At Issue - Will there be fallout from the budget vote?

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

The Liberals get their budget passed, but will there be fallout from the vote? Alberta’s push for a pipeline and exemptions to B.C.’s oil tanker ban. And U.S. ambassador Pete Hoekstra says restarting trade talks ‘won’t be easy.’ 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 ad issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, November 20th. I'm very pleased that we passed the budget vote. I salute the 170 members of the House who supported it. The consequences of defeating this budget would not be to improve it or to help Canadians. They were not good partners for anybody.

They exploited the momentary weaknesses of everybody. So this week, we're asking what's to be made of how the liberals got their budget through? Will there be any fallout from the vote? Plus, Alberta and Ottawa are closer now to a memorandum of understanding that could lead to another pipeline. So what's to be made of how the liberals got their budget passed and will there be fallout from the vote? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down, Chantelle-A-Barre, Andrew Coyne, and Althea Raj. First of all, I can't believe that this was just this week. But it was. It's been one of those weeks.

So they got it done, Chantelle, but it was very tight. And up until the last minute, the liberals didn't seem to know whether they had it or not. What does that tell you about sort of the dynamic inside the House of Commons right now? Two things. In the present, if Francois Blanchet is right, two of the opposition parties, the new Democrats and the Conservatives, wanted to avoid an election and acted accordingly, which is in sync, by the way, with how a majority of Canadians feel. There is no sense when you look at the polls that Canadians are feeling

buyers' remorse about the outcome of the election or that they want to revisit it at this juncture. So that's the present win for the government. The cost of that win may show up in the next few months because the thing with the best case scenario would have been some party saying I don't agree with everything in this budget but I think there's enough in there that I can support it. No opposition party regardless of the vote supports the budget and that basically means that there are grounds to believe that there's not a lot of goodwill for the government across the aisle and a minority government needs goodwill. So yes, a position of strength for the current government on that vote.

But a bill for that may be a difficulty to get goodwill when you need it on legislation from the other side of the aisle. Yeah, I mean, I don't really even know, and we talked about it a lot on Monday. I don't even know to what extent there was an attempt for goodwill and negotiation. I'm not sure that that was even happening in any real way behind the scenes. But Andrew, give me your sense of what that told us that day. Well, I'm not sure you really need goodwill.

I mean, obviously, it's nicer if you do. But if the government was 20 or 30 seats short of a majority, I suspect it would be looking for more goodwill and generating more. When you're only one or two seats sort of a majority, frankly, you don't need it that much. It was absolutely predicted. I think I did predict that the NDP would never vote to bring this government down. They cannot face an election. They're deeply in debt.

It was perhaps less predictable that the Conservatives would also not be in a position to want to go into an election. But when you look at their polling numbers, at least for their leader, when you look at the divisions within the caucus that have been emerging in recent weeks, there was no way they wanted to go into an election either. So they can concoct all the reasons and the stratagems and the games playing with my app didn't work all you like. But at the end of the day, both parties basically manufactured a bit of theater that they were prepared to defeat the budget. but neither of them was ever going to. And what does, Althea, what does that mean for moving forward,

given that there wasn't a lot of room there really for negotiation from the government side either? I guess two things. One, the government refused to fundamentally change its budget, but they did give kind of miniature trinkets to the opposition, hoping that that would be enough to sway them. For example, some of the programs that Gore-Johns, the NDPNPN, PN, in Vancouver Island wanted, got funded. They funded some programs that

I Francois Blanchet, the leader of the block specifically asked for, but they never fully went in on like a big billion dollar program or increases to health care that were part of the asks. Even Elizabeth May, who insisted, you know, the week prior by like dropping the budget

and stomping on it that unless it was amended, it would not have her vote, they were still negotiating with her like hours before the actual vote. And she didn't get much, but she got enough because she was transparent about, I don't want this government to fall. I think to the second point, the risk is the opposition parties are actually also not talking to each other. And that's where I think we might actually have some

problems, whereas the Black KBQA over the weekend seemed surprised that the NDP was thinking about voting against the budget. And now that the NDP and the Black and even Elizabeth May realize that the conservatives actually did not want an election more than that. than anybody else, there may be the potential for errors because aside for May, no one came out and clearly said, this is how I'm voting ahead of the vote. This is why I'm voting ahead of the vote. And so there were a lot of last minute scrambles. And the conservatives were not honest. They still really aren't really honest about what their strategy was. And so I think we could find ourselves in a situation that is not necessarily if the government's

