At Issue - Your 2026 Canadian politics primer

Episode Date: January 2, 2026

CBC chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton asks The National’s At Issue panel to look ahead to 2026 and what might be the biggest stories in Canadian politics. 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, January 1st. My wife's plan is to continue to lead to be the only leader in the country that's fighting for an affordable Canada. I am not certain that oil and gas qualify to define a culture. A lot of it does come in from Canada, and so we'll end up putting very severe tariffs on that if we have to. So what's on the horizon politically for 2026 and what topics will dominate the headlines from pipelines to major projects, trade wars, and everything in between?

So what will be the biggest stories going into the next year? What will be the challenges facing the government? I'm Rosemary Barton, here to break it all down in person again. Chantelle I bear, Andrew Coyne, El Theobrage. I should say that none of you like me asking what's going to happen in 2026. So that's the cap on the entire panel. This one's not terrible, though. This one's not terrible.

leader or MP or politician to watch in 26? Andrew, you have 17 answers, so would you like to choose one of them? Whoever becomes the NDP leader. Oh, really? The NDP is in an absolute crossroads here. It's always Canadian politics. We've had three or four or five party politics since 1921, leaving aside the block, but in the configuration of parties that are actually vying for power in the country. If they cannot come back, they were into a different type of politics. That's important, not just for the NDP, but for the other parties.

The liberal strategy in every election is to try to tell NDPers you can't vote for the NDP. You have to vote for us to keep the conservatives out. The conservatives need the NDP to do well, to split the vote. So it will absolutely shape not just the future of the NDP, but Canadian politics. So it's less about who wins and more about the impact? Well, but who wins and what they represent is critical. Do they still pitch to downtown progressives at the expense of the blue-collar vote, which is increasingly astraying to the conservatives? Did they try to go back towards the union vote? Do they try to find a leader who could straddle the two?

That's a critical choice. Person to watch. Do they have someone in the lineup that fits all those definitions? Yeah, I don't know. Quebec leaders. At large, yeah. At large, there's an election coming. The liberal leader has been struggling as we taped this.

Francois Lego, the Quebec Premier, is deeply unpopular. and the Patsykevicoat leader who is leading in the polls, like an election tomorrow based on polls, would see a sweep of Francophone Quebec. He stepped in it, though, a few times. But he's untested, yes, and has many features that have reminded at the year's end, have reminded Quebecers of another leader

that has become unloved in Quebec called Pierre Pueleve. And that style is what has done harm to the conservatives in Quebec, And that same style could really hurt the PQ. So it's going to be interesting to see how the dynamics, what the final lineup looks like, which I believe we don't know yet. And then how this PQ leader who wants to have a referendum and win it, presumably is going to handle the pressure of an election campaign. He's about as pleasant in a news conference or in a scrum as Pia Puehliev.

I'll see a political leader to watch. The prime minister. I think that we didn't really know who Mark Kearney was and 2025 helped put a little bit of color around the lines. And I think 2026 will give us a far better indication of who he is and where he wants to go and what his focus is, especially in light of a possible new NDP leader. Does that force a correction, a realignment among the, liberal prime minister. So, yeah.

And can he deliver on all the things he's talking about, right? Because that's part of what we don't know. We can talk about that too, but he seems to be having a hard time delivering on legislation. Yeah. Biggest political challenge for next year, Chantal. Thus far, right? Everything is with a caveat.

I guess snatching Kuzma intact from the jaws of the, the ever-chewing jaws of the Trump administration is going to be a challenge. It's like watching a yo-yo, right? One day, we should have separate negotiations with Canada and Mexico. Other days, we shouldn't have that deal at all. It's kind of a dog's breakfast. It's going to be really hard to know if you're actually talking to adults when you talk about the issue. And then there's the U.S. dynamics.

It's unpredictable, but we talked on other shows about how all the normal bars are being taken down. but people still vote and so far they have been voting in a way that says we don't agree with what's happening. And midterms could change that. Your answer is along those lines too. Yeah, I think the biggest challenge

will be addressing the relationship with the United States, whether that's maintaining Kizma, which I don't know if we will be able to maintain, but maybe we'll have a year-to-year lease on life. But also, like, addressing the Trump relationship we saw with the national security strategy for example, how can Mark Carney and the liberals

kind of reconcile those two things and the elbows up 2015 campaign promises? I think that's going to be a real challenge. Andrew? I have several answers, but they all blow it onto one, which is we're in the age of the public crisis. You name it. Whether you're talking about the national security threat, not necessarily annexing candidate, but certainly attempting to turn us into a vassal state. You look at the foreign interference activities of China and Russia. We may be having a separatist government elected in Quebec,

but we may also have a separatist referendum in Alberta, so the first time we'd be fighting that on two fronts. You've got the United States falling into a recession potentially. What can that mean for Canada? Here's what I'm really worried is to put all those together. We have such stresses and strains with the economy now, where we have very different economic bases in different parts of the country. That's pulling and pushing on us.

