At Issue - Is Carney’s Europe pivot in Canada’s best interest?

Episode Date: September 18, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney moves to deepen ties with the European Union, but is it in Canada’s best interest? The Liberals try to lure foreign investment. And Stephen Harper stands behind the decision to walk away from U.S. trade talks. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

The nation is watching Alberta, and we know it. I'm Kathleen Petty, host of West of Center. Every week I speak with the people shaping Alberta politics from pipelines to separation to help you understand what's going on here and why it matters to the entire country. Pull up a chair and join me, West of Center. Find us and follow wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBCC.

podcast. I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, September 17th. An alliance for the future is a unique, positive approach that we will define together. Conservatives say no EU taxes, no EU laws, and no EU open border rules on immigration in Canada. This week, we're asking what's to be made of Canada forming closer ties with the European Union? Does the move threaten Canada's sovereignty? Plus, the PM positions Canada as a reliable training partner for international investors. So what's been made of Canada, trying to form closer ties with the EU, does the move threaten Canada's independence or trade with the U.S.?

I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down tonight? Chantelle Iber, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj. Althea, why don't we start with you this week? It became clearer after the Prime Minister's speech today what this is going to be about. He did put down some markers about what it would be like. What is your impression of the case that he's making for this in this moment? Well, I think I might quiver a little bit with you.

I'm not sure that we really know exactly what it's about, but I do think that there's a bit of putting the toothpaste back in the tube. I think there are good reasons, and the prime minister did a very good job of kind of linking our ties, Canada with the European Union and with European countries and the necessity to work more closely with like-minded nations. But in terms of what it actually is, I don't know. I mean, the government says basically stay tuned until October 30th at the summit in Montreal. We know that they want to work more closely on AI, on defense, in the Arctic. We know that the prime minister spoke that it's not going to deal with agricultural good, for example.

because, well, frankly, Europe doesn't want what we would like to send to them. But in terms of what it means, like the risks that were outlined by Pierre Puehlia in your clip there, we know that those are not things that the government is necessarily talking about. There may be some quivering on the immigration front in terms of, like, you know, whenever you say that you're going to have visa-free travel for students, for example, is there a cap to that number? If so, like, could you have a whole bunch of people moving here and then qualifying for some, subsidized tuition, what concerns with that raised? But we don't know enough. The government has not

been transparent. Frankly, it told us last week that the Wall Street Journal story was not true. So it's hard to have an opinion when the opinion is not quite informed. Sure, yeah. And it hasn't been, I mean, it hasn't been well handled, that's for sure, since that report out on Sunday in terms of what was real and what wasn't. But there is a little bit more meat on the bone because of the Prime Minister Chantal. So what do you make of what he's saying and what he's not saying to Althea's point? Well, what he's not saying is we are going to accept another layer of bureaucracy coming from Brussels and the European Union. So anyone who wants to take a shot at that is shooting at a target that doesn't even exist. It's called kicking open a door that's already open.

Closer ties, not a secret, lots of details to come, an interesting proposition that is, I think, welcomed by most Canadians until further notice. I think it's really too early for any party to say, I'm against this. Because, and I'm thinking of the conservatives here, this is the party that started what is called CETA, the European Trade Agreement between Canada. and the European Union. So if this is an extension of that, how can you be against that before you've even seen anything that relates to it? I don't know me, I tend to keep an open mind.

Come back to Canada, show me the details, we'll see, but nothing, there's no deal on the table, nothing has been negotiated or signed, but I do take it as a positive sign because if you're gonna die, diversify away from the U.S., then you should be looking at Europe. Sure. Among other places.

And the fact that the Prime Minister has said he'll put it in front of Parliament for a vote. I mean, I think that probably is helpful for the opposition parties as well. Andrew, what do you make of it? Well, the fact that no one knows what's in it is not deterred anybody from running to say what's in it, either to exaggerate it in the case of the conservatives who've been mounting, frankly, a hysteria campaign about stuff that is never going to happen. There's not going to be Canadian members of the EU. We're not going to have the European Parliament running our affairs.

We're not going to be paying EU taxes. It's just basically nonsense. At the same time, you've had some people saying, well, it's not going to amount to anything. We already have a free trade agreement with Europe. The Europeans don't want to go any further because they don't want to give access to the European market to people who aren't actually,

countries that aren't actually members because then you kind of create perverse incentives for countries to do a Brexit. And then reapply for readmission or, you know, readmission or free access on different terms. That's true, and that has been the practice in the past, and so you would think there's fairly limited options for us to press further. I don't think that argument, however, reckons with the historical moment we're in.

