Mark Carney on Dealing With Trump, Trade Wars and Putin | The Mishal Husain Show
Summary
Trade Relations: Mark Carney discusses the challenges Canada faces due to changing trade relations with the United States, emphasizing the need for Canada to become more self-sufficient and diversify its trade partners.
Leadership and Governance: Carney reflects on his transition from central banking to politics, noting the relentless nature of political leadership and the importance of international relations and personal connections with world leaders.
USMCA Negotiations: Carney outlines Canada's strategy for the upcoming USMCA trade deal review, focusing on maintaining tariff-free trade and emphasizing the integration of the Canadian, US, and Mexican economies in key sectors like steel and autos.
Foreign Policy: The discussion covers Canada's stance on Ukraine and Palestine, highlighting Canada's military and humanitarian support for Ukraine and its recognition of a Palestinian state, despite US disagreement.
Climate Policy: Carney addresses criticisms of his climate policies, explaining the rationale behind scrapping the consumer carbon tax and focusing on more effective measures like carbon capture and reducing methane emissions.
Economic Strategy: Emphasizing the need for bold action in response to global economic shifts, Carney discusses Canada's focus on building a resilient economy through inclusive and sustainable projects involving indigenous communities and unions.
Challenges and Optimism: Carney acknowledges the challenges of rising populism and anti-immigrant sentiment, emphasizing the importance of delivering on economic and climate goals to maintain public support and optimism.
Transcript
Hello and welcome. I'm Mishal Husain, and this show will be a place where every weekend, you can hear one essential conversation that provides insight into the ideas and people shaping our world. And my first is with someone who's leading a country right at the forefront of the disrupted global order. It's Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada. His country is on the front line of global trade turbulence. It's taking heat from its southern neighbor, a country to which it is highly connected. Canada and the United States, after all, share the world's longest border. And yet today, Donald Trump still believes it should be the 51st state. As a result, Canada is in the midst of a scramble to make its economy more self-sufficient. That's what Mark Carney stepped into seven months ago, when he was entirely new to politics. He's a trained economist, a former central banker, a climate champion who's now in charge of navigating a fossil fuel economy through these uncertain times. It was a weekend when we spoke. He came by Bloomberg's London studios, a place which he's familiar with as he's chaired the board here in the past. He was in London to watch Canada's women play England in the Rugby World Cup final. Unfortunately for Canada, they lost. But we talked about Donald Trump, of course, about big foreign policy moves surrounding Ukraine and Gaza and about Carney's philosophy of leadership. To get a sense of what motivates him, I started by asking him to take me back to his early years, his family and the place where he was born, Fort Smith in Canada's Northwest Territories. 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, yeah, as, adventure pioneer. And there were young teachers and going to the 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 parents were 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, as you say, and in two G7 countries. And at a time when because there were major financial problems, including here in the City of London, that that job was broader than usual, major financial reforms going on, having to be negotiated around the world. So I've, I 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, in over the course of the year, in 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, and felt that given my background, I would have a chance to help change it. Did you get elected because of President Trump? I go to well, you'd have to ask the voters. I think when he stood, I, I was just I stood well, I stood 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 forward. It turned out to be the case that very quickly, once I was in the leadership campaign, before I became leader of the Liberal Party and and then before the general election campaign, it turned out that President Trump's actions in the trade war as, 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 placed to deal with it. So you went into it with your eyes open, but what is surprised you in these 6 to 7 months? What has surprised me the most? I guess 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 24/7 as possible. I conceptually knew that I'd had high pressure jobs before, but it's it's that much more so. So that's the first thing I think that the, the importance of 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, the degree to which that is important. What do you miss about your old life? I imagine your family probably miss your old life. Yes. I'm sure they do. I miss what do I miss about I, I miss, no, having any privacy, basically. I was thinking about something you said in 2020 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 as never before. How has it been? I stand by my earlier statement that it, was, easier to be a central banker. It's. Well, 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 forward, 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 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 were building up, that's when it's more difficult to take the big decisions that are necessary at that point Whereas here you know the score? Here, you know, that we have to act, it's important to be as open and as possible with people in terms of the assessment of the scale of what needs to be done. And then and then to be decisive. I do want to explore how much harder your task is as Prime Minister, in some of your domestic priorities and certainly 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 issues with the United States primarily over trade, and the Canadian economy has been hit hard by what the president has done, particularly on steel and, and, and the auto sector and aluminum. What is your strategy for when the US Mexico Canada trade deal is reviewed next summer. What do you are you are you hoping the US economy by that stage is in a position where President Trump takes a different view on tariffs? We want the best for the US economy, just as we want well slightly stronger. We want the best for the Canadian economy. But so no, our strategy is not to expect some weakness in the US economy that is going to change US negotiating position. Our strategy part of our strategy has been, well, has been to pursue the best deal for Canada. We have the best trade deal at the moment. 