You've got foreign agents and foreign powers that want to exacerbate those. divisions. Do we see, like, if you saw a separatist movement now in, in Canada, in whatever province, what do you think the response of Donald Trump would be? Would it be what every previous president had been? I've either not my affair, or we would prefer United Canada, or would he be begging them on and encourage them? I'm guessing, in the case of Alberto or Saskatchewan, he would be encouraging. Yeah, but Quebec might be. I don't think he wants the Quebec thing. Okay. And that's reciprocal. But he, but to cause trouble. But he, but to cause trouble.

for candidates. Yeah, it's harder to do in Quebec because of the language thing. Okay, could we see leadership changes? Obviously, Pierre Paulyev has a review in January. Chantal, do you think we could see any leadership changes? That's really a really mean question

to ask you all, to be fair. The short answer is, I don't know, but the one thing I do know for sure is Mr. Pueleev has become a drag on his party that's clear, that's documented. If the conservatives want to keep him, they will be doing so with their eyes wide open.

And by the way, he did get a lot of conservative votes in the last election, but some of those votes, considering the circumstances, could actually switch to a more blue liberal, Mark Carney government. So there are perils to continuing with a leader who's a drag on the party, but it's their choice. Althea, leadership changes? I don't think we will see a leadership change

in the Conservative Party I could be surprised I think that is Mr. Carney's greatest gift for 2026 we will obviously see leadership changes in the NDP

and if Elizabeth May can convince somebody to replace her we may see leadership change with the Black Kibikwad too Black Kibikwit Green Party will she got her

she got her party so let's be a long year well there'll be a change at the top of the Greens unless Elizabeth May Renee so we'll see. That's right. I agree that I don't think

the Conservatives are going to replace the difficulty that got is if he survives the leadership review with the membership at large, which I think people expect to do, it'll be tough for the caucus that would like to see him go or large sections of it

would like to see him go to, they'd have to wait a decent interval, I think, before they try to. You may see a leadership change of a kind, which is once he's got the leadership review out of the way, Yes.

We may see a different Pierre Poyette. That's right. We may. But it may give him the opportunity for a reset. To moderate a bit? Is that what you're saying? Well, moderate, certainly in tone. We saw flashes of that intermittently in the fall.

But it would be interesting to see if he takes this opportunity to reintroduce himself to the Canadian public. It's really hard to make a good second impression. Not unknown. And there's a sentence in French, chase away the natural and it comes back running. and that is what I've seen over the past six months people who were saying after the election he's going to try to that didn't happen

in the end he always doubles them you are who you are no no no I mean members Jean Charette Quebecers were done with them we've never be able to somehow reintroduced himself for Quebecers did not make as many enemies on the way down

that he had to turn into friends on the way up but it's also his brand Why would he, like, I think the part of the pivot that was challenging for him was people saw him. His own supporters saw him as this authentic voice. And then it seemed a little inauthentic. And now he's gone back to being, I think, who he actually is. So to pivot back, I don't know.

Okay. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk more with that issue. That's next. The liberals can't count on me voting confidence in the government. again. This is a test of whether Canada works as a country. Trying to appease separatist movement in part of the country by fueling them in another part of the country. Welcome back from pipelines to separatism, party leaders, to floor

crossings, lots of topics on the horizon for 2026. Lots still talk about with that issue, Chantal, Andrew, Elthia. Elthia, I'm going to start with you. Again, these questions are really mean, but I'm asking them anyway, because that's why you're all here. How long do you think the government will survive? Well, I don't know. Yes. Start there. I think surviving a confidence vote in the spring is going to be a challenge.

How many conservatives can fit behind the curtain? Allegedly. We saw them. I don't see how Elizabeth May votes confidence in the government. I don't see how new Democrats, unless they have no hope of running for their own seat and are looking for things for their own writings which vote or abstain, along with the government. I don't see the Black Quebecois voting with the government,

so you're relying on the conservatives. The liberals would like to have an election in the spring, but they don't want to be seen as triggering the election. Is there necessarily a confidence vote, though, in this way? First of all, all of the budgetary measures that we're introduced in the spring have not passed, so there will be a string of confidence measures early in the New Year, And then there's supposed to be a fiscal update, which would be a nice time to have a spring, summer election, as opposed to a Christmas time election.

