At Issue - How will Carney flex his majority power

Episode Date: April 17, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney returns to the House of Commons with his newly-minted majority government. The Conservatives try to chart a new path forward with Pierre Poilievre as leader. And, could Canada really join the EU? Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Hey Canada. Did you know you can help shape the future of our historic sites? The National Trust for Canada is excited to announce the Next Great Save competition is back with support from ecclesiastical insurance. Historic sites across the country are competing for $65,000 in prizes to renew for the future. Sites like Aspire in Kingston, Ontario. Your vote decides the winner. Vote today at nextgreatsave.cave.ca. This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton.

This week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, April 16. We need to continue to work with all parliamentarians. We will do so, work with all premiers, which we will do so, work for all Canadians. We are in unprecedented territory. Never before has a prime minister fundamentally tried to change the nature of the government that he was elected on from the people through these kinds of background deals. This week, we're asking what will the liberal majority mean for parliament? Plus, how is Pierre Puehlia responding to the new dynamic? So what does a liberal majority mean for how Parliament operates?

What could the changes mean for Canadians? I'm Rosemary Barton. Here to break it all down tonight. Chantelle Iber is back. We're happy to see her. Andrew Coyne and Althea Raj, both here for a second time this week. Nice to see all of you. Chantel will start with you because we haven't heard from you in a couple weeks

and a few things have happened. What do you make of where we are with this majority? And the way the Prime Minister is presenting it as an opportunity to further collaborate with opposition parties? Well, on that last point, I guess we'll see as time goes by. It's the easiest thing in the world to say, and then the harder stick to implement. I do believe that the Prime Minister at this point has poll numbers

that make it difficult for the opposition parties to play obstruction games without giving him a rationale. for telling Canadians I need to go back to the polls and have a general election, which I don't think any opposition party wants. But I also happen to think that bottom line, the result, and the majority status is good news for the MDP, is good news for the Blockebecua, for the NDP because they get more certainty that they have at least two and a half years

to reorganize, short of some unforeseen event, because we would normally not now go back to the polls until 2029, and they need that time. And over that period, there is a chance that sentiment on the left on the progressive side will build against this government. In the case of the Black-Cabiquois, seriously, if Francois Blanchet has always wanted safe shelter

from what's coming in Quebec, the Quebec election next fall, and whatever may happen from then on. and he does get that as a result. And whatever leverage he's losing in the House of Commons, given the Quebec agenda, is a small loss. The Conservatives, well, that depends. Conservative Party versus Pia Pua Liev, not good news for Pia Pia Pueleev.

But I do think many conservatives are happy to feel that Pia Pia Pue Liev is qualified to be the leader of the official opposition and they don't need to worry about having a leader who may actually replace the liberals for a couple of years. And I want to get to sort of how question period played out on Wednesday, but that's for the next block. Here I want to really talk about the way things have looked since Monday, Andrew,

and some of those points that Chantal raised. Well, I'm amused to hear that we're into a new era of collaboration now that they've got a majority. This is a government and a prime minister with an autocratic streak a mile wide. You know, they brought in legislation, you know, Henry the Eighth Acts that allow ministers to rewrite legislation unilaterally. They brought in legislation that allowed the police to demand subscriber info from internet service providers without a warrant. Legislation that would deny asylum claimants, the right to an independent hearing. And that was with a minority.

So what would they do with the majority? Well, we don't have to really guess. we just have to look back the last two majority governments, the Harper majority and the Justin Trudeau majority, when committees were essentially complete rubber stamps of the government, when legislation omnibus bills hundreds of pages long, became quite routine, when they invoked closure literally every other bill.

So I don't think we're about to see enter an age of a newfound collaboration or democratic spirit. When you see the prime minister expressing disdain for the way in which the opposition members have been, behaving themselves in committee, that they haven't quite been behaving the way he would like them to, but contented now that he'll be able to make them behave in the way that he would like to. I don't see a lot of signs of a collaborative spirit there.

