Sunday Scrum | What do Trump's actions abroad mean for Canada's international relations?

So is Donald Trump's desire to acquire Greenland for American national security a threat to the Arctic and NATO security? And the U.S. President started off the new year with that military raid in Venezuela and that conflict has got the Alberta Premier and others demanding a pipeline approval in this country. Let's bring in our Sunday Scrum. Stephanie Levitt's a senior reporter in the Globe and Mail's Parliament Hill Bureau. Nick Taylor-Racey is the Ottawa Bureau Chief for Politico, co-host of the Playbook Canada podcast. And Robert Benzie is the Queen's Park Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star. Hello to all of you. I think I can say like this is the last weekend where I can say happy new year. So happy new year to all of you as well. Stephanie, I'm going to start with you. I mean you heard there from our Greenlander how concerning this is to people on the island. But it is also concerning to people in Canada because obviously we've heard some of the rhetoric from Donald Trump. How are you viewing this in terms of the way this government, the Canadian government, should be thinking about what Donald Trump is up to? I mean, you know, just let's start with the basics of geography, right? And go with the hypothetical that Mr. Trump finds some way by hook or by crook to turn Greenland into a U.S. territory. And then we're squeezed. We are really squeezed, Rosemary. Surrounded by the Americans on three sides. And, you know, Canada, Mr. Carney, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Harper, all of our prime ministers have talked a lot in recent years about beefing up our own Arctic sovereignty, Arctic defense. We're pouring billions into that. But it's over a 20-year horizon. And it begs the question almost instantly about whether we need to move a lot faster than we thought. Because this idea that, you know, we've done so much of Arctic modernization in the context of NORAD, North American collaboration, cooperation. And if Mr. Trump is saying he needs Greenland for U.S. security, that also means he doesn't think Canada is doing the job. And Nick, this all happened, this was sort of unfolding as the prime minister was over in Europe for a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing around Ukraine. And it sort of pushed everyone to talk about these things. And it's obviously very troubling for European leaders as well. What did you make of the way the prime minister responded to some of this? Well, I think the prime minister is learning that meetings about certain things become meetings about other things these days. I thought General Wayne Error on the House this weekend was poignant when he said that it's natural for the world to go through periods of order and then disorder and then a reordering. And right now, the prime minister, whether it's at a meeting of the Coalition of the Willing in Paris or back in the House of Commons later this month, when he's facing down his conservative opposition, has to deal with the fact that 2026 is not like 2025. And 2025 was already chaotic enough, both domestically, of course, here in Canada, but around the world. And the U.S. national security policy clearly is a serious document. The president of the United States is not waiting very long to assert himself and to see that plan come into action. And so the prime minister will go to Paris hoping to talk about Ukraine. We'll certainly talk about that. But then he has to talk about his own backyard in a way that, as Stephanie points out, takes on new urgency for something we've talked about for my entire life. We've always talked about the symbolic importance of Canadian Arctic sovereignty. Yeah. But Rob, Nick's right. The pressure now, because there's this renewed interest in the Western Hemisphere by the U.S. president, and I think also an admission from him that he would just like to own Greenland, you know, as he said in that interview with The New York Times. Yeah, I have to tell you, Rosie, I kind of blame the Mercator projection map that makes Greenland look much bigger than it is. I think that Mr. Trump looks at a map and sees something the size of the United States, optically anyway, and thinks, well, that's the mine for the taking, when, of course, it's much smaller in real life. And this is a problem, because, I mean, if the United States is somehow allowed to take Greenland, and I don't believe that this will happen, but let's say for hypothetical reasons that they are able to do that, that basically unravels NATO, because Denmark is a NATO ally, and one NATO member cannot attack another NATO member, otherwise NATO ceases to exist or ceases to have any effect. So this is a huge problem. I also think that right now, everyone is so impressed with Trump's hubris that they're not looking at some of the realities. And last Thursday, we saw, Rosie, that the Senate voted 52 to 47 to curb his war powers in Venezuela. And that included five Republicans, including some sycophants like Josh Hawley from Missouri, who voted against their president because they think that he's gone too far. So at some point, the House of Representatives will also presumably want to curb those powers. Republicans do not enjoy a huge majority in the lower house. The polls are not looking great for Mr Trump's party in the midterms. So they need to be cognizant of that too. So domestic concerns are going to take hold soon, I hope. In the meantime, though, Steph, the Venezuela, you know, whatever is going to happen there, whether the U.S. runs it or whether they get the oil working or not, that also has had a knock-on effect here because we saw the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, Alberta Premier Daniel Smith, suggesting that this means that Canada needs an oil pipeline urgently. I mean, it will take a very long time to get a pipeline built. If that happens, it will also take quite some time to get the Venezuelan oil out of the ground and get the infrastructure rebuilt again. But tell me how you're viewing those positions by the Conservative premier and the leader. I mean, in some ways, they've been saying that for a long time, right? I mean, absent