stuff. And I think Andrew is right. I think there is a division. I would say it's really, not just to Quebec, but also a BC split. There are handfuls of MPs. I'm more than that, actually, who are quite concerned with the environment and nature and the direction that the prime minister is going in. I, too, I would be surprised if there's more than one potential resignation, but I know of people who are really questioning what they are doing in caucus and is this for them and can they support this and where's the government headed.

But there is a lot of, there are a lot of MPs who do believe that Mark Carney brought them back for. from the wilderness. I think that they think that they're there because of Mark Carney, but also because of Donald Trump. And many of them have in common ambition. Chantelle talked about elasticity. You know, even if they disagree, they would love to be around that big cabinet table. I think part of the problem, frankly, is that the government is not consulting. It's not really even using cabinet as a fulsome discussion chamber. And it's dumping things on MPs. Maybe it's because they're worried about leaks.

But like the discussion paper on Friday, they got a tech briefing on it early in the morning. So you imagine you're a West Coast MP and you're discovering that the government is saying that they're going to approve projects before assessments are done. In fact, there's not going to be impact assessments done. They're only going to be done by the energy regulator on pipelines. Oh, and in fact, we're going to start constructing before the assessments are done.

And you miss the email because you were sleeping. So I think that there is a way to probably bring more people on side. But so far they have chosen not to do that. That is two. Those are discussion papers, the one on Friday and the one today, whether they listen to what they get back. I don't know. Last word to you, Andrew.

There are right now 18 points ahead in Quebec. So they've got some room to play a little bit. they're at 35% in Alberta, which is historically high for liberals. And that's before they've cemented this MOU deal. There are winds blowing here that are great opportunities for the liberals if they're prepared to take the risks on it. And we'll see if it pays off. But if I were liberal, I'd be looking at a potential realignment of historic proportions here.

We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Alberta's separatism petition being struck down by the courts and how the Alberta government is planning to respond. That's next. Although our government does support Alberta remaining in Canada, we think that today's decision by the court will deny opportunity to well over 300,000 Albertans to have their petition verified by elections Alberta. We think that this decision is incorrect in law and anti-democratic, and we will be appealing

it. So what's been made of how the Alberta government is responding to the court decision? Does it change the possibility of a referendum? Let's bring everyone back. Chantel, Andrew Althea? Chantal, why don't you start us off here? You know, that was sort of the concern by many that this would somehow have the ability to violate

indigenous treaty rights. The court certainly agrees with that, but the Premier seems to want to forge ahead. What did you make of it? Well, if forging ahead means appealing court decision, we are a long way from asking a question on October 819. Anyone who's looked at how courts operate should not expect a decision from a higher court in Alberta on this or from the Supreme Court

because it may well land all the way up there. So here are the real options that the Premier has. Yes, appealing is one thing. And I think many provinces will be happy to, starting with this one, to see where the deal goes. But otherwise, she can say, well, I'm going to take on myself the initiative of asking Albertans if they want to secede, even if I lead a federalist government, and I will do the duty-to-consult thing. So I will be consulting and listening to objections from First Nations. Duty to consult is not a veto. It's taking the time to listen. But that would mean that she would

be asking Albertans a question at her own initiative that she never campaigned on. I mean, that seems like a pretty risky option. Andrew? And yet, that's what people are speculating about. I mean, she has bent over backward repeatedly to make life easy for the separatists. Separatists in her party, separatists in her caucus, and the separatist movement generally. So, you know, whether it was slashing the required number of signatures or reinstating the petition after it had been thrown out once by the courts, you know, she had an opportunity here to put the whole thing to bed.

She could have said, well, the courts have spoken, it's out of my hands. This is not something we're going to proceed with. Or she could take the petition that was signed by 400 plus thousand Albertans in favor of staying in Canada. If she were genuinely a federalist premier, she had all sorts of opportunities to get off the train that she's now on. And she seriously missed those opportunities. But does she not have, is there no, you know, like I think her point is that she wants citizens to have the ability to express themselves. Is there no value in her taking that position, Andrew? I'm not sure why if you're a federalist premier,

you're keen to the point of going out of your way to help it along that people should, quote, unquote, have their say on whether the country should be broken up. This isn't a question of should we raise or lower taxes. This is whether Canada should exist. And if you're going to claim you're a federalist, if you're going to claim you're a proud Canadian, then you don't go out of your way to enable people who want to break up the country. Althea.

I don't know what is going on. Daniel Smith's head. I think that we all have questions when we see the actions and the words that come out of her mouth. But I think what perhaps is even more dangerous is to have a referendum, to have all these people come out and express how they feel, and let's say it's tight. And then the government says, like, what happens to a petition that's not, that shouldn't have been there to begin with? Then everybody is upset. Then it creates. more animosity? What's the legal standing of that? I mean, I am not a lawyer, but it feels like a hornet's nest. And if the issue is really letting Albertans have their say, could you not punt

that date of the referendum down the line to say, and we will have a vote at some later point when we have had meaningful consultations so that we meet the threshold that the court has told us that we didn't meet? And when we don't have the president of the United States aiding in a separatist forces with disinformation campaigns and other forms of support? Last word too, Shantam. I think bottom line, it's easier to defend the process where a party actually gets elected on the platform that says if you vote for me, I have a referendum on secession and then see where the chips fall once that process is in place.

Then to have a federalist party say, well, maybe I want to entertain this idea, although I never campaigned on it and I have no mandate for it. Well, there's another idea. Call an election. Do it that way. Figure out what makes sense there. But that's just a crazy idea. That is that issue for this week. What do you think about the Alberta government's challenging of that court decision on the separatist petition? Do you support the PMs, what he calls, pragmatic approach to pipelines? We want to hear anything that you have to say about any of those things. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. Remember, you can catch me on Rosemary Barton live. That's Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be right back here in your feed next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.