At Issue - Why are so many MPs crossing to Carney’s team?

Episode Date: March 13, 2026

A fourth member of parliament ditches their party to join Mark Carney’s Liberals. The Conservatives push the government to step up deportations of Iranian Revolutionary Guard members. And Pierre Poilievre takes his speaking tour to the U.S.Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Althia Raj and Aaron Wherry.

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always overdelivers. 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.cairro.ca.com.

This is a CBC podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton this week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, March 12th. I'm very honored to welcome to our caucus. Mr. Carney is trying to stitch together a majority government. Like with any complicated issue, it wasn't just one thing that happened. There are a variety of many things that have allowed me to really put something. This week, we're asking what would a lot of? into the Nunavut MP's decision to cross the floor.

Plus, how is the war in the Middle East being felt here in Canada? How are politicians responding? This move now brings the Liberals just two seats short of a majority with three by-election set for next month. So why are so many MPs joining Cardi's team? What could this latest move mean for the government for the NDP? I'm Rosemary Barton. I'm here to break it all down tonight.

Chantali Bear, Elthia Raj, and in for Mr. Coyne tonight. Aaron Werry joins us. Thanks for being here. All of you. Appreciate it. So Chautel, I'll start with you. I mean, I think one of my colleagues is working on the story of how many people have crossed at what time. But I personally have never seen this many people in one go from two different parties join the government.

And I wonder what it says to you about Mark Carney, the liberals, the moment we're in. So if Joe Clark is listening to us, he would remember that the day he re-entered the House of Commons, This leader of a much diminished progressive conservative party was the day when Jean-Critzain announced that he'd managed to convince a number of his MPs, mostly from Quebec, to crossover to the liberals. These things have happened in the past. They will happen. What's different this time is that I have not found my hard disk is pretty good, but it's not bulletproof. I haven't found examples at the federal level of crossovers that changed the status of the government. I've seen, you know, Belinda Strannock crossed over and saved Paul Martin's government from a confidence vote.

I've watched Stephen Harper swearing David Emerson, who was a liberal minister until he was a conservative minister, a few weeks after the election. but this numbers game is, I guess, what makes it different. Why is happening? I think Canadians are still in the mood that they were in a year ago when they picked the government, i.e. there is still doing the job interview thing. Who do we want to handle Donald Trump and this kind of troubled situation? That is difficult for the Black Quebequa, even more difficult. for the NDP that doesn't not have a leader.

And difficult, obviously, for Pia Puelev. So if you're going to try to be on some side of this fight and have some impact, you're probably going to pick the liberals because the polls, the appreciation of both leaders tell you that this is where you want to be. And I'm guessing that's part of the mix. So between this and then the three by-elections to come in April, all two of which are pretty much liberal strongholds. And then that third in Quebec,

what does this change materially for the government, Althea, or what could it change for the government? We would probably have prerogation and a throne speech to reset everything basically gives the liberals a majority on committees. That is where if there have been any roadblocks, there have been, I would say roadblocks, delays maybe. In most cases, delays that helped actually make the, legislation better, if I can say. So that's what we're going to see. It's a very slight majority,

if there's not a general election call. We are told that they're still talking, notably to conservatives. So it's possible there will be more floor crossers. The liberals are a bit antsy of a one or two-seat majority because it still means that you need to count seats and make sure nobody's sick and nobody's in the bathroom and your own MPs don't start to negotiate. And we saw this week, for example, 15 liberals vote on an NDP private members bill. Some of these liberals are not an entire agreement with the Mark Carney agenda as it has been presented since the election. And so you could see a scenario where actually the opposition comes from the liberal benches, where the backbench MPs feeling emboldened to ask for things from the executive to,

win their vote. Well, that's a really good point, Aaron. Does this give backbench liberals more leverage? Does it make it harder for the prime minister to keep this interesting coalition together? Or because he's so high in the polls and what's going on in the world, none of those things really factor in anymore? I mean, I think the polls are obviously a major influence here, right? The MPs don't cross to parties that are trailing in the polls. And I also suspect that to Chantelle's point that part of the reason you're seeing MPs cross is because the government, the governing party, has a real motivation to draw them to their side, right? If the liberals had a majority right now, they probably wouldn't be expending much effort looking for floor crossers.