Well, I mean, okay, Althea, to that point, I mean, I viewed the prime minister's comments there as being, this is a serious time. I expect politicians to do serious work and not, you know, talk about silly things and become sort of clip farms for social media. maybe that is disdain. I don't know, as Andrew characterizes it,

but it also seemed to me perhaps something that Canadians might want to see. I'm not sure that we've really seen that, though, in this parliament. Certainly that dominated the previous parliament, like the last few months of Justin Trino's tenure, but I don't think that we've seen it that way. I think he's just trying to show

that he's kind of building a national unity government, and he's poaching from all size and trying to give a, a strengthened message of national unity. And it's not a necessarily bad thing, especially thinking that there's a possibility of a Quebec referendum on the horizon. There's definitely a possibility of an Alberta referendum.

I think it's interesting. I agree with everything my colleague said. I think that the omnibus bills, though, when the time allocation was already a feature of this current government, I think it puts more pressure on the government to deliver. You know, they could say with C-5, for example, that bill that allows them to bypass other laws

that they needed this because it was a moment of crisis. But now they're in charge. If they think that those bills are problems, then repeal the Assessment Act. Repeal the Tanker Ban. Basically, do what the Conservatives have been suggesting that you should do, if you genuinely think those are the problems. So I think it puts some pressure on the government.

For the NDP, yes, it's going to use some breathing space, but it also puts pressure on the new leader. Avi Lewis to look at the only opening on the horizon, Beaches is York in Toronto, Nate Erskine Smith's potential seat. He hasn't obviously resigned yet as the best ticket for him to get into the House of Commons because otherwise he could be sitting on the sidelines for three years. That is not a good thing for Avi Lewis. The block wasn't getting anywhere anyways with the minority because the Karni liberals

were playing with the Conservatives, so that doesn't change anything. I think where the real story will be interesting for us to watch is, happens on the Tory side. Three years is a really long time. Already there are rumblings of people trying to organize a letter that would lead to the process of having a caucus vote that would lead to the process of potentially removing Keropolev as leader. And we've seen over the course of, well, his speech today, over the course of interviews over the weekend, Karepolyev is telling his caucus he is no intention of leaving and he is going to fight. And then you have the MPs who are like, well, I'm probably not going to run again, and I won't have a committee

because the liberals will now be the majority on committees and they'll lose all these committee spots that I might as well just pad my pension and not cause any waves because I'm not sure that mounting a fight against Keropolev that you're not sure you're going to win is a great strategy. So there's a lot of stuff happening in the Tory caucus that will be worth watching in the months ahead. Okay. And what Chantal, though, should the liberals be wary of with this majority, not just, of course, losing it potentially because it's not a huge one, but what should they be conscious of as they're navigating this new majority? Well, I'm guessing the usual liberal sin, and it is a recurring liberal sin of arrogance.

We're in control, and we don't care what anybody says. I'm not convinced. I've seen the signs of it that the opposition parties claim, but I'm looking, for instance, at what Mark Carney does with the Senate. If he doesn't have to be terribly accountable in the House of Commons, is he going to try to make the Senate a liberal, officially liberal place so that he doesn't have to worry about the Senate? The answer to that is yes. And we don't know that.

But that is actually the next step to have full control of Parliament. And it may not be as wish, but it is in the culture of the Liberal Party to decide that not only is it a unity government, but the only way to be for unity is to be a liberal. And I'm not sure Mark Carney totally gets that culture or if he's contaminated by it, but it has been the history of the Liberal Party. If you like Canada, you are obviously supposed to be a liberal. I don't think that's very healthy, and that is a peril. 30 seconds to you, Andrew, then I got to go.

Joe Clark famously said when he had a minority government, he was going to govern as if he had a majority. I think Mark Carney would be well advised to govern as if he still had a minority. We are in perilous times, not only with Donald Trump threatening the country, but with the prospect of possibly not just one but two succession referendums. It has never been more important. We've got big huge decisions to make, big choices to make as a country. It's never been more important that there be genuine consensus seeking.

If we just do the usual thing where one party with 40 percent of the budget, vote from one part of the country mostly, rams things through, things with costs and benefits, but costs distributed regionally. I think we're heading for real trouble. He's got to continue to try to reach out and be a genuine consensus builder, that collaborative spirit that he claims he's going to be in favor of them. Okay, we got to leave it there. Thank you all for that. When we return, we'll take a look at how Pierre Paulyev has responded to the liberal majority. So what comes next? For Paulyev and the conservatives, we'll talk more about that. How is the leader, the official opposition, responding to the new reality.

