At Issue - Is Carney pushing too hard to speed up project approvals?

Episode Date: September 25, 2026

The Liberals move to ram through accelerated major project approvals as unions push back over workers' rights. B.C.’s snap election call: prudent response to Trump's trade threats or opportunistic fear-mongering? And the possible strategy behind the PM's comments to the New York Times about a possible U.S. invasion. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

You know a great story when you feel it. Your heart pounds, your mouth waters. And you can't help but grin. Discover the stories you'll feel long after they're over. Watch on APTN or stream on APTN Plus. This is a CBC podcast. Martin this week on ad issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, September 24th.

It's making the federal government decisions much more efficient, a lead decider, a lead regulator, not multiple ones that decide after each other. We have big decisions to make as a promise. And British Columbians, you deserve a say in the direction that we choose. This election is your chance to have your voice heard on a very clear choice in front of us. All the paper and the process and the delays have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with feeding an insatiable bureaucracy. So this week we're asking what hurdles does the Liberals plan to speed up project approvals face? Plus, what's to be made of that BC election called two years ahead of schedule? So what's been made of the Liberals plan to speed up approvals?

What pushback could the legislation phase, either from labor groups or environmental advocates? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down tonight. Chantelle I'm Annette Baer, Andrew Coyne, and Althea Raj. Good to see everyone. Chantel, let's start with you this week. There's a lot crammed in here, and there has already been criticism from some activists and certainly from unions. What do you make of the government's approach? I'm not going to go to specific issues in the bill, although I don't think.

belief that bills that are almost 250 pages long are bills that get proper scrutiny because of the magnitude of those bills. But I am troubled by the notion that this bill basically enlarges what is called political discretion, i.e. the power of politicians in power to bypass their own laws on a variety of topics. And in the process. And I'll just use the labor issue as an example, but it's not the only example. We have had public service strikes over the years or strikes in ports, trains, etc.

We usually have dealt with them when they threaten the economy with bills back-to-work legislation that were debated and passed in Parliament. This bill basically says we don't need parliament for this stuff. As it says the same thing on a number of issues, if you believe in the fact that we are in the law framework, then a government making a law to exempt itself from a number of laws is kind of troubling. Yeah, and I didn't even mention indigenous rights and treaty rights, which is another issue that has been raised to.

I mean, the context or the cover, you can use whichever word you want, for the government is we need to be able to do these things in this moment. How do you think they're doing at explaining why these powers are needed? Well, I don't disagree with a lot of what Chantel said, but just to maybe put some points on the other side of the ledger. It's not as if anybody could say that this was not something the government has been telegraphing for some time to come, including during the election campaign. It was all about speed. It was all about getting things done, getting things built. There is a widespread agreement that the regulatory process has become far too convoluted, far too many layers, not necessarily well considered, well directed.

When they just came out earlier with the part where they would only exempt the major projects from that kind of excessive regulatory review, people like me said, well, why aren't you doing it more generally rather than having it? so I can't really complain if they're now doing it more generally. So I think that part of it in particular, I don't have a huge difficulty. Time will tell in terms of the details of particular regulations, whether they've gone too far or too fast, but the broad-out line of that I don't have a lot of problem with.

On the labor side of things, I take Chantel's point that previously things would be legislated back to work, but I do think this is better than the status quo before it, which was essentially the business. the minister could simply order them back, order them into arbitration. There wasn't a lot of publicity beforehand of what were the details of the negotiations, what was the minister dealing with, had there been attempts to mediate, etc. If they're simply ordering them back and imposing a settlement, that'd be one thing.

Putting them into binding arbitration, I think, is not necessarily unfair to either side. And we're not dealing here with just somebody shutting down a factory so that the, you know, the workers lose pay, the company loses market share, and it's basically contained to that workforce and that company. We're talking about things like ports where there's a huge impact on the whole economy. Right. And with proper safeguards, with proper requirement for reporting back, et cetera, it doesn't strike me as being absurd or excessive.