But there are a few challenges. This MOU with Alberta, the negotiations are supposed to end on April 1st. Already, the Environment Minister is changing the benchmark. She's talking about equivalency requirements and things like that. So there's potential for more attention coming, and you could see why if the government thinks it would lose or have to suffer some sort of defeat on Kuzma that they would rather go earlier than later. So there's a lot of incentives for them to go in the spring.

The other potential question mark is if Pierre Puelev wins the conservative leadership with large numbers, to some members in his caucus that Andrew was talking about who are very uncomfortable with him, do they decide to cross the floor? What do you think? What is it like how long?

I mean, we all know approximately how long they last, right? They last about 18 months. 18 to 24 months, and the next fall is, at least the first half of the fall, is out of the play of an election because of the Quebec election. So that doesn't mean you can't have a federal election back-to-back. It happened before, and there will be a budget in the fall. So there is a window in the fall. But I agree with Althea that every confidence vote looks harder to win and more dependent on the conservatives. I think the MOU at Alberta has given the NDP more reasons not to abstain on confidence votes

that they hope that they can edge their way back to official party status with a new leader with B.C. votes. And they also believe that the liberals or the conservatives would not have enough support to form a majority government because in Quebec, Mark Carney and the liberals will take a hit at this point. Wouldn't that MOU make it maybe difficult for the conservatives to vote against the government if they feel like they're getting closer to an actual project? But Piapolyev already took a hit for not, for ensuring that an election did not happen. There's a limit to that. And there is also a limit to how much, you know, at some point you start looking so weak as the opposition leader.

And you're already a drag on the party. I'm assuming he's reconducted, obviously, as leader. Otherwise, I don't think we would have an election because the conservatives would pick a new leader, very bad news, I think, for Mr. Carney. And the NDP, once it has a leader, who will not be trading favors easily with the liberals, I think. I think the question is whether liberals want to survive.

It's going to depend on a few things. But Mark Carney had a very relatively easy year because the conservatives were demoralized, the leader lost his own seat, and he had this leadership review hanging on his head. The NDP are absolutely flat in their backs, that they're not going to be much of a threat on it. So he had this total freedom of movement, basically,

to move the party well over to the right. That's going to get much tighter squeeze in the election action. Let's assume Pierre Pali Evers has an accessible leadership review, reintroduced themselves to the public. Let's assume the NDP makes a sensible choice for their leadership, positions themselves as straddling that divide that we talked about earlier, but certainly, you know, gets some renewed energy. Then does he wait and let both of those things continue,

lest the NDP grow stronger, less the Conservatives grow stronger? Does he wait, particularly given all these storm clouds that are gathering over the country, economically, separatist threats, Donald Trump, et cetera, or is it more in his interest to go then? Now, calling election, we theoretically have a fixed-date election law in this country, which everybody ignores. That's funny. But it is certainly, even if he doesn't want to do that,

beyond the ingenuity of governments to contrive their own defeat. And if I were betting, man, I'd say in the spring. But there are more in history, recent history, more governments that try to transform minority to majority and failed than the alternative. Yeah, Jean Charié succeeded. Bill Davis got the same result. Justin Trudeau, let's talk about that attempt.

Pauline Marois, you look at, you know, and often they started the campaign on a lead. Yeah. I think the question is less, is this, the positive opportunity for him is, is this the least bad? Is this the way to stave off a worse outcome? But they don't want to be punished by the voters for going now because polls suggest that people don't want an election.

I do think that a lot will depend on Pierre Pueleev because there is a large part of the conservative base that is like, well, you keep telling us the liberals are terrible and they're corrupt and they're this and they're that, well then why are you negating on these opportunities to have an election and replace them? And if Mr. Poliye feels that Mr. Carney has a weakness in Quebec because of what has just happened and feels like the NDP could pop up in urban centers and split the vote there on Vancouver Island, for example,

that Mr. Poliyev might decide, okay, well, the cards are there for me. I mean, he's not a stupid person. He knows that if he goes and he fails again, he's probably gone. But, you know, looking at the polls, they're pretty much neck and neck. So a lot can happen. To prefer PM, yeah. Except when it comes to prefer. But those people, I'm sorry, but I really think the vast majority of people who really dislike your poliye have probably probably voted for Mark Carney in the last election anyways.

Okay. So I'm not sure how much growth there is on that side. We're going to take a short break here when we come back. We'll talk about Canada's push for a trade deal. And if hope remains for a carve-out, that's next. Welcome back. We're looking ahead to the year, 2026, what we can expect in Canadian politics. Here again, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. A couple of topics we'll try and cover very quickly. The province to watch. There's a lot of them. Chantau. I'll pick Quebec because the major provinces in theory are not having elections this year. And Quebec is having what looks like a change election. And the change at this point is headed towards the Patskiew.

and a firm commitment to another referendum on sovereignty. Lots of happy hours. But you both had the same answer, so we'll open up the conversation. Do Quebecers want that referendum? No. No. 66. Two-thirds, no, including, I think, one in four that supports the PQ,

what's happening is people want change. Yes. Only two parties have governed Quebec, except for the CECC recently. the liberals who are then impossible to describe the situation. It's such a massive. It's bad. Yes, but they're not in play at this point. And the Patschieucois, so people are falling back on the Pats Quebecois because...

Yeah, I mean, and you guys jump in here. I find that so, it's so interesting because, yes, you fall back on it and then hope that they don't follow through their promise, which we've lived through with other leaders, Bernard Landry and others where there's constant demand for a referendum that never... Yes, but since the last referendum, this is

the first time the PQ would campaign on having a referendum and by the way in all the previous elections since 1995, the second the word referendum was mentioned, the PQ dropped. So this hasn't played out yet.

Nobody wants a referendum in Alberta either but they may get one. you know, highly leveraged groups can have disproportionate influence. I think Alberta is at least as much problems to watch as Quebec, partly because of the continuing drama around the MOU and what happens with the pipeline and how that can feed into both provincial politics and federal politics. But I'll say again, if we get in a situation where we have referendums in two provinces,

we've never had to deal with anything like that in our history. Well, I also said the Quebec election, I think it's worth remembering that support for the referendum sovereignty was basically a little bit higher, but almost where it is now. And so things can get tighter. And I think that is, that's not a 2026 thing to watch. It's a 2027 thing to watch. Or 28 or 30. Yeah. But it's not without, elections are not without.

consequence, I think, is where you were going. The other thing to watch about that, Quebec is there's five parties with at least 8% support in the polls. The boat splits are going to be wild. At one point, the PQ, they've gone up in the polls, but at one point they were at about 32% in the polls, and they were still projecting

a majority for them. Okay, very quickly, like 90 seconds, will we get a trade deal with the U.S.? Do we want one? Or Kate? You can answer that one, too. I think we have, I still believe that time is our friend.

And I'm watching what's happening, you know, to the president's popularity and the various votes. And what business is telling the president and what the economy is doing. And maybe so, but I think the difference between now and this time last year is we're not so desperate

to get a quick deal. Yeah, we're not. But as the prime minister continues to point out, we still have a better deal than most people. That's right. Yeah. The United States is potentially descending into some kind of chaos in the next year. Potentially.

Donald Trump is down in the 30% poll, but he shows no sign of worry about it, which means how likely is it that they're going to have a free and fair election in the midterms? I think it's 50-50 at best. So, yeah, I think I've said this many times. The best play is to rag the puck, drag things out as long as you can. Yes, we want a deal, but we also don't want to be blackmailed. And part of Donald Trump's agenda, as weird and crazy as it is, is to bring us to our knees. And one way of doing that is using the dangling the free trade deal and saying, do this, that, and the other thing, otherwise no trade deal.

We cannot be put in a position of yielding to blackmail on that. I think the government already knows that, right? Otherwise, they would have agreed to sort of the things that were floated earlier in June and later in August. Will we get a trade deal? I agree. I don't know much sure that we want a trade deal or we don't want the trade deal that's on the table. sure. And maybe it is better to keep the status quo, whether that's the Americans just saying, okay, well, we're going back on this one year review one year, one year, one year, because we don't know what's going to happen. I can't see them totally pulling out of Kismat right before them in terms. I think that would be kind of suicidal for them.

Thank you all for doing all that work through the very busy year. I always say it's my favorite day of the week and none of you believe me, but it is. because I just get to listen to you guys and learn things. So thank you all for them. That's at issue for this week. Happy New Year. What are your biggest concerns about 2026? What are you going to be watching for?

Let us know. You can send us an email at Ask.catscbc.ca. I'm Rosemary Barton. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.com.