October 16, 2025 • 37 mins
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney talks to Mishal Husain about trade battles, Vladimir Putin's miscalculations and what he's learned from Donald Trump.
3:41 - Mark Carney's parents and his path to power4:58 - What does he miss about his old life?6:34 - Did President Trump help him get elected?
14:05 - "I've learned lots of things from President Trump"16:42 - Ukraine and NATO22:18 - Putin's miscalculations22:49 - Next steps on a Palestinian state25:00 - The climate crisis, where is the old Mark Carney?35:10 - What does a prime minister's weekend look like?
You can find the written version of this interview with Mishal’s notes on Bloomberg Weekend: https://www.bloomberg.com/latest/weekend-interview
Contact The Mishal Husain Show mishalshow@bloomberg.net
Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
We are in a crisis. We're in an economic crisis.
Is fundamental shift in the world. It's not a transition,
it's a rupture. It's big changes in a very short
period of time. And I know from all my experience
that in those situations you have to act big, you
have to act ball.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Mark Carney, former Central banker, climate champion and now Canada's
Prime Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We can give ourselves far more than the United States
can take away. So we have agency, we can have
one Canadian economy. We've taken major moves towards that one
Canadian economy.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
It takes time.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it
because we never want to be in this position again.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
From Bluemberg Weekend. This is the Michelle Hussain Show. I'm
Michelle Hussain. Hello and welcome. Thank you for being here,
Thank you for being part of this new adventure. This
is going to be a place where every weekend you'll
hear one essential conversation. But I hope that it's also
(01:13):
going to be a place with head, heart and soul,
where in the midst of a disrupted even a chaotic world.
You'll find something to take away that's of value. That's
what I'm aiming to do week after week, and I'm
thrilled that you're part of it. I hope that you'll
keep coming back as we explore ideas and current affairs
(01:34):
and history with people who are shaping the world or
who can help us understand it. And my first guest
is Mark Carney, someone who's leading a country in the
crosshairs of trade and other turbulence. Canada's super interesting because
it's at the forefront of so many of the different
currents in the world right now. It's in President Trump
(01:56):
cites it's a country that he still believes should be
the fifty first date. It's highly connected economically to its
big southern neighbor, the two of them share the world's
longest border, but tariffs and threats since the start of
the year mean that it's in the midst of trying
to make itself more self sufficient. That's the reality that
(02:17):
Mark Carney stepped into seven months ago when he became
Prime Minister. He was entirely new to politics, though in
many ways he has been an insider, and we'll get
to some of that in this conversation. We spoke over
a weekend in London because he was here ahead of
Canada's women playing England in the Rugby World Cup final.
Unfortunately for Canada, they lost, as it happens. When he
(02:39):
came to our studios, he was on the doorstep of
the place he used to run, the Bank of England,
and he's not unfamiliar with Bloomberg either, because he used
to be on the board here. We talked about the
big issues of course Donald Trump, and about big foreign
policy moves, but this is a personal conversation too, and
I asked him for to take me right back to
(03:02):
his early years, the story of his parents and the
place where he was born, Fort Smith, in Canada's Northwest Territories.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
They went up to the North I was technically all
the way to the Arctic, but close enough. They went
up to the north as an adventure, pioneering. There were
young teachers and going to what seemed as the frontier.
Of course there were people there already, so there was
that element strong sense in my family of public service.
My dad was a civil servant. As I say, my
(03:32):
parents are educators, a sense of that is the higher calling.
So I've always had that element. Even though I've had
a private sector career, I was fortunate to be the
central bank governor in two G seven countries, and at
a time when because there were major financial problems, including
here in the City of London, that that job was
(03:52):
broader than usual, major financial reforms going on having to
be negotiated around the world. So I've in that regard,
I've been thinking about what next in public service. Yes, candidly,
the prospect of becoming an elected politician in Canada, let
alone prime minister I felt like was receding, And then
(04:14):
over the course of the year and the run up
to when I stood for election, I became more and
more concerned, as some others did, about the potential direction
of our country, and felt that given my background, I
would have a chance to help change it.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
What do you miss about your old life? I imagine
your family probably miss your old life.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Ah, yes, I'm sure they do. I miss What do
I miss about? I miss having any privacy?
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Basically, I was thinking about something you said in twenty
twenty about how it is easier to be a central
banker in a democracy than a politician. But it feels
like that's not even the half of it right. You
have become Prime Minister at a time when global trade
is disrupted as never before, Global alliances are under pressure
(04:58):
as never before. How has it been.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I stand by my earlier statement it is easier to
be a central banker. Part of the reason I am
in this position is because of what you just described.
It's part of the reason why I put myself for it.
It's possibly one of the reasons why I was elected.
In some respects, I'm going to say an odd thing.
In some respects, it's easier when the problems are very
(05:24):
clearly out in front of everybody. I think all Canadians
understand that our relationship with the United States has changed fundamentally,
that the world is a more dangerous and divided place.
And then the question becomes what do we do about it?
And sometimes just on reflection, if you look back when
times were good quote unquote, but problems we're building up,
(05:48):
that's when it's more difficult to take the big decisions
that are necessary. You know theol here, you know that
we have to act. It's important to be as open
and as possible with people terms of the assessment of
the scale of what needs to be done. And then
to be decisive.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Did you get elected because of President Trump?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Really I got election? Well, you'd have to ask the
voters account.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
I think, well, you stood because of President Trump. You
made the choice just before you announced it, just stood.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
I did not stand because of President Trump. No, I
stood because I believe that the person who was likely
to become Prime minister, certainly in all the polling, was
not the right person for Canada. That would have been
a divisive government in that case, and would have taken
our country back as opposed to Ford. It turned out
to be the case that very quickly, once I was
(06:38):
in the leadership campaign, before I became leader of the
Liberal Party, and then before the general election campaign, it
turned out that President Trump's actions in the trade war
as it's known, really intensified, and then I became more relevant.
So certainly, yes, it helped that people made a judgment
that I was best place to deal with it.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So you went into it with your eyes open. But
what is you in these six to seven months.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
What has surprised me the most A couple of things.
One is how relentless it is. So I took a
decision in early January to stand for the leadership and
from that point on it has been NonStop, as close
to twenty four to seven as possible. I conceptually knew
that I'd had high pressure jobs before, but it's that
(07:26):
much more so. So that's the first thing I think
that the importance and the fluidity of international relations. I
knew international relations are important, but the fluidity of those
relations and the importance of those relationships, those personal relationships
with world leaders, some of which I had in advance,
but others I've had to develop. That has surprised me
(07:48):
the degree to which that is important.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
I do want to explore how much harder your task
is as Prime Minister in some of your domestic priorities
uncertain your foreign policy priorities because the United States is
not the partner that it has been before, and because
its priorities have shifted. Of course, you've got specific bilateral
(08:11):
issues with the United States, primarily over trade, and the
Canadian economy has been hit hard by what President has drawn,
particularly on steel and the auto sector and aluminium. What
is your strategy for when the US Mexico Canada trade
deal is reviewed next summer. Are you hoping the US
economy by that stage is in a position where President
(08:33):
Trump takes a different view on tariffs.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
We want the best for the US economy, just as
we want well slightly stronger, we want the best for
the Canadian economy. So no, our strategy is not to
expect some weakness in the US economy that is going
to change US negotiating position. Part of our strategy has
been to pursue the best deal for Canada. We have
the best trade deal at the moment. Eighty five percent
of our trade with the United States is teriff free.
