At Issue - What Carney’s Liberal accomplished this sitting

Episode Date: December 12, 2025

How much did Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals actually accomplish this sitting? What ambassador Hillman’s resignation means for U.S. trade negotiations. And cabinet ministers quietly get sweeping new powers in Parliament.  Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Hey Canada. It's me, Gavin Crawford, host of Because News. Each week, I put comedians on the spot with a pop quiz about the headlines. This week, we're talking about the monster of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's own making, Wayne Gretzky's incredible pronunciation skills, and the one kind of Christmas toy experts are all calling dangerous. Miguel Revis, Emma Hunter, and Gene Yune are here, so laugh along as we try to make sense of the headlines. Follow Because News on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts for free. This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on Addishu, the podcast edition for Thursday, December 11th. I'm pleased that we have the Billing Canada Act through and that we're making progress. Other parties say the liberals should be willing to work together. I look to the Carnegie government in 2026 to demonstrate that they understand you're in a minority parliament and that they have to work across party lines.

As the Conservatives try to pressure the Liberal Caucus over their Alberta memorandum of understanding. What's clear is that Mark Carney has no intention of actually getting a quick line. Why did your leader vote virtually on his own motion, sir? This week we're asking what actually happened in the House this sitting. How does it compare with the logjam of previous times?

I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down in person tonight, Chantelle Berry, Andrew Coyne, Altheiraj. I guess I wanted to examine like whether whether the prime minister, whether the government, Elthia understands that it's a minority government and whether we see any signs that they are trying to find collaboration, either at committees or in the House or in any way to get their legislation through.

I don't know that the government believes in collaboration and maybe I'm too generous by saying government, the prime minister. Steve McKinnon may get along well with Andrew Shear, this is the liberal government's house leader, but he does not get along with the Black Quebecois, the only other dance partner in committees. So that to me was always a questionable appointment.

They decided not to give the NDP official party status, which means that they only have two partners to dance with, one of whom is trying to be obstructionist most of the time, the conservatives, in committee. And so they only have the block to dance with. And they're not doing a good job.

You know, when Justin Trudeau resigned in January, he talked about Parliament being paralyzed. And it was, yeah. That fall, the Liberals had passed 12 bills. Mark Kearney has passed this fall, as we're recording this, one bill. One bill.

That Building Canada Act that he was talking about in the clip, that was passed in June. So, you know, they have a really hard time passing their bills, some of which, frankly, their own members think is a good thing because they don't like the bills. But they have a problem. They have a problem making allies and realizing that if they want to get stuff done, through Parliament, they need to work with other. Okay, and we should say, as we record this, there may be a deal in the offering,

so by the time this goes to air, they may get a couple other things through, but it speaks to a bigger trend line, I think. And I guess the other question is, does it matter, given that the Prime Minister wants to be making deals with all sorts on other fronts that are not necessarily legislative? Yeah, well, it does matter.

If you tell people that you're doing ABC, and then you don't see any of those things true, and that is basically where, things are at. I think out here is totally right. There's been a sense. And remember, when Mark Carney arrived if Francois Blanchet had good things

to say. After the election, he said, I'm willing to cooperate for a year. That's all been thrown out because consultation doesn't happen. When it does happen with ministers and one of the opposition parties, suddenly the PMO

wakes up and says, well, we don't want to do this and that. I think Mark Carney is now realizing that, yes, you can pass your budget because of the fear of an election, but most votes are not confidence votes. And the bloc and the conservatives can agree together to rewrite entire pieces of legislation in communities, which they have. And then you have to undo it on the floor of the House of Commons if it's not being obstructed.

So does it matter? Well, we've just had a 600-plus-page bill on the budget. If you want those measures in the budget to become law and to ever happen, you will need to find a way to negotiate with the opposition parties better or find an excuse to have an election and hope you win a majority. But if you look at this in the last two years of Justin Trudeau's minority government, minority – our parties, all of them, are at this point not – living up to delivering minority rule and a constructive...

For sure, but this is even harder than what Justin Trudeau had, because, as Althea points out, they don't have the NDP, so this is an even more complicated situation. Why would you assume that they have to have the NDP that was never the case federally until the last two years of Trudeau? No, yeah, but anyway, go ahead. Stephen Harper was not famously collaborative, and you governed a minority for five years.

The difference now is the committee thing that was mentioned. The difference is the NDP isn't such a weak condition relative to then. So we're in this peculiar position where neither can the government get legislation through, but neither can it be defeated. Nobody wants an election right now. We saw that in the budget bill. So we're in this kind of weird limbo where they can continue to govern, but they're not getting a lot of legislation through.