85% of our trade with the United States is tariff free. We have the lowest average tariff against, of any country with the US. It's 5.5%. 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, aluminum, forest products, been the been the main ones. We'll 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, that the linkages are so tight, they're so tight and such that the Canadian content, or so the US content in Canadian finished automobiles is 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. Okay, so the the prosperity of both countries is at stake. Your language though has 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, 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 to talk in more conciliatory terms like, 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. Well, let let let's be clear the actual situation. We we're one of the 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. They we got to a point when we took our retaliatory tariffs off, we had 85% of our trade tariff 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 tariff free. So, you know, strikes me that that's that's pretty effective, number one. But he has shown his power hasn't he, over you, like for example, the digital services tax, you announced it, he hated it, you had to back down on that. The digital services tax was announced multiple years before. it was just effectively coming in. It was coming into effect. Look, the United States. And it couldn't, because President Trump wasn't having it. The United States, Well, 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 that tariff free status for the vast majority of our trade. Yes, so there was something broader at stake on trade. There's something very much broader at stake. I get that. But I just wonder how, how you reconcile yourself to that because it is different from the tone you struck before. I, I'm well, I reckon my, my responsibility is to get the best possible deal for Canada. We have the best deal in the world at this point. Now that that next issue is where is the USMCA negotiation going to land? Yeah, the trade agreement, the broader trade agreement going to land. And that's being prepared for that and working with the US on that. But let's let's be absolutely clear. The, 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. 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 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 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. It takes time. It takes time, it take 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, our deepening our trade relationship with the UK and with Europe. You need new markets. Exactly. Yeah, because about 75% of your trade is with the United States. Yeah. And that now and that now has problems. I want to ask you. And that will change. Okay. Have you learned anything from President Trump? Have I learned I've learned lots of things from President Trump. Like what? You always learn things from from people. I, 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 almost unique manner of framing issues and, and, and, I of dominating, the agenda, if I can put that way as well. 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. Didn't. To do that. The signing on camera with a flourish. I think that, I don't know that that I 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 of being very clear. So I'll give you 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 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 and a major intention to invest in our Arctic in 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 sorry, Mishal, but when you're in a crisis, particularly this case of trade crisis, an economic crisis, a crisis of sovereignty, given some of the points that President Trump's saying about the 51st state, when you're in a crisis, you need to not just act decisively, but be seen to act decisively, and that that's what we were doing. Can we explore that first through Ukraine? You are part of the Coalition of the Willing. Yes. 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 backstops for the future? 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. And Canada is the largest per capita contributor to Ukraine in dollar terms. We're contributing militarily and on a humanitarian basis as well. And we've been there from the start. And the start was 2014. The start was not three years ago. The start was 2014 with the, illegal invasion, annexation of Crimea, 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 to or 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, it would be easier if the US were doing more, direct provision, but that's not an insuperable issue. The what is essential is this other part of your question is when there is an end of hostilities, some form of ceasefire, peace, frozen conflict. However, it ends up being the Coalition, the first line of defense will be the Ukrainian army reinforce the Coalition of the Willing, of which Canada is a member, UK, others, France, will provide important security guarantees. But the ultimate backstop does need to have some form of backstop, in our judgment and judgment of many others of the United States. So the United States. Which is not. Which is. There's been no commitment to that. Which is why I asked you how far can Ukraine get? There has been there has been there 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 peace accord, a ceasefire or a frozen conflict, some understanding, they can get to that position with the support of Europe, the support of Canada, the support of Australia, the support of a few others, and with the US more in a secondary role. Having a durable peace, a durable