(08:57):
We have the lowest average tariff against of any country
with the it's five and a half percent. So we're
in a good position now with two important caveats. One
is your question what's going to happen with the renegotiation
of what they call USMCA. And secondly, some key sectors
steel autos, aluminium, force products being the main ones, will
(09:18):
make it increasingly clear that in certain sectors, particularly the
integration of the Canadian and US and Mexican economies is
essential to US competitiveness. So in steel in autos, as
two example, the linkages are so tight. They're so tight
such that the US content in Canadian finished automobiles is
(09:41):
higher than the average US content in American automobiles. So
we make America stronger in these sectors, and our strategy
is to make sure that that is as well understood
as possible.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Okay, so the prosperity of both countries is at stake.
Your language, though, has ch changed on President Trump since
you came to office. Do you remember when you talked
about him as a bully that needed to be stood
up to in February when you were campaigning, We're going
to stand up to a bully. We're not going to
back down. And yet now you're much more likely to
(10:17):
talk in more conciliatory terms. I mean, obviously one is
campaigning and one is governing. But perhaps people who wanted
you to do the standing up to the bully might
feel that you haven't done that as much as you
suggested when you were campaigning.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Well, let's be clear of the actual situation. We're one
of two countries effectively that put retaliatory tariffs on the
United States. Two countries in the world. We put them on,
we kept them on. We kept them on up to
a point where they ceased to be effective. We got
to a point when we took our retaliatory tariffs off.
(10:52):
We had eighty five percent of our trade teriff free
when we put them on. Given the steps that President
Trump had taken, it was less than it was a
third of our trade was terror free. So you know,
strikes me that that's that's pretty effective.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Number one shown his power? Hasn't he over you? Like,
for example, your digital services tax? You announced it, he
hated it.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
You had to back down on the digital service tax
was announced multiple years before it was coming into effect.
Look the United States, and it couldn't We made a
decision in the context. And let's let's what happened after
we took that digital service tax off. Within weeks, the
President confirmed in writing, formally confirmed in an executive order
(11:35):
that terror free status for.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
The vast So there was something broader at stake, something
very much. I get that, But I just wonder how
how you reconcile yourself to that, because it is different
from the tone you struggle.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Well, I recon my my responsibility to get the best
possible deal for Canada. We have the best deal in
the world at this point. Now that next issue is
where is the USMCA negotiation going to.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Land trade agreement?
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, the trade agreement, broader trade agreement going to land,
and that's being prepared for that and working with the
US and that. But let's let's be absolutely clear. The
United States does have tremendous leverage in the near term
over Canada, over the European Union, over the United Kingdom
because our economies became linked on the basis of certain assumptions.
(12:26):
Those assumptions have now changed, and so part of this
is stabilizing that relationship. It's the US right to have
different priorities. We respect that they've made that choice. We
look to stabilize the trading relationship. Okay, what are the
new terms under the new objectives of the United States
that are in the best interests of Canada. And then
(12:47):
the big thing that we do, and a big part
of I think why I was elected was what else
are we going to do? And one of the core
points that we've made from the start is that we
can give our else far more than the United States
can take away. So we have agency, we can have
one Canadian economy. We've taken major moves towards that one
(13:08):
Canadian economy.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
It takes time.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it
because we never want to be in this position again.
We never want to be in this position again. And
so that's building at home and it's diversifying abroad. We're
having this interview in London. Part of the reason I'm
in London is deepening our trade relationship.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
You need a new mark, Yeah, because seventy five percent
of your trade is with the United States and that
now has problems.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
That's change.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Okay. Have you learned anything from President Trump?
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Have learned? I've learned lots of things from President Trump.
You always learned things from people. I've learned that the
value I don't fully subscribe to this, but I see
the effectiveness. The value of the term they would use
is flooding the zone of doing multiple things at the
same time, and the effectiveness that can have. I think
that he has a very effective way in his own
(14:00):
almost unique manner of framing issues and of dominating the agenda.
If I can put that away as well.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
I even wondered about the way that you, you know,
when you cancel the carbon tax, you signed it on
camera with a flourish. It was like executive order style.
Have you learned an element of performance, like you have
to be seen to be doing the job. In a
certain way because it didn't feel very Canadian to do that.
The signing on camera with the flourish.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
It's interesting. I wouldn't have ascribed it to him per se.
I just think that in a time when there is
a lot of pressure, people are under a lot of pressure,
there's a lot of uncertainty, the value have been very clear.
So I'll take the example you used. That was the
first day that I became Prime Minister. The first thing
we did was to cancel that carbon tax. The next
(14:47):
thing I did was to come to Europe, come to
the UK and to the Canadian Arctic, the three founding
peoples of Canada, the French, the British and the Indigenous Canadians,
and to underscore our sovereignty, our history, but also to
set up trade agreements with the first two and a
(15:09):
major intention to invest inter Arctic and defense and security.
And so both of those things had substance. We cancel
the carbon tax. Those trips had substance because they were
setting up trade agreements and security, but they also had
yes symbolism history, sovereignty, action, and when you're in a crisis,
(15:30):
particularly this case a trade crisis and economic crisis, a
crisis of sovereignty, given some of the points that President
Trump saying about the fifty first state. When you're in
a crisis, you need to not just act decisively, but
be seen to act decisively, and that's what we were doing.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
You have a big Ukrainian Canadian community, so Ukraine is
important to the country as a whole as well as
I'm sure to you personally. President Trump is now talking
about Ukraine winning, but when he does so, he emphasizes
that Ukraine he thinks is going to do that with
Europe's help. To what extent can Ukraine win without the
US being fully front and center and offering the security
(16:25):
backstops for the future.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Okay, So there's a lot in that question, and I
think it's important to distinguish the components. Ukraine with Europe's help,
with Canada's help in Canada is the largest per capita
contributor to Ukraine in dollar terms. We're contributing militarily on
a humanitarian basis as well. And we've been there from
the start, and the start was twenty fourteen. The start
(16:49):
was not three years ago. The start was twenty fourteen,
with the illegal invasion annexation of krimea attempted annexation. I
guess the US is essential for a few things with
respect to Ukraine. It is essential for certain military equipment.
The provision of that military equipment we are happy too,
(17:11):
where we understand the need to buy that equipment on
behalf of Ukraine, or to help Ukraine finance that equipment
in many cases, so it doesn't have to be directly
supplied by the United States. Obviously would be easier if
the US we're doing more direct provision, but that's not
an insuperabowl issue. What is essential is this other part
of your question is when there is an end of hostility,
(17:34):
some form of ceasefire, piece frozen conflict, however it ends
up being, the first line of defense will be the
Ukrainian Army, reinforced the Coalition of the Willing, of which
Canada is a member of the UK. Others France will
provide important security guarantees. But the ultimate backstop does need
to have some form of backstop in our judgment and
(17:56):
judgment of many others of the United States.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
So the United States, which is which there's been no commitment,
which is why I asked you there.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Has been Well, there's winning there's there's winning. We can
debate how that's defined, but winning militarily on the battlefield,
getting to a position where there is a piece accord,
a cease fire or frozen conflict some understanding. They can
get to that position with the support of Europe, the
(18:25):
support of Canada, the support of Australia, supportive of a
few others, and with the US more in a secondary role.