Venezuela. And it is true that Venezuela, I don't know, in a sort of a policy way, gives another example of why the Canadian oil sector needs more markets, needs to be able to expand capacity. But when you have the major oil execs in the United States, many of whom are good friends with Donald Trump, going into a meeting at the White House and basically not coming out, promising to keep going in Venezuela, to reinvest in that infrastructure, to get going, it does buy time. And it goes back, you know, when we're talking about these pipeline politics here in Canada, again, not to overstate it, there is still no proponent for a pipeline. And so the question then becomes, is what Ms. Smith is arguing for, or is what Mr. Poilievre is arguing for, is a state-owned pipeline? Is that what they want? Absent a proponent, I think that's a very good question we ought to be trying to put to them in the new year. Absent a private proponent, do you want to put up the money to build it? And do you have that money? And it's clear, you know, I don't think either wants to do that. So they can talk all they want, but until someone's putting up money for this pipeline and a route and a map and all sorts of other things, this is just rhetoric. Nick? Yeah, I mean, I think the speed at which Pierre Poilievre put out a statement following that incursion into Venezuela, surprised some people, took them aback a bit. He named Donald Trump. He sort of congratulated and thanked him for taking that action in a way that only a few hours later, and of course, in the days since, well, we've seen that it's not so simple in Venezuela right now, whether we're talking about oil markets or the stability of the government or the safety and security and freedom of the people of Venezuela. And so I have a sense that the next time there is a, this is just a guess, but there's a large geopolitical event that the conservative leader may take a few more minutes before responding. Quick 30 seconds to you there, Rob. Yeah, I think Nick's right on that. I thought Mr. Poilievre's tweet was a little too hasty. Obviously, he has family in Venezuela. His wife's Venezuelan. He's, I believe he's close to Machado, the opposition leader in Venezuela, but it was impetuous of him, I think, just especially since the Chavistas are still, the Chavezistas, rather, are still in power in Venezuela. It's not regime change. They got rid of Maduro. His vice president is now the president. So it's not the end of an odious regime. It's the kind of latest iteration of it. There's a lot at stake, obviously, in this meeting with the prime minister and going to China. We're working very hard, basically around the clock, to negotiate with the Chinese government. We'll continue to do that as we move forward. We're looking forward to meeting next week. Mark Carney, preparing for that visit to China later this week, a high stakes effort to rebuild Canada-China relations, which collapsed in 2018. What is Ottawa hoping to achieve in Beijing? What are the risks in reengaging with China right now? Let's bring in our Sunday Scrum. Stephanie Levitz, a senior reporter at the Globe and Mail's Parliament Hill Bureau. Nick Taylor-Vasey, the Ottawa Bureau Chief for Politico, co-host of the Playbook Canada podcast. Robert Benzie, the Queen's Park Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star. Okay, so I guess let's just start with what we make of this attempt to reestablish the relationship between Canada and China, whether this is the right moment to be doing that. I'll start with you, Steph, in terms of what we know about how the government's framing this trip. I mean, obviously, there had to be a moment in time that was coming that Canada would have to reestablish relations. That wasn't going to happen under Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party. It's questionable to wonder if there had been a conservative government elected in the spring, what that would have meant for Canada-China relations. But anyway, we are where we are. And with Mr. Carney making it very clear that Canada needs to diversify its exports, as we've all talked about many, many times, you need to go to China. I would presume a trip to India might not be far away for the same reason. And as always in Canada-China relations, currently with the current Chinese government in place, it's a tightrope, right? It's a difficulty in threading the needle that Canadian politicians have always said they're going to thread between access to China's market and the tensions around human rights and how the Chinese government treats dissidents in that country. Not to say, and not to forget, of course, about the two Michaels and the way, you know, arbitrary detention and how China handled that. Rob, you want in there? Yeah, no, Steph's exactly right, Rosie. I mean, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were held for two years and nine months, so more than a thousand days in captivity. They were collateral damage in a game of geopolitics and Canadians haven't forgotten that. I do think that I understand where Carney is coming from in trying to diversify our trade and all that, but there are domestic risks for the prime minister. Here in Ontario, Premier Doug Ford is very concerned that Canada will maybe change the tariff that we have on Chinese EVs, that 100% tariff, if we reduce that or eliminate it, which was brought in two years ago to match what US President Joe Biden at the time was doing. If we do that, that's going to hurt our domestic auto industry here in Ontario. So that's something, I mean, Ford last week said specifically that he doesn't want Carney to give that in, but I think that Mr. Carney may make that concession as a goodwill gesture so we can open our canola oils can then go to China, as your earlier guest was saying, how that's really hurting the farmers in Saskatchewan and other places. So let me ask the question, and this is a smart colleague of mine asked me this in the newsroom Friday. Would Carney be doing this trip without the possibility of getting a deal on canola and EVs? And I wonder what you think of that idea, Nick, and I guess whether there will be a deal. Well, the pressure is certainly ratcheting up. The prime