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