Having a durable peace, durable end of hostility will require us.
It will require the form that that could take is
under active discussion at the military level, at the national
(18:46):
security level. We are part of those discussions. It is
right that nothing has been concretely agreed and spelled out,
but I would say the level of engagement is encouraging.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
With the US. With the US so you're hoping you
get The problem is that right now it does seem
that Russia is emboldened drones in NATO airspace, jets in
NATO airspace, as happened over Estonia.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Would I would refer Russia's under pressure. Russia's under pressure.
They're trying what they can to shift, but they're under
economic pressure, their military situation. They were making some progress
over the course of the summer, that progress has stopped,
some of it's begun to being reversed.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
It's unnerving for a country like Estonia to have Russian
jets in its airspace.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
It's under Canada has frontline troops in Latvia, all right, but.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Here's a very concrete thing. If that happens again, do
you support the idea of a NATO country shooting down
that Russian jet?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
All options, all options are on the table, without question.
There are ongoing consultations within NATO. NATO countries defend themselves
and certainly will we will do what's necessary in order
to protect contry.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Are you warning Russia that it is possible that a
NATO country would strike out as was their playing if.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I made so that, For example, the Polish government has
made was warnings directly in public.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
There is a precedent because Turkey did it to a
Russian plane ten years ago.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
Is that the kind of message that you think it
might take at a moment like this to show Russia
that NATO is serious because President Trump isn't really showing Russia,
but America is serious about Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I think President Trump has been very important in this process.
He has given piece a chance so to speak, with Russia.
He has been at lines of communication with Vladimir Putin,
with his Special envoy Steve Wikoff. There's been direct conversations.
There's been opportunities for Putin to take off ramps. Putin
(20:47):
has not taken any of those off ramps. The President
speaks for himself, but I think his patience is being exhausted.
His line is hardening, The likelihood of further economics sayings
against Russia is increasing, and the severity of those next
phase of sanctions could be a different order of magnitude
(21:09):
than previous rounds of sanctions. All of that is pointing
in one direction. And I would underscore Russia has been
moving at literally a snails pace in terms of temporary
acquisition of territory in Ukraine over the course of the
last three years. And they're not going to win. They're
not going to win this war, and it's a question
of their realizing that. And I personally think that the
(21:31):
actions of Vladimir Putin over the course of the last
few months spurning the opportunity that President Trump has given
him on multiple occasions, these drown incursions, if they are intentional,
as they increasingly look to be that.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
Is making the calculation that America doesn't There are no
consequences for spurning.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
President Putin has done nothing but miscalculating this war. He
made the calculation that NATO would become divided. NATO is
as solidified. You just have to look to the June commitments.
You have to look how we're acting. He made the
calculation that Ukraine would capitulate in a matter of days.
He made the calculation that President Zelenski would flee. He
made the calculation that would been uprising in favor. He
(22:09):
is miscalculated consistently in this conflict.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Another one of your foreign policy priorities has been the
recognition of a Palestinian state on which the US fundamentally disagrees.
What what is your next step on that issue?
Speaker 2 (22:25):
So I would say the foreign policy priority was the recognition,
not the end. The end is a free and viable
Palestinian state living side by side peace and security with
the State of Israel. That's the end goal. What we saw,
just to be clear about why we did what we did,
was that the actions of the current government, the net
(22:46):
Niao government, were explicitly designed to end any possibility of
the state of Palestine in violation of the UN Charter
and going against Canadian government policy of whatever political stripe
since nineteen forty seven. We did this because the prospect
was receding, as opposed to viewing it as any sort
(23:06):
of panacea, game changer, fundamentally immediately leading to the outcome
that we and others want most others want. Yes, the
US disagrees with the decision that we took, that Spain took,
that France took, the United Kingdom took, one hundred and
fifty other countries in the UN have taken, but they
(23:26):
are common. Objective is the same.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
So the end for the end goal the actual establishment
of a Palestinian state living side by side with the
secure Israel. To get that, you're going to have to
keep up the pressure on the Israeli government. Justin Trudeau
said that Canada would honor the International Criminal Court arrest
warrants I Benjamin ettaniawud would be arrested if he came
to Canada. Does that stand under your leadership? Yes, you'd
(23:52):
be prepared to do that, yes.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Ah.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
We also in a climate crisis.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
We are in a climate crisis. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
The last time we spoke was at the GLOS Climate Conference.
Grab your headphones because I want to play you something
that you said around that time when you were the
UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Here's what you said, Human frailties create a tragedy of
the horizon. That means the catastrophic impacts of climate change
will fall largely on future generations. The current generation, with
our horizons fixated on the current news, business and political cycles,
has few direct incentives to solve the issue, even though
the sooner react, the less costly it will be.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
You are really well known for these words, this phrase,
the tragedy of the horizon. It's all about how you
need to think long term rather than in terms of
a short term horizon. And yet in office, you scrapped
the consumer carbon tax, you pause the mandate that was
pushing car makers to sell more and more electric vehicles,
and there are now reports that you are about to
(24:55):
drop the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.
What happened to you?
Speaker 2 (25:01):
I'm the same me. I'm focused on the same issues,
and the question is how do you make progress towards
those issues, and particularly how do you make progress in
a way that is most effective? How do you make
progress most effectively. So I'll break those issues down. The
consumer carbon tax was at best going to be responsible
(25:23):
for high single digit proportion of emissions reductions over the
course of the next twenty five years. So it was
not It was something, but it was far from the
most important measure that was in place. It was extremely
politically divisive and it would have contributed to a government
(25:45):
in place that would have canceled all climate policies in effect.
First point, that's the design of that aspect of the
carbon tax relative.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
To Yeah, it wasn't perfect.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
It wasn't. So the question is the question is how
do you use scarce government capital, government dollars, taxpayers dollars
and political capital in order to have the maximum effect
and so the maximum effects. So let me go more
directly to what we are doing. So, one of the
biggest twenty percent of the emissions in Canada thereabouts, it
(26:18):
comes from the building sector, from houses and commercial buildings.
We've done very little in terms of reducing those emissions.
We are now embarking on one of the biggest home
building measures in our history, which is more than twenty
percent lower embedded carbon in the production of these homes.
More than twenty percent lower carbon footprint in the running
(26:41):
of these homes, So that in itself is it's a
housing strategy, it's an economic strategy, but it's a climate
strategy at the same time.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And yet, reading your book, which is all about values
rather than market value, and reading the way that you
emphasize that these are urgent issues, is that everything you
do ought to take you further towards the common good,
which is keeping global temperatures as close to one and
a half degrees as you can. You're the only G
(27:09):
seven leader who has been a UN envoy on climate action. Yes,
and the world is crying out for leadership on this right.
President Trump is calling climate change a hoax? Are you
in danger of squandering your reputation as a global climate
champion because some of your actions are against that ultimate goal?
Speaker 2 (27:30):
A few things in what you said first, it's not
about my role as prime minister, is not about my reputation.