That said to your question in Talthea's point, I do think there is an interesting potential narrative here where the liberals get to a narrow majority. and suddenly it's the liberal backbench, which we know has shown itself to have a bit of an independent streak, starts, you know, exerting a bit more influence and is able to kind of steer the government. You know, you look at, for instance, obviously it wasn't a peace of legislation, but Will Greaves speaking up about the government's position on Iran. Well, you know, if the liberals are really clinging to, you know, one or two seats for a majority, it will be interesting to see whether some liberal backbenchers start to kind of, try to exert some influence.

Yeah, and we're going to talk about Iran in the next block a little bit, Chantel. But that's kind of reassuring, because what we're basically saying is, even if the government does end up with a very slim majority, there will still be debate and conditions on whether it can move forward, which is not the same as coming back to Parliament with the sweep after an election, where you can basically afford to lose people along the way. I also think that voters, not just polls, voters are behind this in the sense that this is a very mission-oriented government by virtue of voters' wills. They wanted someone to handle Donald Trump and how we deal with the way forward.

But that is also on the prime minister, but on MPs. And it does drive opposition MPs to want to be part of this in a constructive fashion rather than just. sit back and shoot at the government as opposition parties tend to do unless there is times. So I believe that that is the main attraction. It's not that you could win your seat tomorrow. There's not going to be an election, I don't think. It's that you would probably, and the voters who supported you would want you to be on the good side of this fight. And I think that is going to become a big problem.

problem for Pierre Puelev that he is trying to address now. Yeah, yeah, he is. But it stands to become more complicated. What does it mean for the NDP, Althea? Obviously, you know, they're not an officially recognized party, so losing anyone is a problem. But what do you think it means for them? Can I'll answer that in one second? I just want to point out that Leona Alislav, who was elected as a liberal,

cross the Florida of the Conservatives, to Aaron's point, when the conservatives were actually not leading in the polls. So there have been people who have moved for principal stance. and I'm sure if you ask the four floor crossers why they are moving, they would also say that they are moving for principled stance. What does it mean for the NDP? Actually, well, it's not good news, obviously, and it's not good news for Avi Lewis, who we believe is the frontrunner to win the NDP leadership race later this month, but that is based on fundraising numbers more than anything. who was endorsed by Laureate Loud just last Thursday in Ottawa at a big event down the street here with 800 people. So, you know, he got his second caucus endorsement and a week later she crosses the floor and joins the liberals.

What does that say about Mr. Lewis's grip on what's going on? The other part of that is that they're, the NEP, they're kind of just like dropping like flies, right? Alexander Bullerriss has announced, well, actually he hasn't announced yet, but we believe that he is going to be. be running for Quebec Salilard in the fall. So they're already, they were seven, then they're six, now they're probably going to be five. But it is an opportunity in a way for the new leader to put their stamp on the party, but more than anything, I think it just speaks to the loss of an NDP voice in the House of Commons. It is so noticeable that you don't have a progressive voice. I don't want to say aside from the Black Quebecois, but the Black comes at issues from a

very Quebec perspective. And it is very noticeable in the chamber that that voice is missing. Last 32 there. Yeah, look, I think it's also worth remembering that this isn't the only New Democrat that has joined the Liberals. Their candidate in Scarborough South West

was an Ontario new Democrat. I think it complicates the previous narrative that the reason Mark Carney was attracting floor crossers is because he was essentially a conservative. He was attracting conservative floor crossers. I think the last, The last point I'll make, or the last question I'd raise is whether this changes the way Mark Carney governs.

If he gets a majority, does he become bolder? We've seen this government show a bit of a streak of wanting to move and then having to kind of correct. Or as Althea, I think, pointed out, you know, listen to opposition amendments. Does he become a little less willing to course correct and a little bit bolder if he gets to a majority? Okay. Oh, we're going to take a quick break. Thank you. That was a good part of the conversation.