That's next. Mr. Speaker, what we have over there is inflation of liberal arrogance. Here to break down how the conservatives have responded to the majority and the changes so far. Chantelle Iber, Ender Coin, and Althea Raj. We talked a little bit, Althea there,

about what could or could not happen to Pierre Puele of Insight Caucus, but I'm interested to know what you all thought about the way he responded in question period. First of all, it sounds like, From now on, he's only going to go to question period if the prime minister is there. So far, the prime minister's only been there once this week. And I also thought the attack on the prime minister's academics and knowledge of the economy was interesting, perhaps curious.

But tell me what you thought. I don't think anybody found it more amusing than Mark Carney himself, who seemed to relish this attack. And it kind of, you know, it resembled the U.S. Vice President, J.D. comments that the Pope should be careful about weighing in on theology. So I guess there's a few things that are interesting. First of all, there's this idea that the majority was won through dirty backroom deals. Certainly it was won through dirty backroom deals. I don't know if they were dirty. They were backroom deals. But you can't convince people to come to your side if they're happy. So really, it's a criticism of his own leadership. And he's a criticism of his own leadership.

and his own policy offering and his own style that he could not keep these people in the tent. It says some things about Mark Carney. I think it says more about Pierpoliath. Then there's the doubling down on the message. It kind of seemed like he was being egged on when he made those initial comments against Mark Carney being, you know, the one thing that's worse than being uneducated

is being badly educated. He made those comments in a podcast interview with the Taxpayers' Federation. and the person who was asking the questions was egging him on. But then he doubled down on it. And Andrew Shear, the conservative house leader, also double downed on it. So they are trying to carve out a space that is very populist, that is very anti-elite. But how big is that tent? And I think that message is really just a message for the base for his leadership challenge,

because the caucus is not on side with whom. that message is directed at. Well, and that's the part, I guess, Chantel, I don't understand. Like, what is the long game? If the long game is that you're going to be prime minister, I guess, obviously, you have to stay as leader to do that. But how is this convincing Canadians that you're able to do that?

I'm not sure. But with three years to go, because that is the new calendar, 36 months to go as leader of the official opposition, you no longer have as priority to convince Canadians. that you're the next prime minister. You have to survive to the election to convince them. So you're basically trying to convince your caucus and your party that you should stick around as leader. I noted this week that a number of prominent conservatives, Jason Kenney, James Moore, Lisa Raid, basically argued, let's keep this guy there.

And none of them went with the, because he's so much. much better than Mark Carney line. And with that basically tells you, let's keep him there to keep that chair warm. He is a good leader of the official opposition and time enough to decide otherwise, which kind of tells me that a lot of conservatives are as relieved about the notion of a majority liberal government

as many who are not conservatives in the sense that they don't need to worry about trying to make the case. that Pierre Poilev suddenly is trying to make, that he's better able at economics than someone who is a central banker in two G7 countries. I mean, I have heard, and I'm sure you all have as well, that there are conservatives who believe that getting rid of Pierre Poitv

could lead the Conservative Party to split, which to me is kind of staggering, but it is something that some people are talking about, Andrew, and I don't know if it would have that kind of consequence, but I imagine people are thinking about that too. Yeah, the Conservative Party is always a... somewhat rickety contraption. It's a coalition of all the outs. All the people who, for one reason or another, are excluded from the liberal coalition. So it's inherently unstable. It's unstable

because it doesn't win as many elections as the liberals do, so they're not as able to offer people the promise of power. I don't think we should necessarily say, though, that aprailouille de deluge, that if it's not Pierre-Poyeur, that nobody can possibly hold the party together. But at the same time, there's no obvious successor in the wings, not even close. There's nobody warming up in the bullpen. And there's no rush. You know, so for a lot of reasons, I think it's wise to just hold your horses and be a bit patient. First of all, the liberals have had a lovely time of it for the last year because of the reverberations from the election, because of the Trump threat, which was tailor-made for them, because not much else was going on. But things are

heating up. Things are going to get worse in the United States. We have a global economic recession, very likely building out of this disastrous Iran war. That will have reverberations. here as well. And we're facing possibly to secession reference. So things are going to get very difficult for the liberals in the future and position yourself that you've got alternative options to present, both in terms of personnel, give your front bench more to offer, and in terms of policy. But just sneering at Carney's credentials is, A, not likely to work. And B, it's the approach that got you where you are today. It's that sneering at experts, experts don't know anything, knowledge doesn't mean anything.