My role as Prime minister is about what's in the
best interests of Canada. Canadians care about the world, They
care about climate action, they care about their fellow citizens,
they care about all of those things. Those values of
sustainability and solidarity, fairness or fundamental to Canadians. What we
(27:55):
need to do is to be as effective as possible
in terms of addressing climate change well growing our economy.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
So what are you going to do about emissions from
the oil and gas sector. Well, there is a there
is a cap that's supposed to come in. Is it
true that you're considering dropping it?
Speaker 2 (28:11):
What we're what we're focused on. You can you can
say there's a cap, but saying a cap doesn't make
it happen. What makes the emissions go down in the
oil and gas sector? As long as Canada and America
using oil and gas, and we are our our economies
are wired for that, as is the rest of the world.
(28:33):
What makes those emissions go down will be carbon capture
and storage, particularly in other efficiencies are making it? Then,
what we're dropping emissions from the oil and cap? Dropping
emissions Michelle from the oil and gas sector. This is
the point. This is about results. The climate cares about results,
doesn't clear about a policy that is. An outcome is
(28:58):
not a policy. A desired outcome is not policy.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
So I'm getting the strong signals that that particular policy
to have a cap on emissions from the oil and
gas sector is not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Outcome is not a policy. What is what makes a
difference to the climate is whether or not emissions come down.
What's required for the Canadian oil sends. In this case,
what we're talking about is carbon and capture and storage.
We signaled our first major nation building project is something
called the Pathways, which will get those emissions down. Second
(29:28):
thing related to this, and this is crucial from a
climate perspective, is so called fugitive methane flaring, which is
depending on your horizon and the horizon that we should
we're all in in the next few decades in terms
of climate warming, is up to seventy times a bigger,
seventy times bigger contributor to climate change than CO two emissions.
(29:49):
And so we have an opportunity. We're working with the industry,
working with the provinces to get those emissions, methane emissions
down to zero.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
You are explaining the complexity of what you're dealing with,
and I guess I'd just wonder whether the Mark Carney
of twenty twenty would be slightly disappointed in the Mark Karno.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
I think the mark I think if you look in
the market in fact, I know that looking in that
book that you've got your hand on, you will see
two important things in there. One is a discussion of
exactly what I just said, the emissions reductions, and secondly,
carbon value for money, which is a fundamental point, which
is using scarce public dollars to most efficiently reduce emissions.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
You've clearly had a really intense few months and you've
made clear what you're up against. Right, Canada prospered under
the old world, and we're not going back to the
old world. How long do you plan.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
To serve that's a great question. I think that I'm
in a minority position. Are my party is in a
minority position in parliament. We have we ran on a
very strong mandate, in other words, going to do big
things that we're going to put the country in a
build the country strong.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
But I think you made such big pledges that it's
hard to imagine that you could fulfill them in less
than a decade. So I imagine you do want to
serve two terms. You want to build a huge number
of houses. You've made a big pledge on defense, bend.
You're in a tight economic framework where growth is hard
to find.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Well, it's a democracy, and you have to ask permission
from voters for the time served. I think what's essential again,
we are in a crisis. We're in an economic crisis.
Is fundamental shift in the world. And we make this
point and I'll make it again. It's not a transition,
it's a rupture. It's big changes in a very short
period of time. And I know from all my experience
(31:40):
that in those situations you have to act big, you
have to act ball. That is what we're going to do.
The politics will favorably or unfavorably will result from that.
But I don't want to be in a position, however
long I serve, where I didn't do what I didn't
think was necessary at the time. I need to do
(32:01):
what I think is necesary.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
And what is at stake if you don't succeed. We're
in an age of rising populism in many countries. In Canada,
the old acceptance of immigration has changed a lot, and
anti immigrant sentiment is rising. Do you fear the spectrum
of populism because you've said populists don't know how to
run economies.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
That's true. They know how to talk about it, but
they know how to run economies. Down, I think I'll
answer the question this way. We're doing big things, We're
building the economy. What's important is how we're building as well.
We're building, for example, with Indigenous Canadians, there were in
these major projects, there always be indigenous participation in the ownership.
We are building in an inclusive way. With unions, these
(32:46):
we're creating hundreds of thousands of high paid, skilled careers.
So when I announced our first batch of nation building
projects with the heads of all the major unions were
there with me representing the millions of workers that are
part of those unions. We are build sustainably. So when
we are energy projects, huge swath of clean energy projects,
(33:06):
anything in other sectors is top quartile or top decile
in terms of the lowest carbon emissions.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
But are are you optimistic about all of this? Because
everything that you're signaling is these are very hard roads
to go down where there are a lot of high
expectations and arguably your chances of delivering, certainly in the
next five years are probably relatively low. So where do
you find the optimism?
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Well, I think that I know that Canadians recognize the
scale of the challenge. They want the government to act
they feel fundamentally that we need to take care of ourselves.
That's building for ourselves and it's diversifying around the world,
and they're fundamentally supportive of that. Yes, we have to deliver.
(33:55):
They're not Canadians, they're not unrealistic people. They know it
won't change overnight, but they need to see us doing
everything we can to make sure that it changes for
the medium term.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
Can we bring it back to you to close, because
this is the Bloomberg Weekend interview and as it happens,
we're talking on a weekends. You've come into the office
to record this on a Saturday. What are prime ministerial
weekends like for you these days?
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Well, I took off my tie, so that's a big,
big step. They are pretty indistinguishable from Prime ministerial weeks.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
There is no weekend in effect.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
In effect, there is no weekend, with the sole exception
of on a weekend you can find one evening where
just with the family you might be able to go
Canada and the winter cross country skiing or something, or
for a run, or there is some element of that,
but it's pretty limited. And that's fine. That's exactly what
(34:56):
I would have expected in terms of the scale of
the task and weekend. I don't know if it's a
chance to catch up, but it's on work, but it's
a chance to plan a bit ahead.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Yeah. And the space to think, well, how do you
find that? Because I find the papers, the staff, the
people demanding decisions all the time.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Yes, but part of the job is to create space
to think and to After all, the job is to
be a leader, and to be a leader you need
to know where you're going, and knowing where you're going
means you need a strategy, and that strategy may need
to adapt. I mean, the world is changing very rapidly.
So if I don't carve out some time on a weekend,
(35:39):
for example, to think and think about strategy, then I'm
not doing my job. It's very easy. Your question is
very on point because it's very easy to be consumed
by the here and now, and there are so many
calls on your time. Everybody wants some of your time
for valid reasons that you have to resist some of
(36:00):
that to preserve some to chart of.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Course, Mark Carney, Prime Minister, thank you, Thank you, Michelle,
And that's the Michelle Hussein Show this week. To make
sure you never miss an episode. Please subscribe wherever you
get your podcasts, and if you want to leave us
a comment while you're there, I hear that's a good thing.
(36:24):
If you'd like to see my conversation with Mark Carney,
you'll find the video online and at Bloomberg dot com
slash Weekend you'll find the written version of this interview,
with an illustration of a guest and my notes why
I asked, what I did and the context around it.
The Michelle Hussein Show is produced by Jessica Beck and
(36:45):
Chris martinlou Guest booking by Dave Warren. Social media by
Alex Morgan. Our sound engineer is Blake Maples. Our video
editor is Evando Thompson. Our executive producer is Louisa Lewis.