minister is coming to terms with the last year of Canadian unity, the first minister's table being early last year, a place where there was a lot of happy talk about things we can do together as a country. And now this is rubber hitting the road. EV tariffs, canola tariffs, and there are trade-offs. This is a government that's taking risks. This trip is a risk. Not afraid to take a risk, but with risks come these trade-offs. And it cracked open the Indo-Pacific strategy, which was supposed to be a different kind of reset of Canada's position in that region, including more cooperation with China in very strategic places. Climate change, global health, and nuclear proliferation made that list. Sort of a sub-level in that document was increasing opportunities for Canadian exporters in that country. So Carney's flipping that, and he's making the economic stuff, number one. But as Rob points out, that's not so easy. You can't just do that and come home expecting a big win. Steph, what do you think is the likelihood, then, that they're, oh, I just lost Steph, so I won't go to her. Because technology. Well, then let me ask you that, Rob. Do you think that a deal is likely here? I mean, Scott Moe has basically said publicly, dump the EV tariffs because it's killing our agriculture industry. And is there, I understand what the consequences would be for the auto industry here, but we did that to align ourselves with the United States. And I wonder whether that, you know, is as big a factor anymore. It's a huge risk. And not to be crass and political about this, but Ontario is more important to the Carney government than Saskatchewan is. Politically, yeah. There's 14 seats there, politically. There's 14, and probably more than just politically, but yeah, politically, certainly. Electorally, there's 14 seats in Saskatchewan, and, you know, 121 in, or 22 in Ontario. So I think that's, you know, the crass calculation that perhaps Carney will be making. There also is an unintended consequence. If we do lift those tariffs on Chinese EVs, one of the reasons why Justin Trudeau imposed them was because Joe Biden asked him to, because the Americans were concerned that the Chinese would dump EVs into Canada. We do something to them, slap a Made in Canada sticker on them, and all of a sudden they're being flooding into the United States. So there are unintended consequences of any such concession. Yeah, okay, Steph is back. So I was going to ask you that question too, Steph, whether you think that there will be a deal on EVs and canola coming out of this visit. I mean, I would say all signs point to yes, and that's just based on the flurry of activity I know was happening behind the scenes really late in the week, right? Trying to figure out what is the win coming out of this. And I mean, with respect to the good folks of Ontario, Rob, like, I think it's bigger than just Saskatchewan, the issue of Chinese tariffs, right? It's hitting the seafood sector, it's hitting other agriculture sectors, the prime places for Canada to export to the US, to grow, sorry, to export to China, to grow those markets. That's a nationwide issue. And the question with EVs I think also becomes as we head into Canada, US, Mexico, free trade negotiations, is there the risk that doing this, and I'm sorry, this point was already made while I was having technical gremlins, but is there the risk here that this irritates those talks, right? Or is it an opening? Is it an opening for Canada to somehow signal good faith to the US and say, hey, listen, we're going to put these parameters on EV imports, we're going to do this, we're going to do that. Is there some wiggle room here? Because once again, Mr. Carney is squashed right in the middle of two global powers on a very important sector. Yeah. Nick, he's also going to go to Davos for the World Economic Forum. He's also going to go to Qatar. What do you understand the prime minister, I mean, obviously it's to diversify trade and have other relationships, I get that part. It is kind of fascinating to see where he's going and what kinds of relationships he's trying to build. Yeah, Mark Carney is Davos man. He has been one of the most comfortable Canadians in those rooms as long as he's been a man on the global stage. Those are very different kinds of relationships than he's going to be developing in China and certainly very different than trade negotiations with the United States. These are business leaders, CEOs. It's politically tricky area to go to Davos at all, which is probably why the prime minister that preceded Carney stopped going. We'll see what he comes away with and what kind of tangible arguments he can make when he gets home about how Canadians lives are improved in the short term or even the medium term by going to a place like a resort in the Swiss Alps. Yeah, I mean, that's a good point, Steph. You need to come home with things in order to show that you have Canada's best interests at heart. You're not just hobnobbing with business leaders. Yeah, I think that's it. You can go to China and even if we set aside EVs, tariffs, there's probably other deals they can cooperate on, right? Other agreements that can be struck. You can go to Qatar and you can come away with more investment dollars for the Canadian pick a sector, right? I'm not sure what the deliverable is on Davos. And I would argue that as much as Mr. Carney would talk about the need to diversify, build new relationships, perhaps he already has relationships with all those people. Like are these new contacts? This is a prime minister with an unprecedented Rolodex to borrow a vintage term, right? I mean, he can call up a lot of people whenever he feels like it. So I'm hard pressed to see the value of Davos and certainly not the value of Davos when he is coming home from that. And in a matter of days after that, returning to the House of Commons for the first time, where you know that the most salient argument for the opposition is the affordability piece and what the Carney government is doing about that. And you're going to have that juxtaposed with images of him in the Alps. Steph Levitz, Nick Taylor-Raisy, Robert Benzi. Good to see you all. Thank you for spending part of your Sunday with me.