That may not overly concern them if they're thinking about an election in the spring. Maybe. I want one quick round on the motion on the MOU, that the conservatives was their opposition day motion? put in place. They rejigged it because they wanted to put more language in that would make it harder for the government to vote against. They did any way. Was it politically astute to do that or was it just theatrics? It was just theatrics. And the problem that the conservatives have is how do you explain that you never said you supported the MOU in its entirety that you don't

want. If they brought the entire thing, the liberals would have had a problem. And they would have separated, divided on the floor of the House of Commons. So did they not understand that? No, they didn't want to be pushing a motion that included support for the industrial carbon price, even if that was their position in previous elections. So it was supposed to be clever. It ended up showcasing unsuriveness. Too clever by half, I think, is the British expression.

There's nothing wrong with theatrics, that's what politics is. And I agree with Chantal. There's nothing wrong with an opposition party exposing the cracks within a governing coalition. And, yeah, but then only to put part of the bill and then to, so you only had half the bill, the MOU in the first place, then you'd come again with one and a half, but not the both sides of it. But I agree with Chantal also that the ultimate dilemma they faced was if they put the whole thing in, then they themselves would put in the position of having to vote for the carbon price. So a sensible party, it seems to me, would have looked at it and went, okay, this is not a winning proposition.

Maybe let's not talk about it. I think there was worth to what they were trying to do because there's definitely a split in the caucus despite what the natural resource minister says publicly. Caucus is not united on the entire MOU. I do not understand why the conservatives did not put the entire MOU in their motion. They could easily say this is not what we would have agreed to. We don't believe in industrial carbon pricing.

But this is what you guys sawned on to with Premier Smith. Let's see how if you really actually support this. Do you really want a pipeline? Because a lot of liberals do not want a pipeline. They believe that this is a way to ensure that actually no pipeline happens. Others are vehemently opposed, like we saw with Mr. Gibo. And then others, like Mr. Hodgians, and some believe the prime minister, actually do want a pipeline.

So I think that was a worthwhile exercise, but they executed it very poorly. Okay. Okay, we're going to leave this part there. When we come back, we'll talk about Canada's ambassadors to the U.S. Kristen Hillman leaving and who might replace her. We are now heading into a process that will take quite a long time, and it seemed like the most effective time to leave.

So what does the loss mean for the Canada-U.S. file who could replace Kristen Hillman in Washington? That's next. The U.S. is signaling an interest in pursuing bilateral deals. So it makes sense to talk about things separately. with Canada and Mexico. But Hillman believes there is flexibility. I think it's more a question of wanting to make sure that they get a renewal with Canada on issues that are important to them with Canada,

a renewal with Mexico on issues that are important with Mexico. Some will be trilateral, some will be bilateral. So what does the loss of Kirsten Hillman mean for Canada's presence in Washington and the deal, the future of those renegotiations or negotiation? Let's bring everyone back, Shantel, Andrew, Elthia. Andrew, I'll start with you. I mean, obviously the loss of some. someone who has that kind of experience and is that deeply connected in Washington at this moment is maybe not great.

I understand what Ambassador Hillman is saying that, you know, it's better to get out before the Kusma renegotiations start. On the other hand, having to start from scratch with someone new, you know, could be problematic. I mean, the negotiations, though, are going to be much more in the hands of Dominic LeBlanc and people like that. Sure. I'm the prime minister even. And I think the difficulty is it's so hard to read Washington now. You know, the people around Trump, for example, many of them have completely different agendas. Trump himself seems oftentimes to have checked out.

The Congress is not like any Congress we've ever seen before with the kinds of independent power centers that you used to be able to have. They've been so under the thumb of Trump that may be changing as Trump himself declines. So all of that feeds into what kind of ambassador do you want? What kind of connections do you need and are you trying to make? I don't have a good answer to that, but it just seems. me that there may be a defense for non-traditional types of ambassadorial choices

given this unprecedented situation I mean you could argue that Ambassador Hillman was a non-traditional choice because she was a foreign service. Public servant. Yeah, she was a public servant who was elevated to this extraordinary role because of all the things that she had done in the past. But if part of your agenda is to do an run around to Congress and to appeal

to the business community, for example, do you want somebody who can appeal to business groups? Right. Althea? I don't think you can do an end run around in Congress. I think what has been really striking is all the praise that Ambassador Hillman has gotten in the past few days in Canada from all sides of the political spectrum, as well as in the United States. And I hope that, you know, with all the early retirements that the government is offering public servant, that we have ensured that, you know, she is kind of like a mentor figure for so many

other people in the public service to think that they can aspire to positions and have that experience. It looks like the potential ambassador is going to be Mark Weisman or at least someone that will be a political appointee for political reasons. Mr. Weisman's name has been bandied about for several months now because of his

connections to Trump and people around Donald Trump. And the business world to Andrew's point. Exactly. But, you know, the people drafting the Kuzma 3.0, NAFTA 3.0.