Brendan Franz As Newnham is Editorial director of Audio and
Special Projects for Bloomberg Weekend. Catherine Bell is the executive
(37:07):
editor of Weekend. Our music is composed by Bart Warshaw.
And we'd also like to thank Elana Sussnow, Victoria Wakeley,
Adam Blentford, Summersadi and Sage Bowman, and thank you for listening.
Do come back next Weekend
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
We are in a crisis. We're in an economic crisis.
Is fundamental shift in the world. It's not a transition,
it's a rupture. It's big changes in a very short
period of time. And I know from all my experience
that in those situations you have to act big, you
have to act ball.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Mark Carney, former Central banker, climate champion and now Canada's
Prime Minister.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We can give ourselves far more than the United States
can take away. So we have agency, we can have
one Canadian economy. We've taken major moves towards that one
Canadian economy.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
It takes time.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it
because we never want to be in this position again.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
From Bluemberg Weekend. This is the Michelle Hussain Show. I'm
Michelle Hussain. Hello and welcome. Thank you for being here,
Thank you for being part of this new adventure. This
is going to be a place where every weekend you'll
hear one essential conversation. But I hope that it's also
(01:13):
going to be a place with head, heart and soul,
where in the midst of a disrupted even a chaotic world.
You'll find something to take away that's of value. That's
what I'm aiming to do week after week, and I'm
thrilled that you're part of it. I hope that you'll
keep coming back as we explore ideas and current affairs
(01:34):
and history with people who are shaping the world or
who can help us understand it. And my first guest
is Mark Carney, someone who's leading a country in the
crosshairs of trade and other turbulence. Canada's super interesting because
it's at the forefront of so many of the different
currents in the world right now. It's in President Trump
(01:56):
cites it's a country that he still believes should be
the fifty first date. It's highly connected economically to its
big southern neighbor, the two of them share the world's
longest border, but tariffs and threats since the start of
the year mean that it's in the midst of trying
to make itself more self sufficient. That's the reality that
(02:17):
Mark Carney stepped into seven months ago when he became
Prime Minister. He was entirely new to politics, though in
many ways he has been an insider, and we'll get
to some of that in this conversation. We spoke over
a weekend in London because he was here ahead of
Canada's women playing England in the Rugby World Cup final.
Unfortunately for Canada, they lost, as it happens. When he
(02:39):
came to our studios, he was on the doorstep of
the place he used to run, the Bank of England,
and he's not unfamiliar with Bloomberg either, because he used
to be on the board here. We talked about the
big issues of course Donald Trump, and about big foreign
policy moves, but this is a personal conversation too, and
I asked him for to take me right back to
(03:02):
his early years, the story of his parents and the
place where he was born, Fort Smith, in Canada's Northwest Territories.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
They went up to the North I was technically all
the way to the Arctic, but close enough. They went
up to the north as an adventure, pioneering. There were
young teachers and going to what seemed as the frontier.
Of course there were people there already, so there was
that element strong sense in my family of public service.
My dad was a civil servant. As I say, my
(03:32):
parents are educators, a sense of that is the higher calling.
So I've always had that element. Even though I've had
a private sector career, I was fortunate to be the
central bank governor in two G seven countries, and at
a time when because there were major financial problems, including
here in the City of London, that that job was
(03:52):
broader than usual, major financial reforms going on having to
be negotiated around the world. So I've in that regard,
I've been thinking about what next in public service. Yes, candidly,
the prospect of becoming an elected politician in Canada, let
alone prime minister I felt like was receding, And then
(04:14):
over the course of the year and the run up
to when I stood for election, I became more and
more concerned, as some others did, about the potential direction
of our country, and felt that given my background, I
would have a chance to help change it.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
What do you miss about your old life? I imagine
your family probably miss your old life.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Ah, yes, I'm sure they do. I miss What do
I miss about? I miss having any privacy?
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Basically, I was thinking about something you said in twenty
twenty about how it is easier to be a central
banker in a democracy than a politician. But it feels
like that's not even the half of it right. You
have become Prime Minister at a time when global trade
is disrupted as never before, Global alliances are under pressure
(04:58):
as never before. How has it been.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
I stand by my earlier statement it is easier to
be a central banker. Part of the reason I am
in this position is because of what you just described.
It's part of the reason why I put myself for it.
It's possibly one of the reasons why I was elected.
In some respects, I'm going to say an odd thing.
In some respects, it's easier when the problems are very
(05:24):
clearly out in front of everybody. I think all Canadians
understand that our relationship with the United States has changed fundamentally,
that the world is a more dangerous and divided place.
And then the question becomes what do we do about it?
And sometimes just on reflection, if you look back when
times were good quote unquote, but problems we're building up,
(05:48):
that's when it's more difficult to take the big decisions
that are necessary. You know theol here, you know that
we have to act. It's important to be as open
and as possible with people terms of the assessment of
the scale of what needs to be done. And then
to be decisive.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Did you get elected because of President Trump?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Really I got election? Well, you'd have to ask the
voters account.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
I think, well, you stood because of President Trump. You
made the choice just before you announced it, just stood.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
I did not stand because of President Trump. No, I
stood because I believe that the person who was likely
to become Prime minister, certainly in all the polling, was
not the right person for Canada. That would have been
a divisive government in that case, and would have taken
our country back as opposed to Ford. It turned out
to be the case that very quickly, once I was
(06:38):
in the leadership campaign, before I became leader of the
Liberal Party, and then before the general election campaign, it
turned out that President Trump's actions in the trade war
as it's known, really intensified, and then I became more relevant.
So certainly, yes, it helped that people made a judgment
that I was best place to deal with it.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So you went into it with your eyes open. But
what is you in these six to seven months.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
What has surprised me the most A couple of things.
One is how relentless it is. So I took a
decision in early January to stand for the leadership and
from that point on it has been NonStop, as close
to twenty four to seven as possible. I conceptually knew
that I'd had high pressure jobs before, but it's that
(07:26):
much more so. So that's the first thing I think
that the importance and the fluidity of international relations. I
knew international relations are important, but the fluidity of those
relations and the importance of those relationships, those personal relationships
with world leaders, some of which I had in advance,
but others I've had to develop. That has surprised me
(07:48):
the degree to which that is important.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
I do want to explore how much harder your task
is as Prime Minister in some of your domestic priorities
uncertain your foreign policy priorities because the United States is
not the partner that it has been before, and because
its priorities have shifted. Of course, you've got specific bilateral
(08:11):
issues with the United States, primarily over trade, and the
Canadian economy has been hit hard by what President has drawn,
particularly on steel and the auto sector and aluminium. What
is your strategy for when the US Mexico Canada trade
deal is reviewed next summer. Are you hoping the US
economy by that stage is in a position where President
(08:33):
Trump takes a different view on tariffs.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
We want the best for the US economy, just as
we want well slightly stronger, we want the best for
the Canadian economy. So no, our strategy is not to
expect some weakness in the US economy that is going
to change US negotiating position. Part of our strategy has
been to pursue the best deal for Canada. We have
the best trade deal at the moment. Eighty five percent
of our trade with the United States is teriff free.