When we come back, so what challenges have the liberals face? in addressing the war in the Middle East. How is it being felt here in Canada? That's next. The humanitarian situation across the Middle East remains volatile. Canada is committed to supporting diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing tension. We are calling on the government

to table a plan to get rid of these terrorists that are on Canadian soil. So what's been made of how Ottawa has responded? to the conflict in the Middle East. Chantal, Althea, and Aaron are all back for that. I should be clear that the conservatives are looking for the government to deport members of the IRGC. That's something they've long talked about, but they're making their point again this week. It was stark Althea to see the government talk about what it's doing after a difficult period, clarifying its own position, as we talked about last week,

and then to see the conservatives take a very clear position on supporting the mission. and then sort of some of the things that they want done in Canada. What do you make of the contrast of those positions or how do you explain them? Well, the concertos have been pretty consistent with their position. It's this position that they basically hold even pre the attacks on Iran, so it's not like they're flip-flopping. I do think that the nuance of the federal government's position is still almost being shaped.

finessed, if you will. On the IRGC, I do think it's an important point because the King government says it also shares that desire. There are several members that they have identified that the officials use the number of 30, but there are reports that there are far more than that. And they have not actually answered why these people have not been deported or whether or not they have been deported. There's a number suggesting that only one person has been deported. There was a committee meeting on Parliament Hill this week where basically the King of Public was told that no one's being deported because there are no flights to Iran at the moment. But that doesn't explain why they haven't been deported over the last several years. So I think those questions will remain. I think

it brings a whole bunch of other issues to the forefront we've seen this week, not just about deportations of people that should not be here and have been found to not be allowed to be here, but also violence against synagogues in this country. The response that you kind of would have expected a kind of plead for calm from political leaders that I feel was kind of missing this week. Although they did announce some funding for additional security. They announced funding, but you would think that, you know, when you have three synagogues being shot at, there's a cabinet minister or the prime minister who says this is completely

unacceptable and, you know, like you can feel very passionately about what's happening, abroad, but it doesn't mean that you can target your neighbors. Sure. Aaron, what do you make of how challenging this seems to be to navigate for the government? And I mean, it's always more challenging for the government, certainly, but this in particular. I think it's been quite challenging for the first week or so of this conflict. And, you know, as you guys talked about last week, the changing position in it, I guess it's sort of, it's settled now on a call for de-escalation. You know, they haven't gone so far as saying they want to ceasefire. but it sort of feels like they're moving in that direction of wanting the conflict to be over.

I think, you know, as this, I think there's a couple of things going on. One is, as this conflict, the ramifications of it sort of ripple outward, the parties are going to have to deal with those things. You know, for instance, high gas prices, you know, possibility of a global recession, all of the economic consequences. The government in particular is going to have to confront those and figure out a way to respond to them. And then I think the other piece of it is, for at least the liberals and the conservatives, as the ramifications get worse, or if they get worse, I think the questions are going to come back to those original positions they took. And the questions are going to have to be, do you regret supporting this in the first place? Do you, you know, for the conservatives, for instance, do you really believe that the goal of regime change was a good idea? I think that's sort of the position that the two parties are in, you know, is having to not only kind of deal with the ramifications that are coming out of it, but also now explain that original position they took.

Well, given we don't even really know what, you know, success for the United States and Israel looks like concretely, that seems to be quite different approaches for both of those countries, Chantal. Well, I do think that the reasons why there are stresses inside the government, mostly. stem from the haste that the prime minister brought to the issue when he took a position. And on that basis, I believe that's more fixable than the kind of strains that resulted from the Israel versus Gaza and Palestine issue, which really tore apart some sections and threatened Justin Trudeau with resignations at a fairly high level. Now, that being said, if I were a liberal, I would be happy for the conservative position on this because it does leave them vulnerable to the absence of regime change and kind of brings them cover. If you are the government, your main opponent

is going to be the official opposition. The official opposition so far is saying this is all good and we support this mission. It doesn't look like the mission that they're supporting is the mission that's actually happening. And at some point, I believe it's going to come back to bite the official opposition more than the liberals, which is fine for the liberals, even if the prime minister was hasty in his support because he can say, well, at least I reconsider. So I think that's basically where we are at. The other issues are interesting. I'm not denying that we should be looking at why there is not being more action on deportations or what's happening. I do believe there's an absence of leadership on what's been happening at synagogues.

