Weekend Listen: Mishal Husain Interviews Canadian PM Mark Carney | Big Take
Summary
Economic Crisis: Mark Carney describes the current global situation as an economic crisis, emphasizing the need for bold and decisive action to address rapid changes.
Canadian Economy: Carney discusses efforts to make Canada more self-sufficient amidst trade tensions with the United States, highlighting the importance of creating a unified Canadian economy.
US-Canada Trade Relations: The podcast covers the challenges and strategies related to the USMCA trade deal, with Carney emphasizing the need for Canada to maintain strong trade ties while also diversifying its economic partnerships.
Climate Policy: Carney reflects on his climate policies, including the controversial decision to scrap the consumer carbon tax, and stresses the importance of effective climate action that balances economic growth.
Foreign Policy: The discussion touches on Canada's stance on Ukraine and Palestine, with Carney advocating for a strong international presence and support for Ukraine while recognizing the complexities of US relations.
Leadership Challenges: Carney shares insights on the relentless nature of political leadership, the importance of international relations, and the need to adapt strategies in a rapidly changing world.
Populism and Governance: Carney addresses the rise of populism and the importance of inclusive and sustainable economic policies to counteract its effects.
Personal Reflections: Carney reflects on the personal and professional challenges of his role as Prime Minister, emphasizing the need for strategic thinking and leadership in crisis situations.
Transcript
[Music] Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news. We are in a crisis. We're in an economic crisis. This fundamental shift in the world. It's not a transition. It's a rupture. It's big changes in a very short period of time. And I know from all my experience that in those situations, you have to act big. You have to act bold. Mark Carney, former central banker, climate champion, and now Canada's prime minister. >> 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. >> Takes time. >> It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it because we never want to be in this position again. >> From Blueberg Weekend, this is the Michelle Busain Show. I'm Michelle Hussein. [Music] Hello and welcome. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being part of this new adventure. This is going to be a place where every weekend you'll hear one essential conversation. But I hope that it's also going to be a place with head, heart, and soul where in the midst of a disrupted, even a chaotic world, you'll find something to take away that's of value. That's what I'm aiming to do week after week. And I'm thrilled that you're part of it. I hope that you'll keep coming back as we explore ideas and current affairs and history with people who are shaping the world, all who can help us understand it. And my first guest is Mark Carney, someone who's leading a country in the crosshairs of trade and other turbulence. Canada's super interesting because it's at the forefront of so many of the different currents in the world right now. It's in President Trump's sites. It's a country that he still believes should be the 51st state. It's highly connected economically to its big southern neighbor. The two of them share the world's longest border. But tariffs and threats since the start of the year mean that it's in the midst of trying to make itself more self-sufficient. That's the reality that Mark Carney stepped into 7 months ago when he became prime minister. He was entirely new to politics, though in many ways he has been an insider and we'll get to some of that in this conversation. We spoke over a weekend in London because he was here ahead of Canada's women playing England in the Rugby World Cup final. Unfortunately for Canada, they lost. As it happens, when he came to our studios, he was on the doorstep of the place he used to run, the Bank of England. And he's not unfamiliar with Bloomberg either because he used to be on the board here. We talked about the big issues, of course, Donald Trump, and about big foreign policy moves, but this is a personal conversation, too. And I asked him first to take me right back to his early years, the story of his parents 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 a adventure pioneering. They 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 are educators. A sense of that is the higher calling. So I've always had that element even though I've had a private sector career. I was fortunate to be the central bank governor in two 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 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 over the course of the year and the runup 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. >> What do you miss about your old life? I imagine your family probably miss your old life. Uh yes, I'm I'm sure they do. I miss What do I miss about I I miss 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? >> Uh I stand by my earlier statement that it is easier to be a central banker. Part of the reason I am in this position is because of what you just described. It's part of the reason why I put myself 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 you know 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 it 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 >> whereas here you know the school >> 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. >> Did you get elected because of President Trump? Really? >> I got elect Well, you'd have to ask the voters of Canada. I I I think >> Well, you stood because of President Trump, you made the choice just before you announced it, just before the >> 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 we 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 it turned out that President Trump's actions and 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 has surprised you in these six to seven 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 non-stop 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 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 uh 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. 