end of hostility will require US backing. It will require. The form that that could take is under active discussion at the military level, at the national 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. With the US. With the US, yes. So you're hoping you get there. The problem is that right now it does seem that Russia's emboldened, drones in NATO airspace, jets in NATO airspace as happened over Estonia. Russia's. I would I would rephrase. I, Russia's under pressure. Russia is 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 be in reverse. But it's unnerving for a country like Estonia to have Russian jets in its airspace. It's unnerving. Canada has frontline troops in, in Latvia. Alright but here's a very concrete thing. If that happens again, do you support the idea of a NATO country shooting down that Russian jet? The, direct. All options, all options are on the table without question. There are ongoing consultations within NATO. NATO countries defend themselves. And, certainly, we will we will do what's necessary in order to protect those countries. So are you warning Russia that ig is possible. Of course. That it is possible that a NATO country would shoot down one of their planes. If I may, that for example, the Polish government has made, those warnings directly in public. There is a precedent because Turkey did it to a Russian plane ten years ago. Yeah. Is that the kind of message you think it might take in a moment like this to, to show Russia that NATO is serious because President Trump isn't really showing Russia that Americans? I think I think President Trump, has been, very important in this in this process. He has given peace a chance, so to speak, with Russia. He has been, you know, lines of communication with, Vladimir Putin, with his special envoy, Steve Witkoff. There's been direct conversations. There's been opportunities for Putin to take off ramps. Putin has not taken any of those off ramps. The president speaks for himself, but I think his patience is being exhausted. The his line is hardening. The likelihood of further economic sanctions against Russia is increasing, and the severity of those next phase of sanctions, could be a different order of magnitude than previous rounds of sanctions. All of that is pointing in one, one direction. And I would underscore Russia has been moving at at literally a snail's pace in terms of, acquisition of territory, 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 actions of, Vladimir Putin over the course of the last few months, spurning the opportunity that President Trump has given them on multiple occasions, these drone incursions, if they are, you know, intentional as they increasingly look to be that. But doing so, making the calculation that America doesn't, there are no consequences for spurning. But, President Putin has done nothing but miscalculate in this war. He made the calculation that NATO would become divided. NATO has 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 Zelensky would flee. He made the calculation. There would be an uprising in favor. He has miscalculated consistently in this conflict. Another one of your foreign policy has been the recognition of recognition of the Palestinian state on which the US fundamentally disagrees. What what is your next step on that issue? Yeah. So the 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, the end goal. What we saw just to to be clear about why we did what we did, was that the actions of the current government, the Netanyahu government, were explicitly designed to end any possibility of a state of Palestine in violation of the UN charter and going against Canadian government policy of whatever political stripe since 1947. We did this because the prospect was receding, as opposed to viewing it as any sort of panacea, game changer fundamentally, immediately leading to the outcome that we and others want. Yes, the US disagrees with the decision that we took, that Spain took that, France took the United Kingdom took, 150 other countries in the UN have taken, but they our common objective is the same. So the for the end goal, the actual establishment of a Palestinian state living side by side with a 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.e. Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to Canada. Does that stand under your leadership? Yes. Yes. You''d be prepared to do that? Yes. Are we also in a climate crisis. We are in a climate crisis, yeah. That's the last time we spoke was at the Glasgow climate conference. Grab your headphones because I want to play you something that you said around that timewhen you were the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance. 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 we act, the less costly it will be. You were really well known for these words. This phrase, the tragedy for horizon. Yeah. It's all about how you need to think long term rather than in terms of the short term horizon. And yet, in office, you scrapped the consumer carbon tax you paused the mandatw that was pushing carmakers to sell more and more electric vehicles. And there are now reports that you are about to drop the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector. What happened to you? I'm it's 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? And so I'll break those issues down. The consumer carbon tax, was at best going to be responsible for high single digit proportion of emissions reductions over the course of the next 25 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 in place that would have canceled all climate policies in effect. First point. That's the design of that carbon, that aspect of the carbon tax relative to Yeah, it wasn't perfect. I get that. It wasn't perfect but anyway, so the question is and 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 effect. So let me let me go more directly to what we are doing. So one of the biggest, 20% of the emissions in Canada, thereabouts, 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 20% lower embedded carbon in the production of these homes, more than 20% lower carbon footprint in the running of these homes. So that in itself is is a it's a housing, strategy, it's an economic strategy, but it's a climate strategy at the same time. And yet, I, reading your book, which is all about values rather than market value. Yeah. And reading the way that you emphasize that these are urgent issues that everything takes you, everything you do ought to take you towards a step further towards Yeah. The common good, which is keeping global temperatures as close to one and half degrees as you can. You're the only G7 leader who has been a UN envoy on climate action. That's yes, that's true. 