Chantelle, I know you went in there, but do you want in now, and then I'll go to Althea quickly, yeah. Yes, I do want them there. And I'm amazed at someone who believes that Parliament matters. would find that it's totally acceptable to use a bill that does things, and yes, we can agree on the labor side that you can debate it, but basically use a bill to give politicians in government more political discretion on a host of issues. Now, if you don't like a law, if you think a regulation is too cumbersome, amend it, have a discussion in Parliament.

This is not what that bill says. It basically says if we don't like this law for this, we can just decide to do it. And by the way, when this pattern started in C5 over major projects of national interest, there was a timeline. Basically, we're doing this because there is a crisis. That does not exist anymore in the Cuban bill. Should I respond or should I wait until Althea? Well, yeah, let's let Althea in because I know she has lots to say,

thank you, Andrew. That's generous of you. Well, yeah, and then I'll come back to you. Thank you. And I'm sorry. I apologize for my voice, I'd say. Okay, so let's just peel back a little bit. The framework that Chantat is talking about is kind of like lawless ministers and cabinet get to pick and choose the laws that they want, that framework is completely leaned into with this new piece of legislation. So C5 that was presented to us last summer as like a, this is, you know, crazy time as we need to pass legislation.

like this, the government is now saying, actually, this bill that we had suggested would be on the books just for five years, we're going to make that permanent. So that framework is permanent and they lean into it by deciding that they're going to create these zones where other projects that can go into that and be projects of national interest, but not really be projects of national interest, just be part of this economic zone. Where I agree with Andrew is that, you know, clear laws, I think, is better than laws that allow so much to do. discretion that they'll just make liberal lobbyists rich. So clearer laws are good. But this bill does do some things that I think we should talk about. It still vests a lot of discretionary power with cabinet and ministers. Cabinet gets to approve big projects before full reviews of the projects are completed. Construction can begin, partial construction can begin on projects before full assessments are done. It takes power away from the environment minister. Right now, the environment minister is the only person who can begin.

decide whether the bad environmental impacts the project might have are actually the public interest is higher than the bad impact. Sure, sure. Outweighs it, yeah. Outweighs, thank you very much for the word I'm missing. Now the Environment Minister won't be able to make that decision alone. You'll have to make it with Tim Hodgson or Dominic LeBlanc or it will go to cabinet. The minister also now has to consider a bit like the pesticide regulator,

economic factors when they decide whether or not to list the conditions around a species at risk. So, I mean, there's a variety of different things in this bill that I think a lot of people have problems with, also probably why it's put into an omnibus framework, which, again, I agree with Chantal, doesn't allow a lot of scrutiny. On the labor front, just quickly, one reason that a lot of labor groups have big problems with this is because they were in discussion with the liberals to get rid of Section 107, the section the Liberals have leaned in. to force them into binding arbitration. You'll probably remember that in the Harper era, they actually brought back legislation.

La Chantel was talking about to Parliament, and it was debated. And instead of repealing that bit, the liberals have decided, actually, this is very handy, we're going to create a framework around it. So to make it more permanent, even though there are court cases around it. And, you know, when there is the threat of a strike,

some strange reason employers seem to be more willing to offer more things. And we have seen that again, with Air Canada last summer. So that's one of the major reasons. And I don't know if we want to talk about the political aspects, but it is quite something to have, you know, like 100 liberal MPs

who used to tell us that their old assessments were better because they were going to prevent lawsuits and it was good to, you know, follow the science. And now they're watching the prime minister, their liberal leader gut everything that they've been spending a decade telling us. Times change, I guess. But it seeks to trust.

Like in the long run, will people trust the liberals because you don't know which way they're going to fly. Andrew's been very patient. Last word to you there, Andrew. I just think Chantel desires of me a foolish consistency. Not everything has to be passed through legislation. We always divide things between legislation and regulations that are authorized by legislation.

It's a judgment call in any given case what is the best process to follow. I think in the context of the sort of economic emergency that we're in as a country, economic and political emergency, where it's not just a matter of we'd like to get the economy growing a little bit faster. It's we've got to develop in a real hurry supply chains and export lines and different trade routes, et cetera. And in that context, this doesn't strike me as being excessively bending of previous norms. Okay.