It doesn't reckon with the fact also that Canada is a bit of a catch. This isn't some European microstate applying for admission. This is the world, whatever it is, 10th or 11th, largest economy. They're going to be a little bit more willing to put themselves out than for us than for some other countries. But secondly, we and they are at a moment where we are trying to form solidarity amongst the democracies. That can extend to not just trade arrangements, but infrastructure, you know, fortifications, or we're not. I'm very interested to hear the payment system mentioned, for example.

So we're trying to insulate ourselves by working together from pressure tactics by unnamed foreign powers. And beyond that, you're seeing increasing talk about, a broader alliance of the democracies. Ursula van der Leyen, for example, the European Commission President, in the same speech when she talked about the associate membership, talked about a European Security Council that would include Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Canada,

but not the United States. So there's all kinds of fluidity. There's all kinds of issues on the table in which a Canada-Europe agreement could be kind of a prototype or a template for broader arrangements. You saw Australia, for example, saying, And we're actually interested in pursuing something similar with Europe as well. So I think people should hold their horses, understand that we're in a moment of perhaps greater creativity on the part of the Europeans than they might otherwise be prepared to extend.

Chantal, and then I'll help me a quick last word. Yes, and it cuts both ways. We are looking to diversify, but they also need to shore up. So there's a meeting of interest there that could result in something interesting. and at some point you have to start somewhere. What is the alternative to just sit there and say we didn't get a deal with the U.S. is coming in for us and so we just sit back and lamented. I think it's worth having a conversation on this and to not prejudge where that conversation will lead.

Maybe it will lead to a lot less than cheerleaders for this belief or maybe to a lot more than skeptics will leave. I'll feel a last 30 seconds there to you. I think there's a lot of key issues that will probably beg more questions. Like on defense, for example, Jonathan Wilkinson, our ambassador there, was talking about us financially contributing.

You know, there's a lot of question marks around a lot of things. One of the things that this government, I think, has done a poor job of over the last few months is bringing the public alongside. So if they do actually want Canadians to embrace the vision, that the prime minister is putting forward, I think they need to tell us a little bit more about what's on the table and what's off the table.

And I can understand why they didn't do that with the United States, for example, because you never know at what point Donald Trump might pull the plug on the whole thing. But I think the relationship with the Europeans is different. And I think it would be to their benefit to be more transparent about what they're pursuing. Yeah, and manage expectations a little bit as well as we get to the summit in Montreal where something's going to happen. Okay, I have to leave that part there. When we come back, we'll take a look at Carney's Investment Summit and the pitch for foreign capital to come into this country.

So what's been made of the Prime Minister's pitch to foreign investors? Has Ottawa cleared the path for money to flow into infrastructure projects in this country? That's next. Because we have much of what the world wants, because we're a reliable partner, we are finding that we're able to deepen, broaden our trading network. So we will be one of the countries in which capital can flow freely.

If they do that, if I think it's at all a hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs or stop trading with Europe on many things. Here to break down. Mark Carney's pitch to invest in Canada, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. Andrew, why don't you start us off on this one? How did you think that that summit went? Certainly there was a lot of buzz,

and that was part of the goal, was to get people talking about investing in Canada. Yeah, I thought it was a lot of over-hype. to start with. Of the $500 billion, $325 billion is over five years from Canadian banks making loans. Well, that's what Canadian banks are supposed to do. It's not actually that new or that large. And you don't need to gather a bunch of people in a hotel ballroom to get them to, either people to pitch their projects or financiers to invest. And that's what they do again all the time. They're very averse in it. They're quite adept at it. What I think it might have had

more impact on is the kinds of policy announcements that followed from it. There's no shortage of capital out there to invest. What's been the problem is investable projects because, A, we've tied them up in knots regulatory wise, and B, we've had very high rates of taxation, particularly at the margin. Well, we had big announcements, particularly on the tax side, the immediate expensing of investments across two-thirds of investments. Every economist will tell you this is huge, and it's going to cut in half the marginal effective tax rate on that. That's the kind of thing really that investors both domestically and

abroad need to hear. They need to hear things like, you know, one year, one review types of things to make more certain and more quick regulatory approval. These are the kinds of things that maybe this is a good platform to announce them when they've got people's attention. And I think following through on that was good. So I think it's been a good week for Canadian investment. The summit itself was a little bit gimmicky. Shantal. I still think that the main purpose of the summit was to send the double message to the Trump administration

that there are others who want something from Canada and to Canadians that there are people who want something. I agree with Andrew about the bottom line of the actual summit and yes it does pave the way or maybe we'll help the government