making, and I will say the conservatives, they were actually paranoid that the liberals really wanted an election. Even though the elections were not ready, they genuinely seemed to believe that there was a risk that the liberals would withhold some votes, and then we would find ourselves in an election. So there's a lot of distress around this House of Commons. Shantel, you want it in there. Yeah, I still believe that going forward, and I'm talking months here, but the next phase is a stabilization of the opposition leadership. I, does Pierre Poilev, keep his job, does he not? And if not, then a new leader.

And who leads the NDP? So I believe the government may find that it's having a hard time moving legislation through committees. Because in committees, the bloc and the conservatives together have the majority. But I don't believe we will see a serious election trap. Actually, in my calendar, I don't see that until next fall's budget. Because at some point in between all these leadership things, there will be a Quebec election.

And that takes us basically to the next budget. So if I were Mark Carney, I would consider this possibly the most productive period of my tenure. The next eight, nine, 12 months will see what happens. this time next year? Okay. Last word to you, Andrew? This is a government in a relatively strong position that all three parties have to vote together to bring it down.

I think we're basically going back to the days of Stephen Harper, where a government in possession of a strong majority, if it's able to play them off against each other, can last a surprisingly long time. So we got used to the idea under the Trudeau government with the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP, that that was the way you do things. But it's traditionally not been the way. This is more like a normal minority government in that way. Yeah.

And so drama awaits in the month's head. Okay, we're going to leave this part there. When we come back, we will take a look at an agreement that is going to happen soon between Ottawa and Alberta about a potential pipeline. So what does that mean? And how will British Columbia react to talk of another pipeline? That's next. This is about politics. And it's about a wedge issue for the premier.

of Alberta, that she finds politically advantageous. The Premier of Alberta has said she's quite supportive of what we're doing and is looking forward to finishing the conversations with the Prime Minister. So could there be another pipeline? How could B.C. challenge it or stop it? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew and Althea. Althea, you wrote about this today. So I'll start with you. What do you make of what Ottawa is trying to do here and whether this is a real potential of another pipeline to the West Coast? I think they want to give of Danielle Smith, the at least semblance of a win, I do think that Mr. Carney, a little bit like

Justin Trudeau back in 2016, 2015, in the lead-up, you know, the environment and the economy go hand in hand, and yes, we're concerned and alert to the needs of Albertans and their desires, and we want to see that actualize, and so here we go, we will buy the TMX pipeline, and we will twin it. And so I do think that there is a genuine effort on behalf of the government to see a pipeline proposal go through, along with a long list of ifs and buts that have given those in caucus the feeling that this is never going to see the light of day, either because the Pathways project, this is a massive carbon sequestration project, is at least, you know, five, eight years down the line, even if it starts getting built, that Alberta

would have to beef up its industrial price in order to make this house. happen and clean up its system. And the biggest thing really is that initially, at least, the governments that British Columbia would have to say yes. And of course, coastal first nations have to say yes because it goes through their land and there are constitutional obligations, not just regular kind of practices, conventions,

in the same way that BC is saying yes. That seems to have changed this week with Hodgson's office, the Natural Resources Minister's office, saying, no, no, BC doesn't get a veto. Our strong preference is for British Columbia to say yes. And now we have the premier British Columbia kind of pointing out the obvious. Like, if you really want to expand access to Asia, why not just triple or increase the flow of the TMX pipeline? It's already there. You avoid all the squabbles with indigenous

First Nations. You're not going through the Great Bear rainforest. Like, here's an easy pathway to a yes. And for a lot of people, it's not clear why Dania Smith is not jumping on that. Chantelle, what do you think is going on here? I believe Mark Carney is at the fork in the road. He can go for what Alt here just mentioned, i.e. an increase in the capacity of the trans mountain pipeline. It's already there. The government of BC, which initially opposed it, supports it,

is ready to do what is needed, and more oil would flow out now, not in 10 years, but starting next year. And that could be a win for BC in the sense that they've gotten themselves out of the way. A win for the federal government. They would get more stringent climate policies in place in Alberta. And a win for the Premier of Alberta, who instead of going into a fight that will outlast or tenure as Premier, would be able to say, I actually achieved this getting more oil to market. that is not the U.S.