Except if you get rid of the five-year deadline because a crisis doesn't last forever, it basically tells you we're giving ourselves not the, more political discretion forever, which another government will use. And one day the liberals in a convention and opposition will say, how terrible it is that the conservative government is doing this, and they'll forget that they diss up. Quick, quick last word there, Andrew. I have nothing to add.

That works for me. We'll leave it there. I'm sure we'll talk about it again. When we come back, we'll take a look at BC Premier David Eby's decision to call a snap election. Is an early election risky? and is E.B. trying to capitalize on an opposition in disarray? We have big decisions to make as a province. And British Columbians, you deserve a say in the direction that we choose.

This election is your chance to have your voice heard on a very clear choice in front of us. So what's been made of the snap election call? What risk is David E.B. taking, rushing to the polls. So far ahead of schedule. Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew Elthia. Andrew, I'm going to start with you, even though Althea's in Vancouver. I mean, you look at this and you look at what was the state of the conservatives as this call was made, and you start to put two and two together.

What do you make of what he's done here? It's unprecedented in Canadian history that I could find where a government in possession of a majority calls an election when there's no leader of the opposition, no permanent leader. In fact, it's very hard to find precedency in any parliamentary democracy. So it is, a polite term would be norm-busting. Another term would be dirty pool. And I think it would be and is being perceived by a lot of people that way.

The problem he's got is it's not just that he's running into that problem, but the line of distinction he's trying to draw is rapidly being erased. If Carrie Lynn Findlay was still the leader, then maybe you could pull off this, I'm running against Donald Trump and his minions. in BC. But I think he's miscalculated on that as well. It's not just saying I'm against Donald Trump is not working terribly well for the CAQ in Quebec. And it doesn't automatically give you a ticket back into office in any other province. And the other thing is it's been the very thing that he's trying to capitalize on this disarray on the right in to BC. I think

what's also been happening is the forces of normalness have been reasserting themselves within the BC Conservative Party. So this is to some extent, the decommissioning of Carolyn Finley was to some extent the caucus reasserting itself against the leader, but even more so, it was the old BC Liberals, BC United business wing of the party has been reasserting itself in the last few weeks and months. And bang, they've managed to pull it together just in time for the election. So he may have taken on more than he can handle. And pulled ahead in the polls, at least that's what the Angus Reid poll today shows already. So I don't know. Wealthea, like, it was definitely risky.

And he also seemed a little destabilized as though he's kind of surprised he's in the election campaign himself. So what do you think of it? Yeah, it does not have the hallmarks of a campaign that seems like it was planned for a while and organized. And I think the best sign of that, frankly, is that four cabinet ministers have announced that they are not going to be running again. You know, you ask people here, the conservatives actually, and let's say the center right, to Andrew's point, is basically like the choice is crystallized in front of them and they have gotten, they seem, their ducks in a row.

And, you know, even you Democrats will admit, you see that in the poll, but you hear it on the streets, that they don't understand why this election was called. Yes, Premier E.B. had, I guess we should be calling him, David E.B., had a very, very, very slight majority. But two years from an election, and, like, what is actually the ballot question?

because he wants to make it trump, but right now it feels like, you know, should you reward the NDP with another four years? And add to that, there's a lot of anger and confusion locally, too, because there are municipal elections happening at the same time. So you have, like, the mayors, people competing for the mayorship going on the radio and complaining about how this is confusion for voters. So there's a lot of backlash to this decision. Yeah, Chantal, what do you think of the decision? Well, Andrew is totally right. It must be the distance between Quebec and BC that the outgoing government of BC did not notice that it doesn't work well to campaign on the Trump thing. Why doesn't it work well to campaign on the Trump think at this juncture?