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? I would add, a few things in what you said. First, it's not about my my role as prime minister. It's 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 are fundamental to Canadians. What we need to do is to be as effective as possible in terms of addressing climate change while growing our economy. So what are you going to do about emissions from the oil and gas sector? Well. There is a cap that's supposed to come in. Is it true that you're considering dropping it? 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 are using oil and gas and we are, our, our economies are wired for that, as is the rest of the world. What makes those emissions go down will be carbon capture and storage, particularly, and other efficiencies. So you are dropping it then. That's what it sounds like. No. Dropping emissions from the oil and gas. Dropping the cap. Dropping emissions. Mishal, from the oil and gas sector. This is the point. This is about results. The climate cares about results, doesn't care about, a policy that is. An outcome is not a policy. A desired outcome is not a policy. 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. An 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 sands in this case, what we're talking about, is carbon capture and storage. We signaled our first major nation building project it's something called the pathways, which will get those emissions down. Second thing, related to this, and this is crucial from a climate perspective, is ending methane, what's 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 70 times a bigger 70 times bigger contributor to climate change than CO2 emissions. 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. You are you are explaining the complexity of what you're dealing with. And I guess I just wonder whether the Mark Carney of 2020 would be slightly disappointed in the Mark Carney of 2025. I think if you look, 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. You've clearly had a really intense few months, and you've made clear what you're up against, right? Yeah. Canada prospered under the old world and we're not going back to the old world. How long do you plan to serve? That's a great question. I think that, I'm I'm in, minority, position or my party is in a minority position in parliament. We have, a a 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. But I think you've 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 spending. You're in a tight economic framework, where growth is hard to find. Well, yeah. You, 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, this is a 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 the. And I know from all my experience that in those situations you have to act big, you have to act bold. 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 what I think is necessary. 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 spectre of populism? Because you've said populists don't know how to run economies. I, that's true. They know how to talk about it, but, they know how to run economy's down. I think I'll answer the question this way. We're doing big things. We're building the economy. And what's important is how we're building as well. We're building, for example, with indigenous Canadians. In these major projects, there'll always be indigenous participation in the ownership. We are building in an inclusive way with unions. These, we're creating hundreds of thousands of high paying, skilled careers. So when I announced our first pardon me, when I announced our first batch of of nation building projects with the heads of all the major unions were there with me representing the millions of workers that they, that are part of those unions. We are building sustainably. So when we our energy projects, huge swaths of clean energy projects, anything in other sectors is top quartile or top decile in terms of the lowest carbon emissions as well. But are you optimistic about all of this? Because everything you're signaling is these very hard roads to go down, Yeah. Where there are a lot of high expectations and arguably, your chances of delivering certainty in the next five years are probably relatively low. So where do you find the optimism? Well I think that Canadian, well 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. We have, yes, we have to deliver. 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. Can we bring it back to you to close because this is the Bloomberg Weekend interview. As it happens, we're talking on a weekend. Yeah. That's you've come into the office to record this on a Saturday, What are prime ministerial weekends like for you these days. They are. Well, I took off my tie. So that's a big, big step. They are pretty indistinguishable from prime ministerial weeks. I mean, certainly when the house is, House of Commons is sitting, then there is a difference between the two. It's yeah, it's it's it's pretty you know. There is no weekend is that what you mean? There is, in effect, there's 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 in the winter, cross-country skiing or something. Or for runners, there is some element of that, but it's pretty. It's pretty limited. And that's fine. That's exactly what I would have expected in terms of, 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, it's, on work, but it's a chance to, to to plan a bit ahead. And and the space to think. How do you find that? Because the papers. Yep. The staff, the people demanding decisions all the time. 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, for example, to think and think about strategy, then I'm not doing my job. It's very easy. Your 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 that to preserve, some to chart the course Mark Carney, prime minister. Thank you. Thank you Mishal.