But they are two different conversations. And the central conversation does not involve one or the other. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Pure Pauliev's trip to the United States to push for a trade deal for Canada. That's next. First stop, Michigan, where I'll meet with auto leaders and state legislators to defend an integrated North American auto industry and fight for tariff-free trade. So here to break down Pierre Pauliev's trip to the United States. Chantal Elthia and Aaron are all back. He's not going to Washington and he's doing that purposefully

because he believes that that is not what he should be doing. That is not where he should be going. There's only one prime minister, I think, is the way he explains it. What do you make of where he is going, Aaron, and what he's trying to do here? Yeah, I think it reminds me of a couple things. One is the trips we have seen in the past for opposition leaders to the United States. You know, Justin Trudeau went down to, I can't remember whether it was New York, somewhere in the United States before becoming Prime Minister.

That's kind of a tradition. I think the other piece it reminds me of is the outreach efforts that the liberal government itself made during the last round of trade negotiations, Kuzma, where there was this real effort to reach out to people beyond Washington, American politicians, business interests, and make Canada's case. And insofar as we've been led to believe that, you know, Pierre Pollyevus talked to Mark Carney about this trip, you know, may come back and, you know, we'll see whether he, you know, communicates with the prime minister about what he's learned.

I think it's something, has something in common with that previous effort. I think for Mr. Polyev personally, I suspect he would be wise to consider his friend Jamil Giovanni's trip to the United States, principally for the fact that when Mr. Giovanni was done with his meetings seemed to only have negative things to say about Canada in the interviews afterwards and got himself in a fair bit of trouble. And I think that's, if there's a risk here for Pierre Polyev, it's to not fall into that trap. Yeah, I mean, Politico did some reporting around, you know, why he hasn't been to Washington and whether he has anyone to talk to and that kind of stuff. What stood out for me in that, in that story, though, is that he has been a little bit

insular up until now, right? Like, he hasn't really sought out allies in other ways. You could even say that same about premieres. And I wonder, Althea, how you read this then? Is that trying to course correct again, trying to reach out to more people, trying to deal with the issues at hand? How are you seeing it? Well, the original stance of being a non-internationalist

was on purpose, remember? Like all the talk about the World Economic Forum and, you know, like he was setting him up, sitting himself up to be very different than Justin Trudeau. and like very different than Prime Minister Carney. I don't know that we can say, because I don't know this to be true, that they purposefully chose not to go to Washington

because of the reasons that you outlined. I think that's what they are telling us. But, you know, several conservative members of the shadow cabinet, Andrew Shearer has been to Washington, D.C. I'm sure that Pierre Puehliav would have been able to get meetings with people. I think they probably did not want to say, well, you're meeting with, like, low-level people and bring forward those comparisons.

So I think that was a purposeful decision on their part to avoid Washington for those comparisons. The other two things I think are interesting is in that video, he talks about, as I speech I gave, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So, like, speeches are back in vogue, which as a political nerd, I thought was really fun. But on the messaging where he talks about tariff-free trade, this is interesting because we're going to hear a lot more about this. He's laying down a benchmark for success. Back in August, the prime minister told his cabinet that it was very likely that Canada would have to agree to some form of baseline tariff through Kismat talks or through free trade talks with the United States to alleviate the tariffs that already exist, that there would be like a certain percentage of goods that can go across the border freely, but then tariffs start being imposed. And so basically Mr. Poliav is laying down the message track. say, aha, you did not get success.

Yeah, but he's putting a bar for himself then for the next election too. I mean, that's the potential problem for him. Yeah, Chantal. That does beg the question. Yes. So what would you have done to get this pair of free deal? Because it's easy to say you didn't get this. You didn't climb to the moon.

But yeah, sure, how would you get to climb to the moon? And from everything I hear on business circles, it does not make that a more serious proposition because you keep repeating it. That is not the expectation at this point that this is necessarily feasible. Now, going to Detroit, and I say this as someone who used to cover the auto industry, going to Detroit to blow the horn for a tariff-free auto-packs is like going to Windsor. You're preaching to the converted. The market there is basically aligned, so not a big challenge.

Not going to Washington, I'm going to go without you. It's easier to get meetings. It's hard to get meetings in Washington with top people when you're from Canada. It's easy, and you're in opposition. It's easier to get them when you're 20 points ahead. It's really hard to get them when you're 15 points behind. And I'll leave that there. Okay. Thank you all for being here.

Appreciate it. Erin. Thanks for pinch hitting for Mr. Coyne. Good to see you all. That's at issue for this week. What do you think about floor crossers? Are you worried about violence in Canada related to the war in Iran? 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. Thanks so much for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.com.