Possibly because Prime Minister currently enjoys such a high level of trust and he is the front light person that if you go in a provincial election and we see it here, people are saying, well, that's, you know, basically. basically an okay hands. That's not the issue. So you and then there's this notion. So the election was supposed to be called on Saturday. Then it wasn't until later in midweek in between the embattled conservative leader quit. Maybe that was a cue to not call an election. Yeah. That the other side would get its act together. What's the sentence? There's nothing that focuses the mind like hanging in the morning, which is basically what's been happening to conservative forces in BC. So me, I don't know, but from a distance, it looks both reckless and not well-to-taught-out. Well, and also risks turning people off politics altogether, right, and wanting to vote at all if they see opportunism. We're going to take a short break.

When we come back, we'll talk about Mark Carney's comments around Canada's plan for U.S. military action. That's next. It's normal. All, all militaries in the world spend time analyzing risk scenarios. So what's been made of these comments? Let's bring everyone back, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. I'll say that there was reporting in Andrew's paper in the Globe and Mail last January about the military preparing for something, anything.

Althea, do you think that these comments by the Prime Minister are interesting, unusual? What do you make of them? No, frankly, I think that it would have been irresponsible not to consider the scenario. I mean, you look at the threats that President Trump was bubbling against Greenland, of course. And the way the Prime Minister spoke about it was not like, you know, we were drafting's very specific plans. It was like we asked them to like conceptualize what that would mean. So I think it's entirely responsible.

I would say that actually the thing that probably annoyed most of my colleagues in the press in Ottawa is that he's been going again to a foreign outlet to talk, in part, deliver messages that probably he should be saying at home. You know, he's given sit-downs to Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times and then New York Times. And I think it's strategically smart when he's trying to talk to the White House, and global investors, and a lot of what he was trying to communicate, I think in the New York Times article, is directed at people in the United States,

basically telling them and people in the White House that whatever changes that Canada is contemplating are not going to be for the shirt torn. These are big decisions that we have to make. Do we trust you? Do we not trust you? Do we completely disaligned or do we not? And I think it's directed at trying to get the Americans back at the table on a different field than where we were at in August. But I do think that he probably should be speaking to Canadian media,

especially when he's talking about building Canada strong as also about building Canadian media strong and perhaps encouraging people to buy subscriptions to Canadian newspapers to be a good thing. So, yeah. Chantal. Well, you ask, is it unusual? I can't remember a time when a Canadian Prime Minister

would have gone to the U.S. to answer a question about preparing for the U.S. invading Canada. So, yes, it is totally unusual. I don't disagree that it is far for the course. I mean, doing those kinds of scenarios sounds like standard practice, frankly. Should he have said that? I assume that he may not have said the same thing in a Canadian interview. I don't know that, but I think it was kind of a

something you used to get attention and a choice was made on this. I know there are military people who believe he shouldn't have gone there, but it tells you something about the state of play between Canada and the U.S. that were actually having this conversation. Andrew? I may be wrong, but I'm not entirely sure that he intended this to be the story it was. It was an hour-long interview. He has a tendency, I think, betraying his lack of experience in politics to answer questions,

that are asked of them. To really answer them. Sometimes to answer questions that weren't even asked that way. I mean, the famous thing where he said, supposedly said, we are at war or trade war with the United States, was in response to a question where somebody said, are we at war?

I said, well, we were attacked. So I suspect there may have been something here where it's certainly the case that you want to plan for every eventuality. I wouldn't say that it's normal to be planning for a U.S. invasion, but it's not a normal president. So even though it is a quote-unquote,

extreme tail risk, as the prime minister said, yeah, you would be sketching out at least theoretical scenarios. Of course you would. Talking about it is a bit different matter, and he may regret that he strayed into that territory in that interview. Chantelle? But are we journalists that we are supposed to say that we wish the prime minister did not answer questions? No, no, no, no. I'd play it up the same way the New York Times did. Now, bottom line, I agree with Andrew State on this. But I do not want to discourage Mark Carney from doing that. No, keep talking. Keep talking, Prime Minister. We'll take it.

Thank you all very much. That's at issue for this week. What do you think about this legislation to speed up approvals? Do you have any concerns about the environment or labor, workers' rights to strike? Let us know. You can always send us an email. We are at Ask at cbc.c.c.a. You can always catch me on Rosemar Barton. Live. That show is on Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. Meanwhile, we're back here in your podcast feeds next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.