(08:57):
We have the lowest average tariff against of any country
with the it's five and a half percent. So we're
in a good position now with two important caveats. One
is your question what's going to happen with the renegotiation
of what they call USMCA. And secondly, some key sectors
steel autos, aluminium, force products being the main ones, will
(09:18):
make it increasingly clear that in certain sectors, particularly the
integration of the Canadian and US and Mexican economies is
essential to US competitiveness. So in steel in autos, as
two example, the linkages are so tight. They're so tight
such that the US content in Canadian finished automobiles is
(09:41):
higher than the average US content in American automobiles. So
we make America stronger in these sectors, and our strategy
is to make sure that that is as well understood
as possible.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Okay, so the prosperity of both countries is at stake.
Your language, though, has ch changed on President Trump since
you came to office. Do you remember when you talked
about him as a bully that needed to be stood
up to in February when you were campaigning, We're going
to stand up to a bully. We're not going to
back down. And yet now you're much more likely to
(10:17):
talk in more conciliatory terms. I mean, obviously one is
campaigning and one is governing. But perhaps people who wanted
you to do the standing up to the bully might
feel that you haven't done that as much as you
suggested when you were campaigning.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Well, let's be clear of the actual situation. We're one
of two countries effectively that put retaliatory tariffs on the
United States. Two countries in the world. We put them on,
we kept them on. We kept them on up to
a point where they ceased to be effective. We got
to a point when we took our retaliatory tariffs off.
(10:52):
We had eighty five percent of our trade teriff free
when we put them on. Given the steps that President
Trump had taken, it was less than it was a
third of our trade was terror free. So you know,
strikes me that that's that's pretty effective.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Number one shown his power? Hasn't he over you? Like,
for example, your digital services tax? You announced it, he
hated it.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
You had to back down on the digital service tax
was announced multiple years before it was coming into effect.
Look the United States, and it couldn't We made a
decision in the context. And let's let's what happened after
we took that digital service tax off. Within weeks, the
President confirmed in writing, formally confirmed in an executive order
(11:35):
that terror free status for.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
The vast So there was something broader at stake, something
very much. I get that, But I just wonder how
how you reconcile yourself to that, because it is different
from the tone you struggle.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Well, I recon my my responsibility to get the best
possible deal for Canada. We have the best deal in
the world at this point. Now that next issue is
where is the USMCA negotiation going to.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
Land trade agreement?
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Yeah, the trade agreement, broader trade agreement going to land,
and that's being prepared for that and working with the
US and that. But let's let's be absolutely clear. The
United States does have tremendous leverage in the near term
over Canada, over the European Union, over the United Kingdom
because our economies became linked on the basis of certain assumptions.
(12:26):
Those assumptions have now changed, and so part of this
is stabilizing that relationship. It's the US right to have
different priorities. We respect that they've made that choice. We
look to stabilize the trading relationship. Okay, what are the
new terms under the new objectives of the United States
that are in the best interests of Canada. And then
(12:47):
the big thing that we do, and a big part
of I think why I was elected was what else
are we going to do? And one of the core
points that we've made from the start is that we
can give our else far more than the United States
can take away. So we have agency, we can have
one Canadian economy. We've taken major moves towards that one
(13:08):
Canadian economy.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
It takes time.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it
because we never want to be in this position again.
We never want to be in this position again. And
so that's building at home and it's diversifying abroad. We're
having this interview in London. Part of the reason I'm
in London is deepening our trade relationship.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
You need a new mark, Yeah, because seventy five percent
of your trade is with the United States and that
now has problems.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
That's change.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Okay. Have you learned anything from President Trump?
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Have learned? I've learned lots of things from President Trump.
You always learned things from people. I've learned that the
value I don't fully subscribe to this, but I see
the effectiveness. The value of the term they would use
is flooding the zone of doing multiple things at the
same time, and the effectiveness that can have. I think
that he has a very effective way in his own
(14:00):
almost unique manner of framing issues and of dominating the agenda.
If I can put that away as well.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
I even wondered about the way that you, you know,
when you cancel the carbon tax, you signed it on
camera with a flourish. It was like executive order style.
Have you learned an element of performance, like you have
to be seen to be doing the job. In a
certain way because it didn't feel very Canadian to do that.
The signing on camera with the flourish.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
It's interesting. I wouldn't have ascribed it to him per se.
I just think that in a time when there is
a lot of pressure, people are under a lot of pressure,
there's a lot of uncertainty, the value have been very clear.
So I'll take the example you used. That was the
first day that I became Prime Minister. The first thing
we did was to cancel that carbon tax. The next
(14:47):
thing I did was to come to Europe, come to
the UK and to the Canadian Arctic, the three founding
peoples of Canada, the French, the British and the Indigenous Canadians,
and to underscore our sovereignty, our history, but also to
set up trade agreements with the first two and a
(15:09):
major intention to invest inter Arctic and defense and security.
And so both of those things had substance. We cancel
the carbon tax. Those trips had substance because they were
setting up trade agreements and security, but they also had
yes symbolism history, sovereignty, action, and when you're in a crisis,
(15:30):
particularly this case a trade crisis and economic crisis, a
crisis of sovereignty, given some of the points that President
Trump saying about the fifty first state. When you're in
a crisis, you need to not just act decisively, but
be seen to act decisively, and that's what we were doing.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
You have a big Ukrainian Canadian community, so Ukraine is
important to the country as a whole as well as
I'm sure to you personally. President Trump is now talking
about Ukraine winning, but when he does so, he emphasizes
that Ukraine he thinks is going to do that with
Europe's help. To what extent can Ukraine win without the
US being fully front and center and offering the security
(16:25):
backstops for the future.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
Okay, So there's a lot in that question, and I
think it's important to distinguish the components. Ukraine with Europe's help,
with Canada's help in Canada is the largest per capita
contributor to Ukraine in dollar terms. We're contributing militarily on
a humanitarian basis as well. And we've been there from
the start, and the start was twenty fourteen. The start
(16:49):
was not three years ago. The start was twenty fourteen,
with the illegal invasion annexation of krimea attempted annexation. I
guess the US is essential for a few things with
respect to Ukraine. It is essential for certain military equipment.
The provision of that military equipment we are happy too,
(17:11):
where we understand the need to buy that equipment on
behalf of Ukraine, or to help Ukraine finance that equipment
in many cases, so it doesn't have to be directly
supplied by the United States. Obviously would be easier if
the US we're doing more direct provision, but that's not
an insuperabowl issue. What is essential is this other part
of your question is when there is an end of hostility,
(17:34):
some form of ceasefire, piece frozen conflict, however it ends
up being, the first line of defense will be the
Ukrainian Army, reinforced the Coalition of the Willing, of which
Canada is a member of the UK. Others France will
provide important security guarantees. But the ultimate backstop does need
to have some form of backstop in our judgment and
(17:56):
judgment of many others of the United States.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
So the United States, which is which there's been no commitment,
which is why I asked you there.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Has been Well, there's winning there's there's winning. We can
debate how that's defined, but winning militarily on the battlefield,
getting to a position where there is a piece accord,
a cease fire or frozen conflict some understanding. They can
get to that position with the support of Europe, the
(18:25):
support of Canada, the support of Australia, supportive of a
few others, and with the US more in a secondary role.
Having a durable peace, durable end of hostility will require us.