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 President has done, particularly on steel and and and the auto sector and aluminium. What is your strategy for when the US, Mexico, Canada trade deal is reviewed next summer? Are you hoping the US economy by that stage is in a position where President Trump takes a different view on tariffs? that we want the best for the US economy just as we want well slightly stronger we want the best for the Canadian economy so no our strategy is not to expect some weakness in the US economy that is going to change US negotiating position part of our strategy has been to pursue the best deal for Canada we have the best trade deal at the moment 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 12% so we're in a good position now with two important caveats. One is your question what's going to happen with the renegotiation of what they call USMCA and secondly some key sectors steel autos aluminium uh force products being the main ones will 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 that linkages are so tight they're so tight such that 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 when you were campaigning? We're going to stand up to a bully. We're not going to back down. And yet now you're much more likely to to talk in more consiliatory terms. I 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 two countries effectively that put retaliatory tariffs on the United States. Two countries in the world. We put them on. We've kept them on. We kept them on up to a point where they ceased to be effective. We got to a point when we took our retaliatory tariffs off, 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 I, you know, strikes me that that's that's pretty effective. Number one, >> he has shown his power, hasn't he, over you? Like for example, your digital services tax. You announced it, he hated it. You had to back down on Uh the digital service tax was announced multiple years before it was coming into effect. Look, the United States >> and it couldn't President Trump wasn't having it. >> 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. >> So there was something broader at stake on something very much broad. I get that. But I just wonder how how you reconcile yourself to that because it is different from the tone you struck. >> I'm well I reconc 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 next issue is where is the US MCA negotiation going to land? >> The trade agreement. >> Yeah. The trade agreement 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 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 interest 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. >> Takes time. >> It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it because we never want to be in this position again. We never want to be in this position again. And so that's building at home and it's diversifying abroad. We're having this interview in London. Part of the reason I'm in London is deepening our trade relationship with the UK. Exactly. Yeah. Because 75% of your trade is with is with the United States >> and that now has that now has problems. I want to change. >> Okay. Have you learned anything from President Trump? Uh, have I learned I've learned lots of things from President Trump. You always learn things from from people. I've learned that the value I don't fully subscribe to this, but I see the effectiveness the value of the term they would use is flooding the zone of doing multiple things at the same time and the effectiveness that can have. I think that he has a very effective way in his own almost unique manner of framing issues and of dominating the agenda if I can put that way as well. >> I even wondered about the way that you you know when you canceled 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? cuz it didn't feel very Canadian to do that the the signing on camera with the flourish. >> 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 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 a crisis, particularly this case, a 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. [Music] 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 backs stops 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 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 3 years ago. The start was 2014 with the uh 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. 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 first line of defense will be the Ukrainian army re reinforced the coalition of of the willing of which Canada is a member UK others France will provide important security guarantees but the ultimate backs stop does need to have some form of backs stop in our judgment and judgment of many others of the United States. So the United States >> which is which it there's been no commitment to there has which is why I asked you how far can Ukraine get? There has been well there 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 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, durable end of hostility will require US like it 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. >> I I I I would I would rephrase. I Russia's under pressure. Russia's under pressure. They're trying what they can to shift, but they're under economic pressure. Their military situation, they were making some progress over the course of the summer. That progress has stopped. Some of it's begun to be in reverse. But it's unnerving for a country like Estonia to have Russian jets in its airspace. >> It's un Canada has frontline troops in uh in Latia. >> All right. 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? >> All options all options are on the table without question. There are ongoing consultations within NATO. NATO countries defend themselves and um certainly we will we will do what's necessary in order to protect those countries. >> Are you warning Russia that it is possible that a NATO country has one of their planes? >> If I may, so 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 10 years ago. >> Yeah. Is that the kind of message that you think it might take at a moment like this to to show Russia that NATO is serious? Because President Trump isn't really showing Russia that America is serious about Ukraine. >> I think President Trump has been very important in this process. He has given peace a chance so to speak with Russia. He has been, you know, at lines of communication with Vladimir Putin, with his special envoy Steve Wickoff. There's been direct conversations. There's been opportunities for Putin to take off ramps. Putin has not taken any of those offramps. The president speaks for himself, but I think his patience is being exhausted. 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 direction and I would underscore Russia has been moving at literally a snail's pace in terms of temporary acquisition of territory in Ukraine over the course of the last 3 years and they're not going to win they're not going to win this war and it's a question of they're 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 him on multiple occasions these drone incursions if they are, you know, intentional as they increasingly look to be that is >> making the calculation that America doesn't there are no consequences for spurning. >> President Putin has done nothing but miscalculate in this war. He made the calculation that NATO would become divided. NATO is 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 Zullinsky 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 priorities has been the recognition of a Palestinian state on which the US fundamentally disagrees. What what is your next step on that issue? >> So the I would say the foreign policy priority was the 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 most others want. Yes, the US disagrees with the 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 end 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. >> You'd be prepared to do that? >> Yes. >> Are we also in a climate crisis? >> We are in a climate crisis. Yeah. The last time we spoke