are going to be people in the weeds. So you still want to have a depth of experience. And I believe that that, regardless of who is appointed, I think. It's mostly a public figure, kind of like the U.S. ambassador we have here. I mean, does anybody really think that he's deep in the weeds? No, I don't think that he's negotiating it. But I do think that Ambassador Hillman was pretty deeply involved. Absolutely, because she was the chief negotiator, too.

TPPs. Yeah. So it's always been a political appointment. The difference now with the. the name that is being leaked of Mr. Wiseman is either a politician, no political experience, and also no diplomatic experience. And that does stand out versus everyone that has come before. But I am curious about the notion that you allow a name to float like that long enough to build resistance. For instance, I'm curious about that as well, yes.

Mr. Wiseman's name comes to the surface. No one confirms, but no one denies. And the first thing that happens is his views on supply management, to which he is totally entitled, come out. Except that how do you think you're going to build trust in this team if you know that the lead person in Washington would like to negotiate away supply management? And immediately the conservatives and the block jumped on that,

but not just them. There are people. So I'm curious, are we having this name floated to see if it will pass? Yes. And if so, that's terrible. Because if you're going to appoint someone like that to a top job, you do not send his name as a trial balloon to see if it's injures. I don't think it's a trial balloon from the things I'm hearing, but I do not understand why they wouldn't have checked some of the more political things that he has said if this is an actual candidate. And replied to some of the social media stuff that was false. Or is it?

I don't know what the term would be, the opposite of a trial balloon, but leaked deliberately to try and scupper his, you know, a lead balloon, perhaps, to try and scuper his chances. That's, you know, always possible. The PMO is not always unanimous. No, no. Or unanimously behind the Prime Minister. And the fact that we are again this week hearing about,

well, last week it was about no deal, this week it's about separate deals. Is that something that as they are making the choice for who replaces MPN, home on something that they need to think about. Because now you're not talking about the same kind of deal as you've had. No, you're just talking about the same person and the same administration that sends a mixed contrary signal. So I don't think... That puts a premium on having really good relations with Mexico.

Yes. Both, either to present a united front in a trilateral negotiation or if they do go down this path of signing separate deals, then we need another deal with Mexico to avoid becoming hubs and spokes. And that's why Dominique LeBlanc was probably in Mexico City. Oh, a week or a go. Yeah. Althea.

We have long known that this was a risk, and we have also known what we needed to do to avoid that risk. So I'm assuming that the government is still hoping that we have a tri-party agreement. On Chanty's point about the name leaking, yeah, I agree it's a little odd. But also the prime minister has shown us that he can change his mind. Yes, and the examples keep filing up. So he often says things to people, doesn't deliver, seems to be a pattern that we were noticing, whether that's diplomatic

appointments or staffing appointments. So I think there's a reason why nobody's going out on a limb and saying this is a new ambassador with certainty. One point of continuity with Mr. Trudeau. Okay, very quickly, I don't have much time. If we don't get some sort of resolution to this, whether it be sectoral tariffs or a deal, what does that mean for the prime minister and for the government, given how much of his election was built on this? I happen to think that most Canadians, not all, I'm not trying to say all, but a factor in over the months, the fact that, one, maybe it's better not to have a deal, two, maybe a deal is not worth having, considering how the administration we deal with changes its mind on a dime.

So I'm not so sure. I know the opposition parties believe there's a big price. pay for that? I've seen no evidence of that over the past seven, eight months. And is that because the situation has changed so dramatically? And because we haven't got anywhere? It's because we're dealing with a

madman in the White House. I think the public understands that if they couldn't get a deal with Joe Biden, I think people would be properly critical. But if you can't get a deal with Donald Trump, it will depend upon, you know, do you look like you were relatively competent? Were you doing the best than anybody could imagine somebody doing?

Does somebody else have a better plan? or a better negotiator that they can put out. The public, I think, are pretty skeptical. It's like on health care. Everybody tries to win elections in health care. And people look at it and go, it's a really big mess. I don't think you've got some silver bullet solution. I mean, it's almost like what was sort of the peak moment of Donald Trump and the threats.

Everyone, that has sort of, it's not that it's not real. It's that it's worn off a bit. And so maybe we're willing to. But people still think he's the best choice for a prime minister. Yeah, that's right. And that was the basis of the ballot box question. That's right. Which of the two, you can only get one of those two. Yeah. Yeah.