Throw in Keystone Excel if it gets completed, and you've got the elements of something that you can show to Albertans. The other road leads to chaos for the liberals, according to me. One, I don't think the coastal First Nations are going to change their minds on the tanker ban. It's a very solid position that they fought for more than a decade. I don't believe the BC government is going to cave.

I believe the Quebec government among others, would look at this and say, they are forcing a pipeline down the throat of BC. What does that mean for Quebec voters? And I believe that it would create tensions that could see Mark Kearney. We talked about his strong minority. It could make his minority a lot weaker on top of hurting its election prospects. Because the NDP federally will campaign in BC against a pipeline plan. And the conservatives will campaign forward. it and where does that leave the liberals losing seats? So me, I would pick the solution that does actually bring more oil to market and not the

one that creates a political quandary that may or may not see a pipeline operate in a decade. It doesn't sound as though this deal is going to just say, okay, we approve a pipeline, off it goes. It's not going to be that categorical. And I would imagine the political risk to something like that would be much too high for the government too, Andrew. Well, in a rational world, everything Chantel says makes rational and reasonable sense, but we're not necessarily in the realm of reason here.

The pipeline has become symbolic in Alberta, at least among some Albertans, of whether it's respected and treated fairly in the Federation. So, yes, in the short term, if you expanded capacity in the Trans Mountain, that would probably be enough, maybe not in the long term, and that can be debated. That depends on the state of oil markets, et cetera. But look, we're already making progress if we're looking at the broad outlines of this memorandum of understanding in terms of the feds give up some things that they should probably give up, things like the emissions cap. The province gives up, gives ground on things like a tighter industrial pricing regime.

That's all sensible and good. And as for the actual building the pipeline, I suppose I might quote the great McKenzie King, a pipeline if necessary, but not necessarily a pipeline. You can push it out into the theoretical, the hypothetical, the future. You can still be saying, in principle, we approve it. We're going to work towards it. But you don't necessarily have to commit to building it right now or, you know, until some future government. But I only have a few minutes left, Althea, but you have to, like, that has to be believed, right? If you're going to say we are in favor of it, hypothetically, theoretically, at some point in the future,

that the promise has to be good enough that people believe that, right? and we'll sign on to it. Well, it's hard to see how this project, I mean, right now, she's committed $14 million to, like, looking into it. There's no private proponent. It's possible that the province of Alberta becomes that proponent, but there's so many hurdles. And the thing is, when you look back at the politics of all this,

none of it really makes sense. It kind of doesn't seem like they want to get to a yes. Alberta has only put forward one project proposal for the major projects list. I mean, part of it was pathways, but it's really just this pipeline. And, you know, you look at British Columbia, like, what, last week? It had three projects on the list.

You know, like, if you want more things, instead of saying, like, well, this is the proof point that the Canadian Federation doesn't work if we don't get our way, why don't you suggest, I don't know, a high-speed train from Calgary to Edmonton or a new electricity grid or whatever, I don't know. So that's odd.

the natural resources minister, if he was really interested in trying to make this work, you would think would have accepted the Coastal First Nations requests, repeated requests, to meet with him. No, he meets with oil executives all the time, but has never met with the Coastal First Nations. So you can see where there are some people in the Liberal Caucus who are like, you know, this is just a song and dance for Alberta. We have 20 seats in British Columbia. We would lose a bunch of seats if this pipeline proposal goes through. And so clearly the Kearney government can't be that stupid. That is what some caucus members genuinely believe. But, Shantel, quickly, but it can't just be a song and dance for Alberta, because that's not

going to fly in Alberta either. But go ahead, Chantel. Which is why. I mean, maybe I'm missing something here, but do you want a possible pipeline that's unlikely to be built in a decade, or do you want to move more oil to market is basically where we're at at this point, absent a private sector proponent for the pipeline that may never get built and that will be stuck in litigation, you know that provinces have ways to stop projects. That's how Pickering Airport didn't happen. The province said we're not building the municipal infrastructure. That's what Christy Clark wanted to do with Northern Gateway. So you can have the constitutional right to decree a pipeline. That doesn't mean you'll ever see one.