was at the Glasgow climate conference. Grab your headphones cuz I want to play you something that you said around that time when 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 are really well known for these words, this phrase, the tragedy of the horizon. It's all about how you need to think long term rather than in terms of a short-term horizon. And yet in office, you scrapped the consumer carbon tax. paused the mandate that was pushing car makers 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? So, I'll break those issues down. The consumer carbon tax was at best going to be responsible for high singledigit 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 aspect of the carbon tax relative to >> Yeah, it wasn't perfect. It wasn't perfect but 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 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 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 it's a housing strategy, it's an economic strategy, but it's a climate strategy at the same time. And yet reading your book, which is all about values rather than market value, and reading the way that you emphasize that these are urgent issues, that everything you do ought to take you further towards the common good, which is keeping global temperatures as close to 1 and a 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? >> A few things in what you said. First, it's not about my my role as prime minister is not about my reputation. My role as prime minister is about what's in the best interest 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? There is a there is a cap that's supposed to come in. Is it true that you're considering dropping it? I what we're what we're focused on, look, 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 in other efficiencies. We are making it then. That's what it sounds like. >> What? We're dropping emissions from the oil and gas. Dropping emissions. Michelle 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 and capture and storage. We signaled our first major nation building project is something called the pathways which will get those emissions down. Second thing related to this and this is crucial from a climate perspective is so-called fugitive methane flaring which is depending on your horizon and the horizon that we should we're all in in the next few decades in terms of climate warming is up to 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 >> I think the Mark I think if you look in the mark 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? Canada prospered under the old world and we're not going back to the old world. >> How long do you plan to serve? >> It's a great question. Um I think that um I'm I'm in a minority position. Our my party is in a minority position in parliament. We have we ran on a very strong mandate. In other words, going to do big things that were going to put the country in a build the country strong. >> But I think you made such big pledges that it's hard to imagine that you could fulfill them in less than a decade. So I imagine you do want to serve two terms. You want to build a huge number of houses. You've made a big pledge on defense spending. You're in a tight economic framework where growth is hard to find. >> Well, it's a democracy and you have to ask permission from voters for the time served. I think what's essential again we are in a crisis we're in an economic crisis this 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. >> That's true. They know how to talk about it, but they know how to run economies down. I think I'll answer the question this way. We're doing big things. We're building the economy. What's important is how we're building as well. We're building, for example, with indigenous Canadians. There were in these major projects, there'll always be indigenous participation in the ownership. We are building in a inclusive way with unions. These we're creating hundreds of thousands of highpaying skilled careers. So when I announced our first batch of nation building projects, we had the heads of all the major unions were there with me representing the millions of workers that are part of those unions. We are building sustainably. So when we are energy projects, huge swath of clean energy projects, anything in other sectors is top quartortile or top decile in terms of the lowest carbon emissions. But are you are you optimistic about all of this? Because everything that you're signaling is these are very hard roads to go down where there are a lot of high expectations and arguably your chances of delivering certainly in the next 5 years are probably relatively low. So where do you find the optimism? >> Well, I think that I know that Canadians recognize the scale of the challenge. They want the government to act. They feel fundamentally that we need to take care of ourselves. That's building for ourselves and it's diversifying around the world and they're fundamentally supportive of that. Yes, we have to deliver. They're not Canadians are 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 and as it happens we're talking on a weekend. That's you you you've come into the office to record this on a Saturday. What are prime ministerial weekends like for you these days? >> Well, I took off my tie, so that's a big big step. They are pretty indistinguishable from prime ministerial weeks. There is no weekend. >> In effect there in effect there is no weekend with the sole exception of >> on a weekend you can find one evening where just with the family you might be able to go Canada in the winter cross country skiing or or something or or for a run or there there is some element of that but it's pretty limited and that's fine. That's exactly what I would have expected in terms of the scale of the task and uh weekend. I don't know if it's a chance to catch up, but it's a it's on work, but it's a chance to to to plan a bit ahead. >> Yeah. And the space to think. How do you find that? Because >> I I find >> the papers, 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, Michelle. [Music] And that's the Michelle Hussein Show this week. To make sure you never miss an episode, please subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you want to leave us a comment while you're there, I hear that's a good thing. If you'd like to see my conversation with Mark Carney, you'll find the video online. And at bloomberg.com/weend, you'll find the written version of this interview with an illustration of a guest and my notes. Why I asked what I did and the context around it. The Michelle Hussein show is produced by Jessica Beck and Chris Mart. Guest booking by Dave Warren. Social media by Alex Morgan. Our sound engineer is Blake Maples. Our video editor is Evando Thompson. Our executive producer is Louisa Lewis. Brendan Francis Nunham is editorial director of audio and special projects for Bloomberg Weekend. Katherine Bell is the executive editor of Weekend. Our music is composed by Bart Wshaw. And we'd also like to thank Elana Susnau, Victoria Wakeley, Adam Bledford, Summer Sardi, and Sage Bowman. And thank you for listening. Do come back next weekend. [Music]