Mark Carney on Dealing With Trump, Trade Wars and Putin | The Mishal Husain Show
Summary
Transcript
Hello and welcome. I'm Mishal Husain, and this show will be a place where every weekend, you can hear one essential conversation that provides insight into the ideas and people shaping our world. And my first is with someone who's leading a country right at the forefront of the disrupted global order. It's Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada. His country is on the front line of global trade turbulence. It's taking heat from its southern neighbor, a country to which it is highly connected. Canada and the United States, after all, share the world's longest border. And yet today, Donald Trump still believes it should be the 51st state. As a result, Canada is in the midst of a scramble to make its economy more self-sufficient. That's what Mark Carney stepped into seven months ago, when he was entirely new to politics. He's a trained economist, a former central banker, a climate champion who's now in charge of navigating a fossil fuel economy through these uncertain times. It was a weekend when we spoke. He came by Bloomberg's London studios, a place which he's familiar with as he's chaired the board here in the past. He was in London to watch Canada's women play England in the Rugby World Cup final. Unfortunately for Canada, they lost. But we talked about Donald Trump, of course, about big foreign policy moves surrounding Ukraine and Gaza and about Carney's philosophy of leadership. To get a sense of what motivates him, I started by asking him to take me back to his early years, his family and the place where he was born, Fort Smith in Canada's Northwest Territories. 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, yeah, as, adventure pioneer. And there were young teachers and going to the 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 parents were 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, as you say, and in two G7 countries. And at a time when because there were major financial problems, including here in the City of London, that that job was broader than usual, major financial reforms going on, having to be negotiated around the world. So I've, I 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, in over the course of the year, in 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, and felt that given my background, I would have a chance to help change it. Did you get elected because of President Trump? I go to well, you'd have to ask the voters. I think when he stood, I, I was just I stood well, I stood 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 forward. It turned out to be the case that very quickly, once I was in the leadership campaign, before I became leader of the Liberal Party and and then before the general election campaign, it turned out that President Trump's actions in the trade war as, 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 placed to deal with it. So you went into it with your eyes open, but what is surprised you in these 6 to 7 months? What has surprised me the most? I guess 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 24/7 as possible. I conceptually knew that I'd had high pressure jobs before, but it's it's that much more so. So that's the first thing I think that the, the importance of 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, the degree to which that is important. What do you miss about your old life? I imagine your family probably miss your old life. Yes. I'm sure they do. I miss what do I miss about I, I miss, no, having any privacy, basically. I was thinking about something you said in 2020 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 as never before. How has it been? I stand by my earlier statement that it, was, easier to be a central banker. It's. Well, 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 forward, 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 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 were building up, that's when it's more difficult to take the big decisions that are necessary at that point Whereas here you know the score? Here, you know, that we have to act, it's important to be as open and as possible with people in terms of the assessment of the scale of what needs to be done. And then and then to be decisive. I do want to explore how much harder your task is as Prime Minister, in some of your domestic priorities and certainly 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 issues with the United States primarily over trade, and the Canadian economy has been hit hard by what the president has done, particularly on steel and, and, and the auto sector and aluminum. What is your strategy for when the US Mexico Canada trade deal is reviewed next summer. What do you are you are you hoping the US economy by that stage is in a position where President Trump takes a different view on tariffs? We want the best for the US economy, just as we want well slightly stronger. We want the best for the Canadian economy. But so no, our strategy is not to expect some weakness in the US economy that is going to change US negotiating position. Our strategy part of our strategy has been, well, has been to pursue the best deal for Canada. We have the best trade deal at the moment. 85% of our trade with the United States is tariff free. We have the lowest average tariff against, of any country with the US. It's 5.5%. 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, aluminum, forest products, been the been the main ones. We'll 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, that the linkages are so tight, they're so tight and such that the Canadian content, or so the US content in Canadian finished automobiles is 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. Okay, so the the prosperity of both countries is at stake. Your language though has 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, 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 to talk in more conciliatory terms like, 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. Well, let let let's be clear the actual situation. We we're one of the 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. They we got to a point when we took our retaliatory tariffs off, we had 85% of our trade tariff 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 tariff free. So, you know, strikes me that that's that's pretty effective, number one. But he has shown his power hasn't he, over you, like for example, the digital services tax, you announced it, he hated it, you had to back down on that. The digital services tax was announced multiple years before. it was just effectively coming in. It was coming into effect. Look, the United States. And it couldn't, because President Trump wasn't having it. The United States, Well, 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 that tariff free status for the vast majority of our trade. Yes, so there was something broader at stake on trade. There's something very much broader at stake. I get that. But I just wonder how, how you reconcile yourself to that because it is different from the tone you struck before. I, I'm well, I reckon my, my responsibility is to get the best possible deal for Canada. We have the best deal in the world at this point. Now that that next issue is where is the USMCA negotiation going to land? Yeah, the trade agreement, the broader trade agreement going to land. And that's being prepared for that and working with the US on that. But let's let's be absolutely clear. The, 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. 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 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 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. It takes time. It takes time, it take 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, our deepening our trade relationship with the UK and with Europe. You need new markets. Exactly. Yeah, because about 75% of your trade is with the United States. Yeah. And that now and that now has problems. I want to ask you. And that will change. Okay. Have you learned anything from President Trump? Have I learned I've learned lots of things from President Trump. Like what? You always learn things from from people. I, 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 almost unique manner of framing issues and, and, and, I of dominating, the agenda, if I can put that way as well. 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. Didn't. To do that. The signing on camera with a flourish. I think that, I don't know that that I 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 of being very clear. So I'll give you 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 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 and a major intention to invest in our Arctic in 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 sorry, Mishal, but when you're in a crisis, particularly this case of trade crisis, an economic crisis, a crisis of sovereignty, given some of the points that President Trump's saying about the 51st state, when you're in a crisis, you need to not just act decisively, but be seen to act decisively, and that that's what we were doing. Can we explore that first through Ukraine? You are part of the Coalition of the Willing. Yes. 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 backstops for the future? 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. And Canada is the largest per capita contributor to Ukraine in dollar terms. We're contributing militarily and on a humanitarian basis as well. And we've been there from the start. And the start was 2014. The start was not three years ago. The start was 2014 with the, illegal invasion, annexation of Crimea, 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 to or 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, it would be easier if the US were doing more, direct provision, but that's not an insuperable issue. The what is essential is this other part of your question is when there is an end of hostilities, some form of ceasefire, peace, frozen conflict. However, it ends up being the Coalition, the first line of defense will be the Ukrainian army reinforce the Coalition of the Willing, of which Canada is a member, UK, others, France, will provide important security guarantees. But the ultimate backstop does need to have some form of backstop, in our judgment and judgment of many others of the United States. So the United States. Which is not. Which is. There's been no commitment to that. Which is why I asked you how far can Ukraine get? There has been there has been there 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 peace accord, a ceasefire or a frozen conflict, some understanding, they can get to that position with the support of Europe, the support of Canada, the support of Australia, the support of a few others, and with the US more in a secondary role. Having a durable peace, a durable end of hostility will require US backing. It will require. The form that that could take is under active discussion at the military level, at the national 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. With the US. With the US, yes. So you're hoping you get there. The problem is that right now it does seem that Russia's emboldened, drones in NATO airspace, jets in NATO airspace as happened over Estonia. Russia's. I would I would rephrase. I, Russia's under pressure. Russia is 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 be in reverse. But it's unnerving for a country like Estonia to have Russian jets in its airspace. It's unnerving. Canada has frontline troops in, in Latvia. Alright but here's a very concrete thing. If that happens again, do you support the idea of a NATO country