20 seconds, Andrew. Well, you can do both. You can get the TMX expansion and you you can also, as I say, if you're not committed to it right now, but sort of dangle the prospect of another pipeline. I would say there's gains for the liberals in this, not just in Alberta, but in positioning themselves on the center-right perspective as well. This would reverberate across the country in a way in terms of the way voters looked at them, particularly the conservative voters who are prepared to switch to the liberals

if they get the right vibe from them. Okay, we'll leave it there. If this is coming soon, I'm sure we'll talk about it again. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the U.S. ambassador's latest comments on trade talks with Canada. That's next. I've got suggestions that I think can get it restarted, but it's not going to be easy. I would suggest that you seriously consider whether that is the best way to try to achieve your objectives in the United States.

States of America. So what are these latest comments from the U.S. Ambassador mean for Canada? Let's bring everyone back. Shantelle, Andrew, Elthia. Andrew, I saw you commenting on it on social media, so I will start with you. What do you make of the ambassador's approach? He also said in those same comments that the F-35 deal, purchasing the F-35s would help us get to a deal. He has lots of advice for Canada on how to manage things here. Well, first of all, I continue to wonder why he's here. You know, the role of a diplomat is usually considered to be to try to to persuade another country to see things your government's way, or and or to gather information on what people in other countries are thinking about it and report back to your home base.

Well, he's making no effort to persuade, and by his own accounts, he's making, made no effort to try to understand our position. He professes himself baffled that we would object to being made into the 51st state. But look, this question has always been hanging in the air is, okay, we try to diversify our trade, we try to diversify our defense procurement policy. what do the Americans do in response? And what we're seeing is, I think, the beginnings of a quite concerted campaign to ham in our options on that, to say, no, you're going to have to buy American defense procurement.

You're going to have to abake American dictates on when it comes to your own independent foreign policy or independent trade policy. So if we were to cave, for example, on this demand that you have to buy the F-35 if you want to get a trade deal, are we going to imagine that's going to be the end of it? That will be the beginning of it. We have no way to believe that if we were to give in on this,

that there wouldn't be future demands and further demands on top of this. And even if we gave into those demands that Donald Trump would ever deliver on his side of the bargain. So we should be really careful about this. I also think he's a bit late to the party. I'm not sure that Canadians believe

that there is a serious solid trade deal to be had from this administration anymore. And he's at the very least going out of his way not to read the room. No one is talking about Premier Ford's campaign in this country at this point. But if he wants to raise the issue of what we want to accomplish in the U.S., I'll pick a lane. We're either interfering in their politics and having an impact. or we're not meeting our goals, I think he confuses the US with the Trump administration, two different things.

As for the F-35, what that tells me is that there is leverage here for Canada. I'm not sure, like Andrew, that you should want to make that choice based on wanting a trade deal from someone who is no respect for his own trade deals, Kuzma. But it does show that this file does offer Canada some leverage. Althea? I agree with Chantan. I don't think this is the beginning. I mean, this is the way the Trump administration has been treating the federal government since basically Mark Carney became prime minister, right? Like we got, or the federal government caved on the digital service tax and what did they get in return? Nothing. They caved on the reciprocity tariffs and what did they get in return? Nothing. So it's not clear what we have, we were prepared to give, frankly, before the trade talks got stalled or hit pause. And now it feels like maybe the federal government has wised up. You know, it's a pretty big deal to have the king and queen of Sweden to show up here on a full PR effort to try to get us. I mean, it's a massive

billion dollar, many billions of dollar purchase. But so we have leverage to play people off each other. I think there's also real national security concerns why we may not want. the F-35. But that is still a very live debate in this government still for what we've been talking about this for almost 20 years. So I don't know who will end up winning at the end of the day, but it has shown that there are different ways that we can approach the Trump administration in the same way, frankly, that that Ontario ad had an impact, a huge impact. Donald Trump may have amplified that impact. But I don't think that we are worse off than we were a month ago before all of this chaos kind of started and everything hit pause.

I'm going to leave that there. Thank you. Good conversation, as always. Appreciate all of you. That's at issue for this week. What do you think about the growing talk of another pipeline to the West Coast? And does budget 2025 help you deal with affordability, housing, anything? Let us know what you think. You can send us an email at Ask at cbc.a. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton live. That's on Sundays at 10am Eastern. We will be back here in your podcast, next week. Thanks for listening.