It will require the form that that could take is
under active discussion at the military level, at the national
(18:46):
security level. We are part of those discussions. It is
right that nothing has been concretely agreed and spelled out,
but I would say the level of engagement is encouraging.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
With the US. With the US so you're hoping you
get The problem is that right now it does seem
that Russia is emboldened drones in NATO airspace, jets in
NATO airspace, as happened over Estonia.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Would I would refer Russia's under pressure. Russia's under pressure.
They're trying what they can to shift, but they're under
economic pressure, their military situation. They were making some progress
over the course of the summer, that progress has stopped,
some of it's begun to being reversed.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
It's unnerving for a country like Estonia to have Russian
jets in its airspace.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
It's under Canada has frontline troops in Latvia, all right, but.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Here's a very concrete thing. If that happens again, do
you support the idea of a NATO country shooting down
that Russian jet?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
All options, all options are on the table, without question.
There are ongoing consultations within NATO. NATO countries defend themselves
and certainly will we will do what's necessary in order
to protect contry.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Are you warning Russia that it is possible that a
NATO country would strike out as was their playing if.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I made so that, For example, the Polish government has
made was warnings directly in public.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
There is a precedent because Turkey did it to a
Russian plane ten years ago.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
Is that the kind of message that you think it
might take at a moment like this to show Russia
that NATO is serious because President Trump isn't really showing Russia,
but America is serious about Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I think President Trump has been very important in this process.
He has given piece a chance so to speak, with Russia.
He has been at lines of communication with Vladimir Putin,
with his Special envoy Steve Wikoff. There's been direct conversations.
There's been opportunities for Putin to take off ramps. Putin
(20:47):
has not taken any of those off ramps. The President
speaks for himself, but I think his patience is being exhausted.
His line is hardening, The likelihood of further economics sayings
against Russia is increasing, and the severity of those next
phase of sanctions could be a different order of magnitude
(21:09):
than previous rounds of sanctions. All of that is pointing
in one direction. And I would underscore Russia has been
moving at literally a snails pace in terms of temporary
acquisition of territory in Ukraine over the course of the
last three years. And they're not going to win. They're
not going to win this war, and it's a question
of their realizing that. And I personally think that the
(21:31):
actions of Vladimir Putin over the course of the last
few months spurning the opportunity that President Trump has given
him on multiple occasions, these drown incursions, if they are intentional,
as they increasingly look to be that.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
Is making the calculation that America doesn't There are no
consequences for spurning.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
President Putin has done nothing but miscalculating this war. He
made the calculation that NATO would become divided. NATO is
as solidified. You just have to look to the June commitments.
You have to look how we're acting. He made the
calculation that Ukraine would capitulate in a matter of days.
He made the calculation that President Zelenski would flee. He
made the calculation that would been uprising in favor. He
(22:09):
is miscalculated consistently in this conflict.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Another one of your foreign policy priorities has been the
recognition of a Palestinian state on which the US fundamentally disagrees.
What what is your next step on that issue?
Speaker 2 (22:25):
So I would say the foreign policy priority was the recognition,
not the end. The end is a free and viable
Palestinian state living side by side peace and security with
the State of Israel. That's the end goal. What we saw,
just to be clear about why we did what we did,
was that the actions of the current government, the net
(22:46):
Niao government, were explicitly designed to end any possibility of
the state of Palestine in violation of the UN Charter
and going against Canadian government policy of whatever political stripe
since nineteen forty seven. We did this because the prospect
was receding, as opposed to viewing it as any sort
(23:06):
of panacea, game changer, fundamentally immediately leading to the outcome
that we and others want most others want. Yes, the
US disagrees with the decision that we took, that Spain took,
that France took, the United Kingdom took, one hundred and
fifty other countries in the UN have taken, but they
(23:26):
are common. Objective is the same.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
So the end for the end goal the actual establishment
of a Palestinian state living side by side with the
secure Israel. To get that, you're going to have to
keep up the pressure on the Israeli government. Justin Trudeau
said that Canada would honor the International Criminal Court arrest
warrants I Benjamin ettaniawud would be arrested if he came
to Canada. Does that stand under your leadership? Yes, you'd
(23:52):
be prepared to do that, yes.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Ah.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
We also in a climate crisis.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
We are in a climate crisis. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
The last time we spoke was at the GLOS Climate Conference.
Grab your headphones because I want to play you something
that you said around that time when you were the
UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Here's what you said, Human frailties create a tragedy of
the horizon. That means the catastrophic impacts of climate change
will fall largely on future generations. The current generation, with
our horizons fixated on the current news, business and political cycles,
has few direct incentives to solve the issue, even though
the sooner react, the less costly it will be.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
You are really well known for these words, this phrase,
the tragedy of the horizon. It's all about how you
need to think long term rather than in terms of
a short term horizon. And yet in office, you scrapped
the consumer carbon tax, you pause the mandate that was
pushing car makers to sell more and more electric vehicles,
and there are now reports that you are about to
(24:55):
drop the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector.
What happened to you?
Speaker 2 (25:01):
I'm the same me. I'm focused on the same issues,
and the question is how do you make progress towards
those issues, and particularly how do you make progress in
a way that is most effective? How do you make
progress most effectively. So I'll break those issues down. The
consumer carbon tax was at best going to be responsible
(25:23):
for high single digit proportion of emissions reductions over the
course of the next twenty five years. So it was
not It was something, but it was far from the
most important measure that was in place. It was extremely
politically divisive and it would have contributed to a government
(25:45):
in place that would have canceled all climate policies in effect.
First point, that's the design of that aspect of the
carbon tax relative.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
To Yeah, it wasn't perfect.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
It wasn't. So the question is the question is how
do you use scarce government capital, government dollars, taxpayers dollars
and political capital in order to have the maximum effect
and so the maximum effects. So let me go more
directly to what we are doing. So, one of the
biggest twenty percent of the emissions in Canada thereabouts, it
(26:18):
comes from the building sector, from houses and commercial buildings.
We've done very little in terms of reducing those emissions.
We are now embarking on one of the biggest home
building measures in our history, which is more than twenty
percent lower embedded carbon in the production of these homes.
More than twenty percent lower carbon footprint in the running
(26:41):
of these homes, So that in itself is it's a
housing strategy, it's an economic strategy, but it's a climate
strategy at the same time.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
And yet, reading your book, which is all about values
rather than market value, and reading the way that you
emphasize that these are urgent issues, is that everything you
do ought to take you further towards the common good,
which is keeping global temperatures as close to one and
a half degrees as you can. You're the only G
(27:09):
seven leader who has been a UN envoy on climate action. Yes,
and the world is crying out for leadership on this right.
President Trump is calling climate change a hoax? Are you
in danger of squandering your reputation as a global climate
champion because some of your actions are against that ultimate goal?
Speaker 2 (27:30):
A few things in what you said first, it's not
about my role as prime minister, is not about my reputation.
My role as Prime minister is about what's in the
best interests of Canada. Canadians care about the world, They
care about climate action, they care about their fellow citizens,
they care about all of those things. Those values of
sustainability and solidarity, fairness or fundamental to Canadians. What we
(27:55):
need to do is to be as effective as possible
in terms of addressing climate change well growing our economy.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
So what are you going to do about emissions from
the oil and gas sector. Well, there is a there
is a cap that's supposed to come in. Is it
true that you're considering dropping it?
