At Issue - What if Trump blows up the CUSMA trade deal?

Episode Date: December 5, 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump dials up trade uncertainty, suggesting he could pull out of CUSMA/USMCA early. Mark Miller returns to cabinet and quickly rubs Quebec’s premier the wrong way with his French language comments. Plus, B.C. Conservatives boot leader John Rustad. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always over-delivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors, all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing.

Donate at lovescarbro.cairbo. This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition, for Thursday, December 4th. It expires at about a year, and we'll either let it expire or will maybe work out another deal with Mexico and Canada. So this week, we're asking what to the President's comments mean for the future of the free trade deal between Canada and the U.S. and Mexico. Plus, Quebec politicians respond to Mark Miller's comments on the deal. decline of French. So what did the President's comments mean for the future of free trade between

Canada and the U.S. and Mexico? And as the Prime Minister heads to Washington tomorrow, what could it mean for Carney's push-free deal with the U.S.? I'm Rosemary Barton. Here to break it all down tonight, Chantelli Bear, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj. I should point out that the Prime Minister is not going to Washington for talks. He's going for a FIFA event where he hopes to speak with the President. But Andrew, I'm going to start with you this week. What do you make there of where this is going or whether this gives us any indication. Because I do think that it sort of stepped up the rhetoric, at least, about the threat of the U.S. just walking away entirely. Yeah, it's not a threat that we've never heard before from Donald Trump. It's part of the art of the deal. I can use that

hackney line. It's also, you know, something you would make reasonable steps to try to overt. I don't think anybody disputes that. But at the end of the day, if you're going to be in any negotiations of any kind, you have to be prepared to walk away from the table if the terms are not to your liking. And we have to be able to wrap our mind around that possibility. It's not the end of the world. It wouldn't be good, but Canada existed before the free trade agreement, and it would exist after one. I'm not saying we should do that. I'm not saying we should be too hasty to walk away from the table. But if we don't establish to ourselves, as much as to our negotiating partners, that we have some kind of bottom line, then we'll just be taken to the cleaners.

But if Trump is prepared to walk away, I mean, that's what he's signaling effectively, Althea. How does the Canadian government respond to that, knowing that it could all fall apart? I don't think it changes anything, because if he intended to actually walk away, he would say this. If he intended not to walk away, he would still say this. You know, what's happening in Washington this week is a very public hearing of basically what the U.S. trade rep has to tell Congress, like what its position is early in the new year, and we will know what the U.S. government intends to do. And so this is all perhaps blustering, perhaps not. But we already have a pretty good idea of what it is that they would like fix if we do review it to fix it.

If it, I think it would be quite surprising, frankly, if the president decides on July 1st. Actually, he wants to renew the deal for another 16 years. I don't think that's going to happen. And the default, if we don't renegotiate something, is that we go from year to year. And that also serves the Americans' purposes, because I don't know in the lead-up to the midterms, they want to blow everything apart, but they do want to create uncertainty just as they have, and a year-to-year review would create that uncertainty. So, you know, they hold pretty decent cards, and we will have a better idea of where the conversation

goes early in the new year. Though a year-to-year review, Chantal, for Canada, wouldn't be terrible either, I would think, because then you're sort of waiting out, as Althea says, the midterms and the president potentially. Up to a point. But I do agree that whatever was said this week is not anything that you should take to the bank and take too seriously. Why? Because it could change next week or next month. But what it does say about year-to-year reviews is that, if the U.S. is going to come around to the merits of Kusma, it's going to be true internal pressure in the U.S. And not anything we say. And true, we cannot be going around saying we want this deal to remain at all costs because then you might as well not come to the table. Why negotiate with someone who can send you with storms and you can sign off your redition and move on from there?

but I think it would be a mistake to hang on to every signal that comes from Washington until it's actually a real signal. For sure. And that's why I was a little reluctant to talk about it tonight, frankly. But because the Prime Minister is going down there tomorrow for the FIFA draw, because the President of Mexico is going and there is a hope that the three of them talk in some way, I would note that Dominic LeBlanc is in Mexico City doing some trade stuff on that front. I wonder, Andrew, whether this could be the opportunity or the moment to try and restart at least the sectoral talks that might be happening and kind of informally but aren't really happening.