Facts don't mean anything. That's not a message that is resonating with Canadians at this point in our history. I have like 25 seconds for each of you. Chantelle and then Althea. I have very little to answer with Andrew just to explain, because it seems like a no-brainer if you're going to go after Mark Carney. Please do not go on this credentials versus yours. Althea.

I would add that I think there are people waiting in the wings, but they're playing a long game. They're unsure that the conservators would win the next election, and the Conservative Party now has a history of knifing the leaders that lose. So do they want to present themselves with the possibility of being the opposition leader for several years? Sure. So I think that's why we're not seeing people agitate. Yeah.

Okay. I mean, I'll leave it there. And we will take a short break. When we come back, we'll talk about the idea of Canada joining the EU. And if it's even possible. That's next. I think Canada, in terms of its whole composure, its value base, is so close to the European Union that the least we can do is to forge a really close strategic partnership.

I can envisage a much larger EU, whether Canada is a part of it or not, is up to Canada to decide. So is that even possible? Would it benefit Canadians in any way here to break it down? Chantal, Andrew and Elthea? So, yes, I am using my own interview to make you guys talk about this, but the President Stubb, you know, is sort of in favor of this, even though it's legally not possible.

And I don't know if it's something that should be talked about in a more serious way, Andrew, and what you make of the notion. Well, it's legally possible if the European Union members decide to make it possible. Sure. I mean, you'd have to creatively construct the clause in the Treaty of European Union that it's only for a European state. but if they all want to do that and it would have to be all of them, they can. I think that's highly unlikely.

I'm not at all sure of YAN, but anybody in this country should want that. Close strategic partnerships, fine. Free trade treaty, we have that with them already. So we've already got access to the European market. But membership in the European Union means you take a good section of your sovereignty and give it over to Brussels. Across a wide swath of jurisdictions, laws would be made by the European Parliament. They would be construed by the European courts.

it's an extraordinary sacrifice of independence. And if the rationale for it is supposed to be, we're trying to protect ourselves from losing our independence to the United States, it's a better trade, as well, if you have to have an imperial overload, I'd rather it was Europe than the States. But it's an unnecessary trade.

We can establish our independence from the United States without having to fall into the arms of Europe. Althea. I agree with Andrew. I would also flag that I think it would be nearly impossible to get the provinces to agree to do. do this. I will also flag that, you know, there was a debate on this at the NDP convention. Delegates vehemently voted against this. The conservative delegates have also weighed in on this. They don't

agree. I haven't seen any polling, but I don't know why the liberals would want to keep floating this idea, which they have. But I don't know that there is appetite to take on, you know, debt that belongs to others. Don't tell? Well, same here. I'm not convinced. And the fact that there is not at this point a serious person that is overtly promoting this and the government kind of tells you all you need to know. But Andrew's point is well taken, why would you trade less dependence on the U.S. to tie yourself to the EU's rules? It just sounds like a major waste of energy that does not necessarily make a beneficial arrangement with the EU and more partnerships with the EU any better. So I really don't see it. Yeah, I mean, I should say

that President Stub is probably the European leader who talks about it in the most positive terms. I'm not sure that anyone else is. And to your point, Andrew, the prime minister is trying to make that relationship stronger and find security alliances and things like that. Oh, yeah. We've got to be very creative in thinking of fresh, for example, about NATO. If NATO's not going to be the same organization it was, we can be looking at trade and defense types of partnerships that are unusual, but unusual does not mean, you know, delusional. The Eurovision song contest wouldn't be the defining factor. Okay. Thank you all. Nice to see you. Shantelle, glad you're back. That's at issue for this week. What do you think about the pause of the fuel excise tax?

Does it go far enough to help you with your cost of living? What do you make of how Pierre Paulyev is responding to this liberal majority? Let us know. 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 will be back here in your podcast feeds next week. Thanks so much for listening. It's.