Speaker 2 (28:11):
What we're what we're focused on. You can you can
say there's a cap, but saying a cap doesn't make
it happen. What makes the emissions go down in the
oil and gas sector? As long as Canada and America
using oil and gas, and we are our our economies
are wired for that, as is the rest of the world.
(28:33):
What makes those emissions go down will be carbon capture
and storage, particularly in other efficiencies are making it? Then,
what we're dropping emissions from the oil and cap? Dropping
emissions Michelle from the oil and gas sector. This is
the point. This is about results. The climate cares about results,
doesn't clear about a policy that is. An outcome is
(28:58):
not a policy. A desired outcome is not policy.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
So I'm getting the strong signals that that particular policy
to have a cap on emissions from the oil and
gas sector is not going to happen.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Outcome is not a policy. What is what makes a
difference to the climate is whether or not emissions come down.
What's required for the Canadian oil sends. In this case,
what we're talking about is carbon and capture and storage.
We signaled our first major nation building project is something
called the Pathways, which will get those emissions down. Second
(29:28):
thing related to this, and this is crucial from a
climate perspective, is so called fugitive methane flaring, which is
depending on your horizon and the horizon that we should
we're all in in the next few decades in terms
of climate warming, is up to seventy times a bigger,
seventy times bigger contributor to climate change than CO two emissions.
(29:49):
And so we have an opportunity. We're working with the industry,
working with the provinces to get those emissions, methane emissions
down to zero.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
You are explaining the complexity of what you're dealing with,
and I guess I'd just wonder whether the Mark Carney
of twenty twenty would be slightly disappointed in the Mark Karno.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
I think the mark I think if you look in
the market in fact, I know that looking in that
book that you've got your hand on, you will see
two important things in there. One is a discussion of
exactly what I just said, the emissions reductions, and secondly,
carbon value for money, which is a fundamental point, which
is using scarce public dollars to most efficiently reduce emissions.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
You've clearly had a really intense few months and you've
made clear what you're up against. Right, Canada prospered under
the old world, and we're not going back to the
old world. How long do you plan.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
To serve that's a great question. I think that I'm
in a minority position. Are my party is in a
minority position in parliament. We have we ran on a
very strong mandate, in other words, going to do big
things that we're going to put the country in a
build the country strong.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
But I think you made such big pledges that it's
hard to imagine that you could fulfill them in less
than a decade. So I imagine you do want to
serve two terms. You want to build a huge number
of houses. You've made a big pledge on defense, bend.
You're in a tight economic framework where growth is hard
to find.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Well, it's a democracy, and you have to ask permission
from voters for the time served. I think what's essential again,
we are in a crisis. We're in an economic crisis.
Is fundamental shift in the world. And we make this
point and I'll make it again. It's not a transition,
it's a rupture. It's big changes in a very short
period of time. And I know from all my experience
(31:40):
that in those situations you have to act big, you
have to act ball. That is what we're going to do.
The politics will favorably or unfavorably will result from that.
But I don't want to be in a position, however
long I serve, where I didn't do what I didn't
think was necessary at the time. I need to do
(32:01):
what I think is necesary.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
And what is at stake if you don't succeed. We're
in an age of rising populism in many countries. In Canada,
the old acceptance of immigration has changed a lot, and
anti immigrant sentiment is rising. Do you fear the spectrum
of populism because you've said populists don't know how to
run economies.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
That's true. They know how to talk about it, but
they know how to run economies. Down, I think I'll
answer the question this way. We're doing big things, We're
building the economy. What's important is how we're building as well.
We're building, for example, with Indigenous Canadians, there were in
these major projects, there always be indigenous participation in the ownership.
We are building in an inclusive way. With unions, these
(32:46):
we're creating hundreds of thousands of high paid, skilled careers.
So when I announced our first batch of nation building
projects with the heads of all the major unions were
there with me representing the millions of workers that are
part of those unions. We are build sustainably. So when
we are energy projects, huge swath of clean energy projects,
(33:06):
anything in other sectors is top quartile or top decile
in terms of the lowest carbon emissions.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
But are are you optimistic about all of this? Because
everything that you're signaling is these are very hard roads
to go down where there are a lot of high
expectations and arguably your chances of delivering, certainly in the
next five years are probably relatively low. So where do
you find the optimism?
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Well, I think that I know that Canadians recognize the
scale of the challenge. They want the government to act
they feel fundamentally that we need to take care of ourselves.
That's building for ourselves and it's diversifying around the world,
and they're fundamentally supportive of that. Yes, we have to deliver.
(33:55):
They're not Canadians, they're not unrealistic people. They know it
won't change overnight, but they need to see us doing
everything we can to make sure that it changes for
the medium term.
Speaker 1 (34:05):
Can we bring it back to you to close, because
this is the Bloomberg Weekend interview and as it happens,
we're talking on a weekends. You've come into the office
to record this on a Saturday. What are prime ministerial
weekends like for you these days?
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Well, I took off my tie, so that's a big,
big step. They are pretty indistinguishable from Prime ministerial weeks.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
There is no weekend in effect.
Speaker 2 (34:33):
In effect, there is no weekend, with the sole exception
of on a weekend you can find one evening where
just with the family you might be able to go
Canada and the winter cross country skiing or something, or
for a run, or there is some element of that,
but it's pretty limited. And that's fine. That's exactly what
(34:56):
I would have expected in terms of the scale of
the task and weekend. I don't know if it's a
chance to catch up, but it's on work, but it's
a chance to plan a bit ahead.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Yeah. And the space to think, well, how do you
find that? Because I find the papers, the staff, the
people demanding decisions all the time.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Yes, but part of the job is to create space
to think and to After all, the job is to
be a leader, and to be a leader you need
to know where you're going, and knowing where you're going
means you need a strategy, and that strategy may need
to adapt. I mean, the world is changing very rapidly.
So if I don't carve out some time on a weekend,
(35:39):
for example, to think and think about strategy, then I'm
not doing my job. It's very easy. Your question is
very on point because it's very easy to be consumed
by the here and now, and there are so many
calls on your time. Everybody wants some of your time
for valid reasons that you have to resist some of
(36:00):
that to preserve some to chart of.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Course, Mark Carney, Prime Minister, thank you, Thank you, Michelle,
And that's the Michelle Hussein Show this week. To make
sure you never miss an episode. Please subscribe wherever you
get your podcasts, and if you want to leave us
a comment while you're there, I hear that's a good thing.
(36:24):
If you'd like to see my conversation with Mark Carney,
you'll find the video online and at Bloomberg dot com
slash Weekend you'll find the written version of this interview,
with an illustration of a guest and my notes why
I asked, what I did and the context around it.
The Michelle Hussein Show is produced by Jessica Beck and
(36:45):
Chris martinlou Guest booking by Dave Warren. Social media by
Alex Morgan. Our sound engineer is Blake Maples. Our video
editor is Evando Thompson. Our executive producer is Louisa Lewis.
Brendan Franz As Newnham is Editorial director of Audio and
Special Projects for Bloomberg Weekend. Catherine Bell is the executive
(37:07):
editor of Weekend. Our music is composed by Bart Warshaw.
And we'd also like to thank Elana Sussnow, Victoria Wakeley,
Adam Blentford, Summersadi and Sage Bowman, and thank you for listening.
Do come back next Weekend
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.