I don't think people think that Pierre Paulyev, well, polls suggest people don't think that Pia Paulyev could do better. I do think, though, that the real impact will be once people start losing their jobs and the impacts of the tariffs are felt and it lingers and it's deep. And people who voted for Mark Carney are disappointed in Mark Carney because they are losing their jobs and communities are suffering. And that's what's going to hurt the government. That's right.

Okay, we're going to keep this conversation going, talking, talk about a new set of powers, raising concerns. We're going to take a short break here when we come back. We'll talk about a new set of powers inside the budget bill that are raising concerns. That's next. So what do the new powers mean and have the liberals been up front about the measures? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Althea, and Andrew, these two people wrote about it.

So we'll start with both of you. Andrew, what concerns? you about this, other than the fact that it hasn't really been talked about a lot, and it was just sort of dumped in there. Well, there's a reason why these things are called Henry the Eighth Clause's because they essentially allow government ministers to govern without Parliament, to ignore, you know, it gives them free reign to do things that parliament, without the backing of a parliamentary law.

Like what? Give people an example of what could happen. Well, in this particular case, it's to exempt an entity from any law that they choose, short of the criminal code. So it's breathtakingly wide-ranging And basically for any reason they choose Where there's some very vague parameters set around it But there's an authoritarian streak more broadly Running through this government

As there was through the government before It as there was through the government before that It's a common theme liberal or conservative Is abusing parliament Running roughshod over individual rights In this case we've got a government that has been passing on the bus bill after omnibus bill Depriving refugees of the right to an independent hearing

opening the way to warrantless access to subscriber information. So this is of a piece with that, and the long and the short of it is, more power for the powers that be and less power for the average system. What is, what is, I don't know if you know this, but what is the understanding of why the government feels they need this?

Like, is there some justification for it that would be worth considering? Yeah, so it's a little bit more limited than I think how Andrew's framing it, but first of all, Okay. So I think it's important to say this was not in the copy of the budget that we were given in the lockup. It's buried in Annex 5, which is not included in the print copy of the budget. Oh, not in the print copy. Okay.

And it doesn't actually say, it just says that they're amending the red tape reduction act. So when you look at what's actually in the bill, what they seem to be trying to do is to exempt a company, a person, an unregistered company, an entity, as Andrew called it, that from, laws that are in place to allow for the testing of a product or service or a regulation, which is a law. Red tape. They want to get rid of the red tape. Is that the idea? Well, to allow for something that would make the economy, and this is in the law, help the economy or innovation.

These are very broad parameters. And when I asked the governments, I went back and forth with them for a week to find out, like, what is it that you're... This seems a little weird. Why do you need this? And, like, how, like, what can you give me an example of how it would be used? And they basically told me that, well, it's to sandbox. So if there's a test, like, for example, with drones, there was a law in the book that said that the pilot has to be in the plane. So they had to create, like, a separate regulation so that they could test drones.

Okay. So they already had the tool kit and to be able to do this. So why do they need these wider, grander, more elaborate powers? and never got a response from the department and never got a response from the ministry and the answers that have been given in the House of Commons when other MPs have since raised it do not address the issue.

So we don't know and I think that's why Andrew and I are really worried about this, the free slope. Quickly and then maybe Chantal is less worried. I don't know. The intent may or may not be about spurring innovation, et cetera, but the language of the bill is any minister, any law

for which that minister is responsible that can accept it. It's not about, it doesn't, the language of bill doesn't say just for the purposes of San Francisco, of sandboxing and experimentation. Well, it does say for innovation and whatnot. Chautil's take. Is it something that we should be worrying about as much as our colleagues?

I worry about it as part of a larger picture, which is the trickle-down effect of Bill C-5, which allows the government to designate the project and say we're taking off most of the rules. Because I'm seeing what's happening with legislation in BC, what's happening this week, with legislation in Quebec. this example in the budget, and it seems to me that a lot of governments are using a crisis to dispense with accountability on a whole load of fronts.

I do believe it's going to come back to bite them, because when they do use it and people see in practice with these things, there will be a backlash, and the cost of that will be public trust in the government. and a government that loses trust is a government that loses its political capital to convince people that it's doing the right thing. It is a huge door for corruption. And whether that's with this liberal government

or any future government, these are the things that we have tried for decades to prevent. And here we're saying, open the floodgates. Okay, thank you. That's at issue for this week. How effective has the government been in this sitting? How have they navigated their minority parliament? Let us know what you think.

Send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. Remember, you can also catch me on Rosemary Barton Live. That's Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We will be back next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca.