Politics! Surveillance backlash, separatism drama

Summary

Front Burner – "Politics! Surveillance backlash, separatism drama"

Host: Jayme Poisson (A)
Guests: Kat Tunney (B) – CBC Reporter, Aaron Wherry (C) – CBC Ottawa Bureau
Date: May 29, 2026

---

Overview

In this politics-heavy episode, host Jayme Poisson explores two major stories shaping Canada: the political firestorm over the government's controversial lawful access legislation (Bill C-22), and the latest fallout from high-profile Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault's resignation, including growing climate policy tensions in the governing Liberals and the rise of separatist rhetoric in Alberta. The episode features deep dives with CBC reporters Kat Tunney and Aaron Wherry into the details, debates, and possible consequences of these issues, blending policy explanation, political analysis, and commentary from key players.

---

Section 1: Surveillance Backlash – Bill C-22

[00:31–14:17]
Guest: Kat Tunney

Key Discussion Points

• Bill C-22 Overview:

  • The government's "Lawful Access" bill has stirred up widespread controversy, leading to promises of amendments (00:48).
  • Two main parts:
    • Part One: Allows police and CSIS warrantless access to "basic subscriber information" from telecoms — e.g., name, telephone number, email. Compared to a digital update of the phone book; not message content (01:41–03:01).
    • Part Two: More controversial; would require tech companies and ISPs to alter systems to make it easier for authorities to access user data (with warrant) and intercept communications if ordered. Also requires retention of metadata (location, contacts) for up to a year (03:01–04:14).

• Rationale from Law Enforcement:

  • Seen by police as a game-changer for investigations into crimes like extortion, child exploitation, terrorism (04:14–05:03).
  • "They don't have access to that data without what's called a lawful access regime, which is what Bill C22 would bring in." – Kat Tunney

• Civil Liberties Critique:

  • Described by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as “the broadest expansion of government surveillance powers in recent Canadian history.” (05:03–05:35).
  • Concerns:
    • Expanded surveillance "state," lack of trust due to past overreach.
    • Orders could allow, e.g., "my Google Home to listen in to me" (05:35).
    • Creation of sensitive, hackable metadata "surveillance map" (06:38).
    • Concerns from privacy advocates like Michael Geist and Citizen Lab about loopholes for US agencies (06:54).

• Tech Company Opposition:

  • Major tech companies (Apple, Google, Meta) argue the bill would weaken encryption by effectively creating "backdoors," risking all users’ security (08:15–10:30).
    • “When you build a backdoor into an encrypted device, anyone can walk through.” – Tech company quote (08:25).
  • Some (like Signal) threaten to leave Canada if forced to comply; Apple points to similar moves made in the UK.

• Government’s Response:

  • Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree promises amendments to ensure encryption is not compromised (10:36, 10:52, 11:13).
    • “We will bring in amendments to ensure that encryption will not be compromised.” – Anandasangaree [10:36]
  • Suggests tech companies’ privacy rhetoric is hypocritical:
    "When we talk about privacy, there's a real conversation to be had... The companies that are coming forth and saying, talking about privacy, talking about privacy protection, talking about vulnerabilities, better step up and provide their path to how they're protecting the privacy rights of Canadians." (11:56)
  • Points to continued majority support in Parliament but recognizes mounting social and political pressure (12:33, 13:13).

• Ongoing Concern:

  • Amendments may address some worries about encryption but “no one's going to be truly happy on the privacy and civil liberty side if this bill passes.” (13:27)

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “This bill would represent, quote, the broadest expansion of government surveillance powers in recent Canadian history.” – Jayme Poisson quoting CCLA [05:03]
• “If you're carrying your phone around and is pinging your location, essentially the government has created a surveillance map of where you've gone.” – Kat Tunney on metadata concerns [06:14]
• “We cannot keep pace with what is out there and investigations are at risk.” – Testimony from police (13:27)

---

Section 2: Resignation Fallout – Steven Guilbeault & Liberal Climate Tensions

[15:47–23:54]
Guest: Aaron Wherry

Key Discussion Points

• Background:

  • Steven Guilbeault, star Liberal MP and former climate minister, resigns from caucus over Mark Carney government’s shift away from robust climate policies (15:53–18:49).
  • Symbolic as both a Trudeau and Guilbeault climate legacy is “undone,” from carbon tax to pipeline approvals (16:18).

• Reasons for Departure:

  • Guilbeault lost confidence after negotiated climate MOUs with Alberta and key policy rollbacks.
    • “...the MoU is sort of the starting point for his decision. He has said he thinks the government is backsliding on climate action. ...he thinks he can have more influence on climate policy outside Parliament, outside government, than he could have within it.” – Aaron Wherry (17:13)
  • Guilbeault: “...my reason for being in politics is to be able to continue advancing these issues. And right now I see that on some of them. Certainly climate change, it's not a place where I can continue advancing these issues. ...I'm not giving up, as Voltaire would say, I'm not going back to my garden. I will continue to work on these issues in one way or the other.” [17:42]

• Political Impact:

  • Guilbeault vilified by conservatives and oil industry, but praised by environmentalists for his principles. His departure is seen as a blow to Carney’s environmental credibility, especially in Quebec (18:49–20:20).

• Caucus Unrest:

  • Reports that 14 Liberal MPs wrote Carney about climate concerns, but only Guilbeault has gone public.
  • “I don't think you're going to see a bunch of defections or a breakaway group ... but if you’re Mark Carney ... you’re at least thinking about, okay, do we have a problem on our hands?” – Aaron Wherry [21:24]
  • Guilbeault warns 2030, 2035, and even 2050 climate targets are out of reach without major changes [21:54].

• Electoral Risk:

  • Guilbeault’s Montreal riding is not a safe Liberal seat; a loss in the coming by-election “would certainly be a bit of a wake up call for the government and for pundits in Ottawa about where things are for Carney.” [22:42, 22:57]

---

Section 3: Alberta Separatism, Federal Response, Lessons from History

[23:54–32:03]
Guest: Aaron Wherry

Key Discussion Points

• Alberta Referendum Tensions:

  • Premier Danielle Smith pursues a provincial referendum on separation; Carney warns this tactic is “a very dangerous bluff” (24:17).
  • Hot mic moment: Carney caught saying “What are you doing? This is stupid. You've got an off ramp. Take it.” (24:33–24:42)

• Federalist Messaging:

  • Carney's public and inadvertent private comments suggest consistent strategy: cautioning against using a referendum for leverage, referencing Brexit as a cautionary tale (24:17, 24:33).
  • “It was kind of a pretty low key opening move, I think, in the referendum. And this felt like the real start of his active involvement in the campaign.” – Aaron Wherry [26:30]

• Historical Comparisons:

  • Trudeau (1980) and Chrétien (1995) both addressed Quebec referendums very selectively—making only a few key speeches for maximum impact (28:21–29:15).
    • Clip: "What is at stake is our country. What is at stake is our heritage..." – Jean Chrétien, 1995 [28:53]
  • Wherry wonders if Carney will follow similar strategy or adjust for a new political and media environment.

• Differences from Past Secession Fights:

  • No official Yes/No campaign structure; multiple disparate “Remain” initiatives emerge in Alberta (31:01).
  • Modern media, risk of foreign influence, and the nature of the referendum make the challenge unique compared to Quebec in 1980/1995 [31:01–32:03].

---

Notable Quotes

• On Encryption & Bill C-22:
  “We will bring in amendments to ensure that encryption will not be compromised. So that will be clearly outlined in the bill.”
  — Minister Gary Anandasangaree [10:36]

• On Carney Government’s Climate Position:
  "Looking at what we have in front of us, there is no way we can reach our 2030 targets. ...Even the government now recognizes that we won't be able. We won't even be able to reach our 2050 carbon neutrality targets."
  — Steven Guilbeault [21:24]

• On Alberta Referendum:
  "Vote for this, it'll be soft, and then we'll negotiate. And they're still 10 years later trying to undo what people didn't think they were voting for, but what they ended up having."
  — Mark Carney, referencing Brexit [24:17]

• On National Unity:
  "National unity is often said to be the first duty of a Canadian prime minister..."
  — Jayme Poisson (quoting Aaron Wherry, 27:33)

---

Timestamps for Main Segments

• 00:31–14:17: Bill C-22 Surveillance and Backlash (Kat Tunney)
• 15:47–23:54: Steven Guilbeault Resignation & Liberal Climate Divisions (Aaron Wherry)
• 23:54–32:03: Alberta Referendum, Federal Unity, and Historical Lessons (Aaron Wherry)

---

Tone & Language

• The tone is urgent, informative, and at times skeptical, reflecting real-time policy and political upheaval.
• Kat Tunney’s explanations are direct and accessible; Aaron Wherry provides contextual, historical, and analytical depth.
• Government and opposition voices are quoted with their candid, sometimes pointed, language preserved.

---

Useful for:

• Anyone seeking a nuanced, up-to-date explanation of Bill C-22’s surveillance implications and the debate over encryption.
• Listeners wanting background on Steven Guilbeault’s resignation, what it signals for the Liberals’ climate credentials, and parliamentary risks.
• Those following the Alberta separatism crisis and how lessons from Quebec's past struggles may (or may not) inform federal tactics today.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[A]

Wallet feeling light after the holidays. Recovery starts with TikTok slash and free pick products, share the link and watch the price drop to zero. Download TikTok search, slash free and start slashing today.

[B]

This is a CBC podcast.

[A]

Hey everybody, it's Jamie. Lots to talk about today on the federal politics front. Mark Carney lost high profile MP Stephen Gilbeau over climate policies. He is navigating a referendum on separation in Alberta to do that. Aaron Wary is here with me from our Ottawa bureau. Aaron Hay.

[C]

Hey Jamie.

[A]

But before we do all of that, our colleague Kat Tunney is also joining us because I do really want to talk about the government's lawful Access bill, Bill C22 that is just generating a ton of controversy. Kat. Hey. Hey, thanks for stopping by as well. So why don't we start with you. This bill has been so controversial that you're now reporting the government is planning to change it. But before we get to that, the current version of the bill had created all this blowback because it would require telecoms, Internet providers and digital companies, so meta, Apple, et cetera, to make these changes to their systems to give our police and intelligence services the power to surveil Canadians data. And just flesh this out for me a little bit more. I know it's a very complicated bill, but what does the bill give the police and CSIS for example, the power to do exactly with our data?

[B]

Yeah, so there's two kind of main parts of the bill. So I find it helpful in my own head to kind of go through the two parts. So part one, in many sense it's a less controversial element, although of course people still have problems with it. So part one would give police and you know, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service sees as warrantless access to what's being called basic subscriber information. So that's like your name, your telephone number, your email address. So in theory, you know, if police thought that Aaron, who's sitting next to me is doing something sketchy, they would be able to go to say Rogers or Bell or whatever service and say hey, is this, is this number? Can we connect this to Aaron? And is a yes or no answer. And the service provider would have to say yes, you know, we do provide him service. So if it passes, that part would be done without a warrant, which does I think concern a lot of people. But, but to be clear, it's not the actual messages that would come later. They would have to go get a warrant to then, you know, a production order to find out more about what Ernest has been doing. The Part one, you might have heard people kind of make the comparison to the phone book where it used to be that police could get a jump on their investigations by going to a phone book, remember those? And it would have, you know, your name, your number in your address. So there's an argument that this would kind of brings. Is this the, the updated phone book?

[A]

Right.

[B]

Part two is a much more, I think, controversial part of the bill. And that's what as you talked about, would put a demand on what's called electronic service providers, which is yet to be defined. That's they're still working on that through the regulations, but has largely been accepted to mean, you know, your telecommunication companies, as you mentioned, your Apple, your metas, basically most Internet based companies, it would make them have to update and change their systems so that when police and C do come knocking with a warrant that is easier and smoother to hand over Canadians information during these investigations there's also the minister would have the power to issue orders, they would go through some oversight, but an order on any of these companies to perhaps intercept communication as well. There's a lot of concern around that. And then finally an issue that gets flagged over and over is the retention of metadata. So this is data about data, but it could, you know, if you carry your phone around in your pocket, that data could include your location, it could include what number you're in contact with constantly. Core providers would have to retain that metadata for up to a year. And that's also raised a lot of concerns.

[A]

Yeah, and just elaborate for me a little bit more on why law enforcement feel like they need this.

[B]

Yeah, I mean this has been called, or at least compared to like one of the most significant changes for police since DNA evidence. That's how important this is to police and csa. So you think of any, you know, any crime. Like obviously we're hearing a lot about extortion in the news lately. You know, there's horrible cases of revenge porn, missing children, terrorism. Any of those cases. You can just picture the sheer amount of information that police would need or would want to have access to in order to lay charges or for, in the case of csis, you know, the sheer amount of digital evidence that they would need in order to get a sense of the threat that's going on in Canada. And they've argued they don't have access to that data without what's called a lawful access regime, which is what Bill C22 would bring in.

[A]

Right, okay, let's deal with the pushback now. So these digital Companies have all been pushing back really hard against this. But let's do the straight up civil liberties critique first. We have seen broad critiques from many groups, but the Canadian Civil Liberties association, for example, has said that this bill would represent, quote, the broadest expansion of government surveillance powers in recent Canadian history. And break down for me the big, high level red flags that they have been raising.

[B]

Yeah, I think the overarching concern from these groups is the increasing of the surveillance state that the government is turning to tech providers, to these companies to maintain and change their systems in the name of helping police and spies. You know, two groups that they would argue we're here to make Canadians safe. But, you know, you can, let's be honest, if you go through their history, there's a reason why perhaps many Canadians are skeptical of their intentions here. You know, there's been questions about, you know, these orders that the public safety Minister would have. If the bill passes, you know, could they order my Google home to listen in to me? You know, that's a big concern. And on the metadata front, you know, we've heard from, you know, a privacy advocate, Michael Geis, he's probably one of the most vocal critics of the bill. You know, he's made that case that if you're carrying your phone around and is pinging your location, essentially the government has created a surveillance map of where you've gone. And there is, you know, I think a consensus on this side that, that creating that massive pool of metadata is very attractive to hackers and foreign adversaries.

[A]

Right, right. Vulnerabilities there. And researchers at the Toronto Citizen Lab, I know, are also worried that this could potentially lead to unfettered surveillance of Canadians in Canada by Americans too. Right. Am I right about that?

[B]

Yeah, there's. There's a piece in the Walrus. They're connecting Bill T22 to the fact that Canada and the U.S. are in the midst, or at least stalling negotiations around the Cloud act, which is, you know, around American access to. Into information. Yeah. For what it's worth, the Liberal government is rejecting the premise of the article. They point that in this bill, you know, the idea is that you need a warrant to get most of this information. That means it should know that the bill does talk about cooperation. That's because it's in many sense in Canada's interest to cooperate with our, with our allies. We import a lot of intelligence. We get a lot of tips from the FBI. So there is a part of the bill that talks about making that system work a little Bit easier. But should be noted that it does talk about when a foreign government is seeking information that there is a process they have to go through, through the court. So again, I think it is very important as we talk about the Cloud act, as we, as we watch what Canada and the U.S. are going to do on that front to keep that piece top of mind. But should also note that the Bill C22, it's what we're talking about today, does have some safeguards that would make sure that it goes through the court system as well.

[A]

Tech companies are also very strongly objecting to this. They've been making similar privacy arguments, similar arguments to the civil liberties group.

[D]

When you build a backdoor into an encrypted device, anyone can walk through.

[C]

And because so much depends on encryption, we can't take that risk.

[A]

This could give the government the power to secretly force companies to redesign products to include invasive surveillance capabilities to do so without sufficient safeguards or oversight. Apple is saying that health data could be compromised, for example. Right. But they're making these other objections too. And just talk to me very briefly about what they're saying.

[B]

Yeah, they're arguing that the bill would create backdoors and weaken their privacy protections, including encryption. Right. Which is, you know, a key if you and I are texting. If we're using encryption, only you and I can see our messages. Right. And they argue that the technological demand that, that part two of Bill C22 would not just create a window that the police and Thesis could use to get to get information when they have a warrant, but that, you know, the so called bad guys could also use that window and that it would put, you know, basically the whole system, all of our privacy, all of our information at risk. You know, at one point Google raised concerns with remote access. You know, that might be something that a foreign adversary would be looking at as well. This is the second attempt that this government has, has made to, to pass lawful access. This version of the bill does include a line that, that says you may not, you cannot introduce a systemic vulnerability. But Big Tech has argued that, that you know, that's not enough, that the intentions aren't enough. And they've been seeking some more clarity around encryption and we have some seen some real lines in the sand in a signal, you know, which I use. You know it is an encryption messaging app. It says that it might have to leave withdraw its. So have some VPN services. And Apple should be noted they removed some of their top privacy from the UK when the British government made a move around lawful access. And you know, I think has kind of let it hang out there. They feel they might have to do the same if Canada passes Bill 22 because they all these companies say we would not build what they call a backdoor.

[A]

Right. Okay. Minister of Public Safety Gary Ananda Sangaree is now considering changes to the bill.

[E]

What I will say on encryption is that we will bring in amendments to ensure that encryption will not be compromised. So that will be clearly outlined in the bill.

[A]

What does that look like? What does it. Because this is. You're asking for system change.

[E]

It's being drafted as I speak. But it will essentially satisfy the concerns that they have. I also want to say that there

[A]

is and cat like, what are they considering and is it because they're acknowledging that this bill went too far here?

[B]

Yes. The minister told reporters on Wednesday, you know, he'll put forward some amendments to ensure that encryption can't be compromised.

[E]

So whether it's on encryption, whether it's on ensuring that our laws are in line with the Five Eyes partners, including the U.S. we will respond in kind and ensure that the bill is strengthened and it will go forward in a manner that has shorter protections as well as is in line with Canadian values.

[B]

He has maintained the whole time that, you know, the. It was never our intention. It's not like we made a mistake. It was never actually our intention to weaken or break encryption like the tech industry is alleging. But it's clearly in response to this swelling opposition. You know, at the same time that he was saying we're going to make these amendments, he did take a swipe, I guess, at big tech.

[E]

We are working. We're living in a world where big tech, whether it is Apple, Google or the range of other big tech companies, are operating without any type of accountability, without any type of protection of privacy. So when we talk about privacy, there's a real conversation to be had as to what that entails. So the companies that are coming forth and saying, talking about privacy, talking about privacy protection, talking about vulnerabilities, better step up and provide their path to how they're protecting the privacy rights of Canadians, Canadians.

[B]

He's talked a little bit short of calling them hypocritical, but I think you could read between the lines that he was making the argument that it's a little bit rich that they seem so seized with privacy, but leave that there. He's clearly going to see him move forward with these amendments. They have a majority. So it's not like he necessarily had to do it. But I think, as we've seen, there's just. Yeah, this wall of opposition is a crucial bill that really was high stakes. So perhaps they were worried about some social currency there as well. Now we will also, if the conservatives put amendments forward that the liberals will accept. So we'll ultimately have to wait to see how much this bill will change. But. But there is some changes are coming.

[A]

And I guess for me to say just before we let you go, even if they make those changes on amendments, it's still not going to assuage all the concerns that we talked about earlier around the expansion of the surveillance state.

[B]

No, I think there are people who are very concerned with giving law enforcement and ceases more powers. These are, you know, two pillars that already have incredible powers. So, yes, I think people are going to be, you know, upset that this bill is passing no matter what on the other side. You know, we heard testimony this week from police saying we're coming to you on bended knee was the word being used. We cannot keep pace with what is out there and that investigations are at risk. So I think no one's going to be truly happy on the privacy and civil liberty side if this bill passes. But it does seem that this, these changes will at least perhaps soothe. We'll see, but soothe, or at least attempt to soothe some of the concerns around encryption. And that. That argument that the bill actually would have made cybersecurity at risk for all Canadians there. There seem to be trying to take that argument off the table.

[A]

Okay, Kat, that was great. Super clear. Thank you. I know you have to run to a committee meeting actually on this issue happening on Parliament Hill, so thank you.

[B]

It never ends. All right, thanks for having me.

[A]

Okay, we're going to be right back and Erin, we're going to pick up with you to talk about resignations and referendums.

[C]

Sounds great.

[F]

What if a marginal gain unlocked greater performance? What if an insight and data could change everything? At Aramco, our focus on detail helps us deliver reliable energy to millions across the world. Because margins aren't marginal. They're where we can truly push the limits of what's possible. Aramco, an integrated energy and chemicals company. Learn [e-mail] hey, guys, I got a

[G]

crazy slot game for you all to try out. It's a top 10 hit on the casino game charts. It's actually super fun. Crazy slot games. Best of all, it has a high chance of winning big. Check it out, guys. Every play gets you hooked on those payouts. And it's not fake Money. This game is crazy different from anything I've played. They gave me a 300% welcome bonus, bro. I'm totally hooked on this game. Spin like crazy. If I hit something, you're going to be the first one to know. Winning big is way too easy. Come on, guys. Click the link to download and Play. Now get 300 free spins.

[A]

Okay, Aaron, let's talk about Stephen Gilbo's resignation, shall we?

[C]

We shall.

[A]

So he is, of course, the Liberal mp, former climate minister under Justin Trudeau, a longtime climate activist who left Cabinet late last year citing his concerns about the direction that Mark Carney was taking when it came to climate action.

[D]

These seven years, intense, demanding, and deeply meaningful, have been among the most formative of my life. I leave proud of what we have accomplished together.

[A]

We did an episode last week laying out the many ways in which the Carney government is essentially undoing the Trudeau climate legacy. This is also Gilbeau's climate legacy, from carbon taxes to EV mandates or emission caps to paving a path for another pipeline. And Aaron, like, why do you think he ultimately decided to leave the party altogether now? What was the thing that pushed him to do it?

[C]

Yeah, he himself said in a couple of interviews yesterday, I think I really

[D]

started thinking about leaving politics when I

[C]

left cabinet around the memorandum of understanding with Alberta. He framed his staying on in the last little while as an attempt to influence a couple policies that were still in development, the Nature strategy, which ended

[D]

up landing very well and very close to what I had worked on before leaving the Nature portfolio in November of 2025.

[C]

Some moves the Carney government made around climate finance, international climate finance. But I think the MoU is sort of the starting point for his decision. He has said he thinks the government is backsliding on climate action. And in so many words, I think he said yesterday that he thinks he can have more influence on climate policy outside Parliament, outside government, than he could have within it.

[D]

At this point, my reason for being in politics is to be able to continue advancing these issues. And right now I see that on some of them. Certainly climate change, it's not a place where I can continue advancing these issues. So I'm not giving up, as Voltaire would say, I'm not going back to my garden. I will continue to work on these issues in one way or the other.

[H]

Right. So you are welcome to stay in the party and in the caucus, but just kind of not willing to stay in the caucus and at this point, because you want to make meaningful change and you need to do that.

[G]

Outside government.

[D]

Yeah, that's a fair assessment.

[A]

This was a guy that a lot of conservatives and the oil and gas industry love to vilify as being this real impediment to growth. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said. Stephen Cubo, who's the architect of most of that, I'm glad to see him go. I think that he, he has done more to damage national unity probably than any other politician. But in Quebec, he was a star candidate. He is being praised by environmentalists across the country right now for his Princip principles. And, and just how much of a blow is this resignation to a Carney government that. That says climate change is a priority?

[C]

Yeah, I think it could have or could leave a mark. I think it's useful to go back and remember that when he came into federal politics, it was to join the Trudeau government at a time when it was facing criticism for its environmental record. It had, you know, just chosen to go ahead with the Trans Mountain expansion.

[A]

Right.

[C]

And here was Stephen Guibo coming along to say, no, I'm, I'm running as a Liberal. I believe in this government's climate agenda. And so I think he, he, he bolstered the Trudeau government's environmental credibility. And you can argue now that that doesn't matter as much because Canadian voters are more interested in other things, more concerned about other threats. But I think, you know, it's a potential proof point for someone to argue now and, and potentially in the future that, that this government doesn't care, the Carney government doesn't care enough about climate change. And I think that's, I think what, what people in my line of work will be watching for is, you know, do you see Liberal support in Quebec in particular start to slip? Is this, you know, something that, that kind of jolts people to reassess The Carney government. And even if it doesn't do it now, necessarily, you know, maybe two years from now, if the public opinion has shifted at all, like, is this something that people look back on and point to as something that, you know, maybe is a problem for Carney?

[A]

Yeah, yeah. A moment. Gilbeau says that he's not the only Liberal caucus member who's upset with the Liberals current environmental policy. Do you think Mark Carney has a brewing problem in his own caucus right now? I mean, he's riding very high in the pools. Or do you think that that's kind of overblown?

[C]

I think he has a potential problem and a potential vulnerability. We know from some reporting from our colleagues at Radio Canada that 14 Liberal MPs wrote a letter to Mark Carney expressing some concern with the government's climate agenda. We are led to believe that at least One of those MPs was Steven Guilbo. But obviously that leaves 13 who are still in caucus or who still will be in caucus. I don't think you're going to see a bunch of defections or a breakaway group. And I think it's worth noting that even as this letter has been sent, no one other than Steven Guibo has really gone public with their concerns.

[D]

Looking at what we have in front of us, there is no way we can reach our 2030 targets. There is. Unless there's a significant shift, there's no way we can reach our 2035 targets. And in fact, in the signed agreement with Alberta, it doesn't say we're committed to reaching carbon neutrality. It says something like we're committed to striving to. So even the government now recognizes that we won't be able. We won't even be able to reach our 2050 carbon neutrality targets.

[C]

You haven't seen MPs openly criticizing the government. So I don't know yet what this sort of climate caucus is going to amount to, but I think it's. I think if you're Mark Carney, I think if you're the government whip, you're at least thinking about, okay, do we have a problem on our hands? Is this something we need to be mindful of? Because, you know, is there a point at which we push things too far? And suddenly we do have MPs coming out and speaking publicly about their misgivings and criticizing the government agenda. And, you know, you have to point out that the Liberals don't have a big majority, so all it would take would be two or three MPs resigning in protest to suddenly make things quite complicated for the government.

[A]

Right. And just maybe worth pointing out here that my understanding is Gilbel's writing, like, it's not a safe Liberal bet that they could put another Liberal in there and that they would win the next by election. Right. Like that could go block, no problem.

[C]

It's certainly not a slam dunk. It was actually an NDP seat before Stephen Guibo took it. It was a block seat before that. So there's not, it's not a, it's not a traditional liberal stronghold by, by any stretch. And, and you would look at the current liberal polling numbers in Quebec and say, well, they're still pretty strong, but I don't think you can look at this seat and say, well, that's an automatic Liberal win and a loss. There would certainly be a bit of a wake up call for the government and for pundits in Ottawa about where things are for Carney. So I do think it's something they have to be pretty mindful of, of in terms of, of trying to hold that seat.

[A]

Let's shift to Alberta separatism. We also did a whole episode looking at how this issue is playing out in Alberta this week. And we did, we did touch on Kearney a bit. But I do want to spend some more time talking about how the prime minister has been responding. Earlier this week, he warned that anyone trying to use this referendum on a referendum in Alberta as leverage would be

[C]

making a, quote, very dangerous bluff.

[H]

We saw, I saw firsthand what happened in the United Kingdom when the view was, vote for this, it'll be soft and then we'll negotiate. And they're still 10 years later trying to undo what people didn't think they were voting for, but what they ended up having.

[A]

There was also this revealing hot mic situation where Carney said, what are you doing?

[B]

This is stupid.

[A]

You know, he's talking to someone and he's saying, you know, what are you doing? This is stupid. You've got an off ramp. Take it. And lots of people think that he was talking about Danielle Smith there, like saying, why did she not take the off ramp? Which was the, the court, the court decision to invalidate the petition on separation because the government didn't consult indigenous rights. And so what do you glean from these public and really not so public comments?

[C]

Inadvertently public?

[B]

Yes, I do.

[C]

I, I, Yeah. Look, we can't know exactly what he was referring to, but he, he had just moments earlier been asked if he'd had any conversations with Daniel Smith about the referendum and whether he'd given her any advice. And you can certainly look at those comments and say that is the sort of thing Carney might have said to the premier. You know, take this off ramp, take this excuse to not have a referendum. And I think you can also view it within the context of the other comments you referred to. You know, the, the comment about a dangerous bluff, the comment that, you know, the referendum's not helpful. The, the fact that he pointed out that no party in the last Alberta provincial election ran on calling a referendum. You know, I think these are all sort of little sort of quibbles or criticisms with what's happening in Alberta. I think it was the first time we've really heard him address the topic. There was some, you know, after Danielle Smith's address to the province and her announcement of a referendum. Last week, Mark Carney had this photo op in the library of Parliament.

[H]

Canada's working. We're working in a spirit of cooperative federalism to make the country better. We're renovating the country as we go. And Alberta being at the center of that is essential. It's essential.

[C]

It was kind of a pretty low key opening move, I think, in the referendum. And this felt like the real start of his active involvement in the campaign. And it felt like his first real attempt at kind of throwing a punch or sort of sending a message to Albertans about, about what's going on there, particularly in the context of that, that comment about a dangerous bluff, which I think you can read as being aimed at not people who are, who are absolutely committed to separating, but people who are, who are maybe thinking, well, I don't want to separate, but maybe I can, maybe we can have this referendum or I can vote for having a referendum. And that'll scare Ottawa and now and then Ottawa will, you know, maybe bend more to Alberta's demands. And I think those are the vot that if you're a federalist, if you're Mark Carney, you're looking at those voters and trying to persuade them. So this really felt like the start of Mark Carney's active participation in the campaign.

[A]

I'm going to quote from a piece that you wrote this week, so this is your own quote. National unity is often said to be the first duty of a Canadian prime minister. So I guess maybe you were quoting someone else too. But of course, like, like any federal leader will come out against a part of the country trying to leave. But, but how they do it, while I imagine there is much kind of thought and strategy that goes into that and, and just there are only two other prime ministers that have had to deal with actual referendums on secession. Pierre Trudeau in 1980, Jean Cretia in 1995, both in regards to Quebec. And I know you have spent some time looking at how both men navigated them and just tell me a bit about what you think they both did and any lessons you think could be taken from this or learned.

[C]

Yeah, so I think what's interesting about those two examples is when you look back on it in history, the two referendums that they faced, Pierre Trudeau in 80 and Critchen 95, seem like really defining battles for both those prime ministers, particularly for Pierre Trudeau, but also for Chretien in the sense that, you know, Canada had this kind of near death experience in 95. And he gives this very famous national television address on the eve of the referendum to speak to Canadians and speak to Quebecers.

[F]

What is at stake is our country. What is at stake is our heritage. To break up Canada or build Canada, to remain Canadians or no longer be Canadian, to stay or to leave. That is the issue of the referendum.

[C]

But as much as they were defining battles, defining moments for the prime ministers, both of them were very selective about how they directly weighed into the campaigns. Pierre Trudeau in 1980 made three speeches in the referendum campaign, and then Jean Chretien basically borrowed that model in 95 and only made three speeches in the campaign. And I think that speaks to the sense that they were selective about how they could weigh in and were looking for maximum impact. They weren't, you know, going to wade into the day to day campaigning. They were going to sort of use their pulpit to send messages and make statements in a way that people were going to hear and listen to. And we don't yet know how Mark Carney is going to approach this referendum. They haven't come out and given us the playbook. But I'm interested to see whether he follows that model of picking a few spots between now and October to make a speech and deliver a message in a way that's going to have real maximum impact. Sort of in the way that, you know, you think about his speech in Davos, that that really was impactful because it was, you know, a moment and it said something crystal clear. And whether he can sort of have that kind of impact on this referendum, I think is the question.

[A]

Do you see any big differences that Carney is dealing with or facing that Trudeau and Chretien were not? I mean, obviously this isn't a clear cliff question on separation, but like, are you thinking about anything else?

[C]

Yeah, I think it's. There are some big differences. If you look at 95, there was an official no campaign and an official yes campaign and the, you know, leader of the yes campaign was the leader of the, of the party Quebecois and the leader of the no campaign was the leader of the opposition in, in Quebec. And in this case there's not going to be sort of set distinct yes and no campaigns and you've already seen sort multiple campaigns, I guess you could call them Remain campaigns sort of pop up in Alberta led from sort of different perspectives with different people joining them. So I think the organization of it's going to be different. I think the media ecosystem is just completely different than it was in 1995. I think the concerns about foreign influence or foreign interference are very different. Now, fundamentally, the question is the same. Fundamentally, Mark Carney is facing the same kind of fight, but the times are different, and so the circumstances are slightly different.

[A]

Yeah. Aaron, that was great. That was really interesting. Thank you for doing this.

[C]

Anytime.

[A]

All right, that is all for today. Front Burner was produced this week by Matthew Amha, Joytha Shangupta, Mackenzie Cameron Mia, John Johnson, Kevin Sexton, Kira Oudsworn, and Kristin Jagger. Our YouTube producer is John Lee. Our music is by Joseph Shabison. Our senior producers are Imogen Burchard and Elaine Chow. Our executive producer is Nick McKay Blocos. And I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you next week.

[B]

For more cbc podcasts, go to cbc ca podcasts.