Well, I hope we're having talks with the Mexicans in particular. The more alarming signal, whatever you want to call it, came out in the last couple days, was this idea that maybe they'll do separate deals with Mexico and with Canada. Again, could just be rhetoric. But, and I made this point before, you know, you don't want to be the spokes to the Americans' hub. If you have two separate agreements, then it absolutely favors the Americans that you can locate your plan in the States and have access to all three markets, and it would be the only country that would have that access. So I think we really want to make sure that we're doing common cause with the Mexicans, strengthen numbers. This is the recurring thing, whether you're talking about Trump's domestic opponents or whether you're talking about the international arena, don't allow them to pick you off one by one, form a common front.

And so is there any kind of pressure then, Althea, on the prime minister tomorrow when he goes to do this soccer event with the president? Well, I mean, I think there'll be pressure from the media that has gone to see him do this about, you know, what have you accomplished the normal questions. But the two are still talking in a social manner, so it's not like the door is completely closed. I don't know that there's actual interest from the Kane government to move on sectoral. talks if they have to concede more than they were willing to concede earlier in the fall, because the conversation in the United States is turning, and it's turning in our favor against the president's agenda. So it's not a bad strategy to not capitulate right away. I would say on the Mexico front, I mean, that has long been the Canadian strategy to make sure that Mexico

is still at the table that we're still building, except for that little blip, remember when we had Doug Ford saying that actually we'd be better off without the Mexicans? But, but, But what you do realize listening to these talks in Washington this week is that there are way more concerns about the deal with Mexico as a partner than with Canada. And there are things that we have done that probably will hurt us in negotiations in terms of, I think it's debatable whether we lived up to our end with the bargain on dairy, for example, in allowing American access into Canada. So I do think everybody knows kind of where the ball is going, though, so none of this is too surprising. Last word to you, Chantal, and then. Well, from the currently government's perspective, no one wants to bring home sectoral deals that involve concessions that will cost you more than the success of getting a deal. So I kind of get the hesitation or the well-disguised eagerness to resume.

conversations on sectoral trade deals because what if you come home and you say I have a win and then people look at the cost of the win and you actually do worse for those concessions than for the credit you hope from getting a deal. I mean, they're also going to do the World Cup draw. That's also very exciting tomorrow, but not relevant for this panel. Okay, we're going to take a little break here. When we come back, we will take a look at how politicians in Quebec are responding to Mark Miller's return to the Prime Minister's captain.

So what's been made of how Quebec's premier and the leader of the Patee Quebec and others are responding to some comments that Minister Miller made? What does it mean for the liberals? That's next. We will work to protect what we've gained in Kazma. I've been part of a government to recognize the clan of the French language across Canada and modified law on official languages. It's nice to talk, but actions count.

I think I've proved myself. So what does this battle over language mean for the liberals in Ottawa? How is it being used by politicians inside Quebec? Let's bring everyone back. Jean-Tal, Andrew, Analthea. So this not only riled up the Premier, who we've talked about before in Quebec, is struggling, mightily, politically, but it also riled up the leader of the Pats-Chebecois,

who went after some of the leaders in the cultural community in Quebec for applauding the idea that Minister Miller was from Quebec in his backing cabinet. Is this about French language, Chantelle? Was there something there that Mark Miller said that was offensive to Quebec? Or is this about the politics and trying to create a rift between Ottawa and Quebec? No, no. It's a series of errors on the part of many of the people who are playing in this game.

The first error is if you don't want to politicize the French language debate, then you don't raise it as an issue if you're a federal politician because you're basically making it political. So those were useless comments. Mark Miller could have just said, I was part of a government that recognized that there are challenges to the French language and I voted for a new official languages act. Let's move on.