come up with the narrative to get some changes in over the next fall. So on that That score strategically it wasn't a bad move, but otherwise, beyond that, it's like the previous topic. Time will tell. Yeah, yeah. And I mean, I will say that the government presents it as the first step of something, right, as opposed to the end of it. So I guess it is a time will tell thing. But was it worth the exercise, Althea, for all the points that Andrew laid out there? Yes, I think so. I mean, I think to add to what my colleagues have said, I think it showcased that the prime minister has. as a very healthy network that he can call onto,

and these people basically answered his call and came to Toronto. I did not expect that we were going to have an announcement of a trillion dollars worth of projects. I think these people came with an open mind to hear what the prime minister was saying. In fact, I was surprised by the tax changes. That is a big change, as Andrew outlined. I was surprised that the prime minister hijacked his own investment summit, frankly, to announce the opening of Canada's major airports to privatization. That, to me, seemed like an own goal politically.

MPs were caught flat-footed. It's finally giving the NTP an issue that resonates beyond just the environment on their tagline of the government being for the money and not the many. And it's also a deeply controversial decision where most Canadians have an experience going to the airport. And many of us have gone through Heathrow. And that is one of the airports the Prime Minister noted. The Canada Pension Plan is invested in.

It's a terrible airport. And it is one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive airport in the world. And to announce a project that was almost like already baked in, like the Canada Pension Plan wants to invest in this. Of course they want to invest in this. They're basically monopolies and cash cows. How are you going to protect passengers and workers at the airports?

And now you're seeing that there is a lot, a lot of MPs are hearing from constituents on this point. You know, that's not something the government campaign on. Sorry, I'm renting. But I don't know why they needed to do this. This is not an investment that's going to make Canada strong. And it is filled with risks. And this is not a government that's a problem spending money. So I don't know.

Rants are allowed here, Altheo, just so you know. Don't understand this decision. Chautel and then, Andrew, yeah. Okay, just so you know that many of us have gone through Trudeau Airport under the current system and found it terrible. So I don't think that picking one under one system as being terrible is a validation of our current investment. Okay, but you can say Vancouver is a beautiful airport.

No, no, no, seriously. I've gone through a number of those airports that rely in part on private investments and that work fine, two of them this summer. So I think, again, we need to see more fine print on this before we come to a final judgment. But the notion that it's suddenly rattled many Canadians, I'm not so sure that that is actually reality at this point. Well, and the fact that the Prime Minister said we'll use the money to pay for regional airports, you know, I think that that was in some way to try and reassure some Canadians that maybe things would improve. I'm not saying it's going to work, but that was obviously part of the justification, Andrew.

Yeah, well, it always depends on the incentives and the system you've set up as to what you're rewarding and what you're penalizing. So it will depend, as Chantel says, a large extent, on the terms. It will free up capital, and it may serve as a, again, as a template for further opening up of infrastructure, private investment, which would be good from the standpoint of, again, freeing up scarce public capital for things that can only be paid for through taxes. You can pay for things like airports by charging user fees. If you can, you probably should, because there's lots of stuff that government needs to spend on that they can't charge user fees for. So oftentimes governments with these kinds of assets tend to, as it said, starve the capital account

to feed the current account. They underinvest in these assets, they've got so many current spending demands on them. If you can focus or you have private investors focusing on the capital, charging user fees, chances are you get something that is better attuned to the consumer, but again, much will depend upon the terms of the deal.

Last word to you, Althea there. I'm not sure that you can say that for Canadian airports. They are quite well run by not-for-profit airport authorities who actually spend hundreds of millions of dollars on rent that they send back to Ottawa. And in the spring economic update, the government

signal that it's re-looking at how rents are done. So I think there's a lot of question marks. And the government can't say, we're going to price cap and we're going to make sure that, you know, your tickets are not or your airport fees or don't go up dramatically. And we're going to make sure that we protect jobs and also give investors what they want, which is basically to milk the asset. So to me, this is a challenge that resonates with more Canadians than the challenges that have come so far, which basically have been on the environment, and which we will probably hear way more about on Monday when the government introduces likely its big package of legislative reforms to speed of projects.

Okay, I got to leave it there. None of you have made me want to go to an airport anytime soon, just for the record. It's lovely. It's nice, and it's filled with really lovely Canadians. Once you get to the destination, it's okay. Okay. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Stephen Harper's support for Mark Carney's response to Donald

Trump and what that says about where things stand for the conservatives. That's next. I do believe that our government had no choice but to take this path. We must pursue diminished reliance upon the United States. There will be significant costs to this effort, but those are costs that I hope and believe Canadians are able and prepared to accept. So how significant was this moment for Stephen. Harper for the Prime Minister for the Conservatives, writ large. Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea, Chantal, what did you make of it? We don't hear from Stephen Harper that often publicly. So that in itself is interesting that he chose this venue. But it was the

things that he said and that he wanted to be at this investment summit that sort of stood out to. It's kind of interesting to watch the most pro-American prime minister that we've had in recent years come together with the most pro-European prime minister that we have currently and agree on an agenda, which basically cuts the legs from under the Conservative Party as it now frames these issues. Because what was the Conservative Party stance on one leaving the negotiating table? It went from Izzy Fitz from Canada to we want. to see the deal that he walked out of. So now they have Stephen Harper vouching for the notion that it was a good idea to walk away.

And then the same prime minister who in his tenure opened more trade negotiations with Europe, basically saying we need to do that at the same time as the conservatives are saying, we're going to oppose this. Well, I don't think they even know what they're opposing. but it certainly does not put them on fairly solid ground to not enter the discussion on the basis of facts rather than non-spin. Yeah, I should say that Stephen Harper was also there in his role as head of the Alberta Pension Fund. But it was very symbolic, Andrew, that he was there.

And he was saying these things that were largely supportive of the prime minister, not wholly, but largely. Well, and it's not just Stephen Harper. Senior figures in the conservative movement. people who were in the Harper cabinet, who nobody would mistake for mushy liberals, you know, people like Jason Kenney, people like James Moore, have been, I think, kind of aghast at where some sections of the conservative movement have been going. To be fair to Pierre Pueva, I think he's trying to straddle between those types of conservatives and sections of his base

egged on by quote-unquote influencers who are frankly aggressively pro-Trump and have, I think really missed the boat, politically speaking, as much as policy terms on this issue. When you look at the percentages in the polls where 80% of Canadians say they support the decision to walk away, maybe you can mount a principled argument in defiance of those polls, but I've yet to hear a really good principled argument, but certainly just from a standpoint of reading the room, as it were, it's appalling. And you're seeing people like Jason Kennedy speaking out more and more saying we have got to get real here. Yeah. Althea, what did you make of how good it was for the prime minister and damaging for the

conservative leader? Well, I think my colleagues basically said it all. I don't want to be more mean to the conservatives. But the flip side of what Andrew is saying is also true. So many of the kind of elder statesmen stateswomen, from the conservative party of the past, Stephen Harper's cabinet ministers are, I guess, as what is driving the grassroots are part of the grassroots, shall we say, but they're also incredibly pleased by what they're seeing in Prime Minister Carney. And so, you know, I think part of Prime Minister Harper's message was also about kind of giving cover, which at the moment, frankly, it's Donald Trump, the trade war and the attacks against our sovereigns. some might say perceived attacks against their sovereignty,

but that have allowed Prime Minister Carney to move so swiftly in a direction that is not the direction he presented to voters in the spring of 2025 and is also really in line what the Conservative Party of the past has really wanted to see on regulatory reform on National Energy Project.

Like I was shocked late last week listening to Tim Hodgson's, the Natural Resource Minister, kind of like shutting down reporters who were asking about projects that were adding to climate, greenhouse gas emissions. And he sounded like Joe Oliver, you know, Harper's former natural resource minister who's really kind of short with reporters. And what a change, you know. So it's not surprising to me that many former conservative cabinet ministers are feeling very sympathetic with this government. And I think, you know, we can't forget that Prime Minister Harper actually

tried to recruit Mark Carney to run with him. So it's kind of a happy full circle family. Quickly, Chantal, then quickly, Andrew, yeah. Yeah. In this country, we tend to go in cycles, 10 years of aggressive liberals, then conservatives. We were due for a change in the cycle. The only thing that happened is that that change in the cycle towards a more conservative government, happened with a liberal prime minister? Andrew Laszor. Well, and Concernative need to understand, they are in some peril here. He is taking dead aim at a good section of their base with policies that are very pleasing to them.

It's not, you know, it's survivable, but they've got to keep their powder dry. They are not going to win back those people by attacking free trade with Europe or attacking, you know, privatizing airports. They've got to wait for the moment, and it will come when the Karni shes. shine is off and when he gets into trouble. Okay. Thanks, everyone. That is at issue for this week. What do you think about this idea of forming closer

ties with the EU? Do you want Canada to become an associate member once we figure out what that means? Let us know what you think. You can send us an email. We are at askatscbc.ca. Remember, you can also catch me on a show called Rosemary Barton live, appropriately. Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern.

We'll be back here in your podcast feeds next week. Thank you so much for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca.ca slash podcasts.