shooting down that Russian jet? The, direct. All options, all options are on the table without question. There are ongoing consultations within NATO. NATO countries defend themselves. And, certainly, we will we will do what's necessary in order to protect those countries. So are you warning Russia that ig is possible. Of course. That it is possible that a NATO country would shoot down one of their planes. If I may, that for example, the Polish government has made, those warnings directly in public. There is a precedent because Turkey did it to a Russian plane ten years ago. Yeah. Is that the kind of message you think it might take in a moment like this to, to show Russia that NATO is serious because President Trump isn't really showing Russia that Americans? I think I think President Trump, has been, very important in this in this process. He has given peace a chance, so to speak, with Russia. He has been, you know, lines of communication with, Vladimir Putin, with his special envoy, Steve Witkoff. There's been direct conversations. There's been opportunities for Putin to take off ramps. Putin has not taken any of those off ramps. The president speaks for himself, but I think his patience is being exhausted. The his line is hardening. The likelihood of further economic sanctions against Russia is increasing, and the severity of those next phase of sanctions, could be a different order of magnitude than previous rounds of sanctions. All of that is pointing in one, one direction. And I would underscore Russia has been moving at at literally a snail's pace in terms of, acquisition of territory, 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 actions of, Vladimir Putin over the course of the last few months, spurning the opportunity that President Trump has given them on multiple occasions, these drone incursions, if they are, you know, intentional as they increasingly look to be that. But doing so, making the calculation that America doesn't, there are no consequences for spurning. But, President Putin has done nothing but miscalculate in this war. He made the calculation that NATO would become divided. NATO has 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 Zelensky would flee. He made the calculation. There would be an uprising in favor. He has miscalculated consistently in this conflict. Another one of your foreign policy has been the recognition of recognition of the Palestinian state on which the US fundamentally disagrees. What what is your next step on that issue? Yeah. So the 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, the end goal. What we saw just to to be clear about why we did what we did, was that the actions of the current government, the Netanyahu government, were explicitly designed to end any possibility of a state of Palestine in violation of the UN charter and going against Canadian government policy of whatever political stripe since 1947. We did this because the prospect was receding, as opposed to viewing it as any sort of panacea, game changer fundamentally, immediately leading to the outcome that we and others want. Yes, the US disagrees with the decision that we took, that Spain took that, France took the United Kingdom took, 150 other countries in the UN have taken, but they our common objective is the same. So the for the end goal, the actual establishment of a Palestinian state living side by side with a 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.e. Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to Canada. Does that stand under your leadership? Yes. Yes. You''d be prepared to do that? Yes. Are we also in a climate crisis. We are in a climate crisis, yeah. That's the last time we spoke was at the Glasgow climate conference. Grab your headphones because I want to play you something that you said around that timewhen you were the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance. 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 we act, the less costly it will be. You were really well known for these words. This phrase, the tragedy for horizon. Yeah. It's all about how you need to think long term rather than in terms of the short term horizon. And yet, in office, you scrapped the consumer carbon tax you paused the mandatw that was pushing carmakers to sell more and more electric vehicles. And there are now reports that you are about to drop the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector. What happened to you? I'm it's 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? And so I'll break those issues down. The consumer carbon tax, was at best going to be responsible for high single digit proportion of emissions reductions over the course of the next 25 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 in place that would have canceled all climate policies in effect. First point. That's the design of that carbon, that aspect of the carbon tax relative to Yeah, it wasn't perfect. I get that. It wasn't perfect but anyway, so the question is and 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 effect. So let me let me go more directly to what we are doing. So one of the biggest, 20% of the emissions in Canada, thereabouts, 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 20% lower embedded carbon in the production of these homes, more than 20% lower carbon footprint in the running of these homes. So that in itself is is a it's a housing, strategy, it's an economic strategy, but it's a climate strategy at the same time. And yet, I, reading your book, which is all about values rather than market value. Yeah. And reading the way that you emphasize that these are urgent issues that everything takes you, everything you do ought to take you towards a step further towards Yeah. The common good, which is keeping global temperatures as close to one and half degrees as you can. You're the only G7 leader who has been a UN envoy on climate action. That's yes, that's true. 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? I would add, a few things in what you said. First, it's not about my my role as prime minister. It's 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 are fundamental to Canadians. What we need to do is to be as effective as possible in terms of addressing climate change while growing our economy. So what are you going to do about emissions from the oil and gas sector? Well. There is a cap that's supposed to come in. Is it true that you're considering dropping it? 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 are using oil and gas and we are, our, our economies are wired for that, as is the rest of the world. What makes those emissions go down will be carbon capture and storage, particularly, and other efficiencies. So you are dropping it then. That's what it sounds like. No. Dropping emissions from the oil and gas. Dropping the cap. Dropping emissions. Mishal, from the oil and gas sector. This is the point. This is about results. The climate cares about results, doesn't care about, a policy that is. An outcome is not a policy. A desired outcome is not a policy. 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. An 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 sands in this case, what we're talking about, is carbon capture and storage. We signaled our first major nation building project it's something called the pathways, which will get those emissions down. Second thing, related to this, and this is crucial from a climate perspective, is ending methane, what's 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 70 times a bigger 70 times bigger contributor to climate change than CO2 emissions. 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. You are you are explaining the complexity of what you're dealing with. And I guess I just wonder whether the Mark Carney of 2020 would be slightly disappointed in the Mark Carney of 2025. I think if you look, 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. You've clearly had a really intense few months, and you've made clear what you're up against, right? Yeah. Canada prospered under the old world and we're not going back to the old world. How long do you plan to serve? That's a great question. I think that, I'm I'm in, minority, position or my party is in a minority position in parliament. We have, a a 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. But I think you've 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 spending. You're in a tight economic framework, where growth is hard to find. Well, yeah. You, 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, this is a 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 the. And I know from all my experience that in those situations you have to act big, you have to act bold. 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 what I think is necessary. 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 spectre of populism? Because you've said populists don't know how to run economies. I, that's true. They know how to talk about it, but, they know how to run economy's down. I think I'll answer the question this way. We're doing big things. We're building the economy. And what's important is how we're building as well. We're building, for example, with indigenous Canadians. In these major projects, there'll always be indigenous participation in the ownership. We are building in an inclusive way with unions. These, we're creating hundreds of thousands of high paying, skilled careers. So when I announced our first pardon me, when I announced our first batch of of nation building projects with the heads of all the major unions were there with me representing the millions of workers that they, that are part of those unions. We are building sustainably. So when we our energy projects, huge swaths of clean energy projects, anything in other sectors is top quartile or top decile in terms of the lowest carbon emissions as well. But are you optimistic about all of this? Because everything you're signaling is these very hard roads to go down, Yeah. Where there are a lot of high expectations and arguably, your chances of delivering certainty in the next five years are probably relatively low. So where do you find the optimism? Well I think that Canadian, well 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. We have, yes, we have to deliver. 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. Can we bring it back to you to close because this is the Bloomberg Weekend interview. As it happens, we're talking on a weekend. Yeah. That's you've come into the office to record this on a Saturday, What are prime ministerial weekends like for you these days. They are. Well, I took off my tie. So that's a big, big step. They are pretty indistinguishable from prime ministerial weeks. I mean, certainly when the house is, House of Commons is sitting, then there is a difference between the two. It's yeah, it's it's it's pretty you know. There is no weekend is that what you mean? There is, in effect, there's 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 in the winter, cross-country skiing or something. Or for runners, there is some element of that, but it's pretty. It's pretty limited. And that's fine. That's exactly what I would have expected in terms of, 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, it's, on work, but it's a chance to, to to plan a bit ahead. And and the space to think. How do you find that? Because the papers. Yep. The staff, the people demanding decisions all the time. 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, for example, to think and think about strategy, then I'm not doing my job. It's very easy. Your 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 that to preserve, some to chart the course Mark Carney, prime minister. Thank you. Thank you Mishal.