The other thing one needs to know is that Mark Miller and the Lugo government have had many run-ins over immigration, his time at the immigration. The CAT government. Yes. Yes. Do not invite both of them at the same party. That was true before

he was reappointed to cabinet and François de Gaulle was incensed with the notion that nobody cares in Ottawa that he's not happy about this appointment because they think he's a dead premier walking. And let me surprise

you. In the end, the federal government got a big break this week. that is because the PQ leader, rather than keep the focus where it was in the House of Commons on Mark Miller, turned these guns on Canada's, on Quebec's culture organizations. And then the process shifted the cameras away from Mark Miller and the federal government unto himself attacking his natural allies. And at the end of the week, the biggest loser is the Pabetsuqueque leader. Yeah, and he has, I don't know if he's apologized, but he stood by his words, that's for sure, in the interviews I've seen, but it's curious that he didn't take the opportunity to create, to drive home the wedge, I guess.

But, Andrew, talk to me, I guess, more about what this tells you about maybe Mark Miller. I mean, he's certainly a frank guy, but I don't know if the political instinct is the right one in this instance. Well, yeah, but let's look at that offensive, disgraceful thing he said. He said that there's a problem, there's always a problem with the French language in Quebec. We always want to try and support it, but it's not heading towards Louisiana. I'm paraphrasing that it's not, the only acceptable stand for anybody in public life in Quebec is to claim that the French language is heading towards Louisiana. It's maximal crisis, anything deviating from that, you always get into trouble, which is a peril of any form of identity politics. While it parades around in the name of pluralism, it's really not in the end about differences between groups. It's about enforcing sameness within the group.

So he had deviated from the one correct line in Quebec politics, and so he was excoriated for that. And similarly, the Quebec cultural community was accused essentially of being disloyal to Quebecers because they were applauding his appointment. That tells you all you need to know about the nature of nationalism in particular. Some people would like Canadian nationalism to be just as intolerant and narrow-minded. I just really think it's an illustration of the perils of identity politics. I mean, I'll let others weigh in, except there is, I would say, a difference between identity and language, right? You can put them together, but there is also... They are put together.

They are put together, but it is a little different. Okay, I'm going to get Althea and then I'll get Chantelle to weigh in. So on Mark Miller, I don't want to criticize a politician because there's not that many of them who actually tries to answer the substance. of a reporter's question. So do I think he regrets what he said in the way he said it? Absolutely. But it's also sometimes, you know, kind of refreshing to have somebody that doesn't just speak in canned lines. And part of this is also, I believe, Minister Miller reflecting on some of the old battles, to Andrew's point, that are about identity like Bill 21 and now Bill 21.2.0.

what is interesting is that a little bit like with the debates here they're upping the ante like saying now saying that he's denying the decline of the French language which he did not do this week so I don't know why you need to grandiose up your opponent but it does feel like the big loser of the week and I agree with Chantan on this is Pierre Saint-Bardt, the leader of the Parts Quebecois who a lot of voters I think are looking for an alternative They don't want to vote for the cack again, and they may not be like Arden Federalist, but this man, this week, showed that he's quite a petty man, and you're either with us or against us, is what he told the cultural groups in Quebec, all because their great affront was that they sent a welcome to the new heritage minister.

And then it's like your intellectually was dishonest, vacuous, intellectually vacuous, they're groveling to the federal government. they should, you know, like, I am filled with shame because they should be filled with shame about being so supported by federal dollars and this is why they can't take part in this conversation. Is this the man that you want to have as the Premier of Quebec? I think it's been a terrible, terrible look.

And, you know, the week started off bad for Mark Miller, but he's probably really happy the way things turned out. Yeah, it also seemed like really, like, old-fashioned arguments from the leader of the Patti Quebecois, frankly. like arguments that you would have heard decades ago. But Chantel gave me your time. Actually, not that old-fashioned in the sense that I can't imagine Jacques Paiso or Lucien Boucher or Can I Vivek ever going after the culture community.

Yeah, because they're their allies. In that fashion, he literally accused them of lacking loyalty in Quebec. No one's talking about Mark Miller anymore here. They're all talking about St. Pierre-Lamondon and has a strange sense that if you're not with him, you're disloyal to Quebec. So I understand that Mr. Miller did not want to cause whatever happened, but at the end of the day, it turned out to make life a lot easier for the Carney government. It allowed the Carney government to feature a budget that was actually pretty good for the

culture file, not just in Quebec, but across the board. And it actually served to remind Quebecers that the federal government, when it comes to culture is a major partner in this province. And that matters on a week when they have a former environment minister going on every platform, saying how the government is failing on climate. So unexpected Christmas gift came early, and thank you, Patz, Quebec, should be what Mr. Carney should be saying. Last 32 or so, Andrew.

I just have a quick note on the Gibo and the MOU file. The recent polling out of Quebec shows that 42% favor the MOU to 23% against, so a strong plurality, even in Quebec, in favor of the MOU. You have to let me qualify this. The issue isn't. Do you care about the pipeline far away? The issue is, do you trust Mark Carney to be who you taught. he was. And nobody has asked that. Again, if you look at the approval polls, he's out

polling Gibo two to one. Okay. I think we all need to wait for the Leger poll in Quebec before we weigh in on that issue, because the sample size will be a lot larger. You know what? You know what, Andrew did, though? Andrew just decided to start talking about something he wanted to talk about. So I don't know what's going on. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about John Rustad's resignation from the BC. conservative and what this could mean for the politics in the province that's next at a time when conservative party was virtually non-existent and people took their chance on on me the conservative party will win this next election here to break down what this means for british

columbia chantal andrew and althea i'll start with the caveat that none of us are in bc but So we don't know the intricacies, perhaps, of how this all unfolded. But it is fascinating because, as we were talking about in the other block, it does seem to be a bit of a gift for the premier, David Eby. And I wonder what you guys make of that and what it tells you about the state of the Conservative Party in BC. Andrew, you want to just go first? Sure. I mean, it's not necessarily a gift to Eby because this has been debilitating the conservatives for some time. And so getting something over with and picking a new leader may be to their benefit, but we'll see.

But it's an illustration of the peril. You know, when a political party grows too fast, it can really cause their problems. This is a party that benefited enormously from the collapse of the old BC liberals, later renamed the BC United, and it just ballooned up. And it contains very diverse, to say the least, factions within it. That divide will remain even after Rustad, but perhaps the new leader will be better able at straddling it and handling it than he was. that was the main problem. People, whatever side of that divide they were on, they didn't really trust his judgment after a series of missteps. So, yeah, yeah. Sorry. Go ahead, Andrew. So, as I say,

I just think that's the fundamental problem the party still has to deal with, but personnel matter, leadership matters, and maybe somebody will be more adroit at handling that divide. I wonder, Althea, is it also a rebuke of where Rustad was taking the party and how comfortable people in VCR with where he was going? I guess it depends who you ask because people have different ideas of where he should be going

and he may be saying that he wants to avoid the civil war within his caucus but that's not to say that a leadership race is going to be very neat either I agree with Andrew I'm not sure that this is a blessing

for David Eby in the short term sure but he could face a much stronger leader at the end of a leadership race and a much more competitive election, then it seemed to be going. And the same factions that exist here federally in the Conservative Party also exist in British Columbia. And for a while, it seemed like the kind of

the federal liberal voters in British Columbia had sided with David Eby. But now that, you know, the tired New Democrat government will they try to, you know, reassert themselves in, you know, what used to be the BC Liberal Party? That is the other governing option. And that is the other governing option, right? So it's going to be a really interesting leadership race to watch. Yeah. Chantal? I agree short-term gain probably long-term pain unless they really mess up that leadership campaign. But if they find a unifying figure that is a serious person, it could actually emerge as a government in waiting. So not a great day, I think, for David E.B. No matter what people are saying about that, he gets about six months of unrest.

But who knows what happens at the end of that? Don't forget, BC United, as the liberals had taken to call themselves in BC, basically stood down with their candidates already picked in an election. So this isn't just not a new party. It's a party with the parts were being assembled in the middle of an election campaign. And obviously, not all the parts fit well together, as we've seen since the election. Okay, so I'm the only one that thought it was good for E.B. Sorry, go ahead, Althea. Well, just to remind, like, Canadians outside of British Columbia, they did come really close, like 44 seats to forming government.

So it's not like they're an opposition party with no weight. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Okay. All right. We did pretty well, given we're not in B.C. Thank you all for that. I appreciate it. That is at issue for this week. Do you want to see Canada renew the trade agreement with U.S. and Mexico? What are you thinking of the chances that that will happen? Let us know what you think. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca.

You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We will be back in your podcast feeds next week. Thanks so much for listening. Podcasts.