Weekend Listen: Mishal Husain Interviews Canadian PM Mark Carney | Big Take
Summary
Transcript
[Music] Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news. We are in a crisis. We're in an economic crisis. This fundamental shift in the world. It's not a transition. It's a rupture. It's big changes in a very short period of time. And I know from all my experience that in those situations, you have to act big. You have to act bold. Mark Carney, former central banker, climate champion, and now Canada's prime minister. >> 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. >> Takes time. >> It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it because we never want to be in this position again. >> From Blueberg Weekend, this is the Michelle Busain Show. I'm Michelle Hussein. [Music] Hello and welcome. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being part of this new adventure. This is going to be a place where every weekend you'll hear one essential conversation. But I hope that it's also going to be a place with head, heart, and soul where in the midst of a disrupted, even a chaotic world, you'll find something to take away that's of value. That's what I'm aiming to do week after week. And I'm thrilled that you're part of it. I hope that you'll keep coming back as we explore ideas and current affairs and history with people who are shaping the world, all who can help us understand it. And my first guest is Mark Carney, someone who's leading a country in the crosshairs of trade and other turbulence. Canada's super interesting because it's at the forefront of so many of the different currents in the world right now. It's in President Trump's sites. It's a country that he still believes should be the 51st state. It's highly connected economically to its big southern neighbor. The two of them share the world's longest border. But tariffs and threats since the start of the year mean that it's in the midst of trying to make itself more self-sufficient. That's the reality that Mark Carney stepped into 7 months ago when he became prime minister. He was entirely new to politics, though in many ways he has been an insider and we'll get to some of that in this conversation. We spoke over a weekend in London because he was here ahead of Canada's women playing England in the Rugby World Cup final. Unfortunately for Canada, they lost. As it happens, when he came to our studios, he was on the doorstep of the place he used to run, the Bank of England. And he's not unfamiliar with Bloomberg either because he used to be on the board here. We talked about the big issues, of course, Donald Trump, and about big foreign policy moves, but this is a personal conversation, too. And I asked him first to take me right back to his early years, the story of his parents 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 a adventure pioneering. They 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 are educators. A sense of that is the higher calling. So I've always had that element even though I've had a private sector career. I was fortunate to be the central bank governor in two 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 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 over the course of the year and the runup 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. >> What do you miss about your old life? I imagine your family probably miss your old life. Uh yes, I'm I'm sure they do. I miss What do I miss about I I miss 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? >> Uh I stand by my earlier statement that it is easier to be a central banker. Part of the reason I am in this position is because of what you just described. It's part of the reason why I put myself 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 you know 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 it 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 >> whereas here you know the school >> 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. >> Did you get elected because of President Trump? Really? >> I got elect Well, you'd have to ask the voters of Canada. I I I think >> Well, you stood because of President Trump, you made the choice just before you announced it, just before the >> 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 we 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 it turned out that President Trump's actions and 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 has surprised you in these six to seven 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 non-stop 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 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 uh 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. 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 President has done, particularly on steel and and and the auto sector and aluminium. What is your strategy for when the US, Mexico, Canada trade deal is reviewed next summer? Are you hoping the US economy by that stage is in a position where President Trump takes a different view on tariffs? that we want the best for the US economy just as we want well slightly stronger we want the best for the Canadian economy so no our strategy is not to expect some weakness in the US economy that is going to change US negotiating position part of our strategy has been to pursue the best deal for Canada we have the best trade deal at the moment 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 12% so we're in a good position now with two important caveats. One is your question what's going to happen with the renegotiation of what they call USMCA and secondly some key sectors steel autos aluminium uh force products being the main ones will 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 that linkages are so tight they're so tight such that 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 when you were campaigning? We're going to stand up to a bully. We're not going to back down. And yet now you're much more likely to to talk in more consiliatory terms. I 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 two countries effectively that put retaliatory tariffs on the United States. Two countries in the world. We put them on. We've kept them on. We kept them on up to a point where they ceased to be effective. We got to a point when we took our retaliatory tariffs off, 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 I, you know, strikes me that that's that's pretty effective. Number one, >> he has shown his power, hasn't he, over you? Like for example, your digital services tax. You announced it, he hated it. You had to back down on Uh the digital service tax was announced multiple years before it was coming into effect. Look, the United States >> and it couldn't President Trump wasn't having it. >> 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. >> So there was something broader at stake on something very much broad. I get that. But I just wonder how how you reconcile yourself to that because it is different from the tone you struck. >> I'm well I reconc 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 next issue is where is the US MCA negotiation going to land? >> The trade agreement. >> Yeah. The trade agreement 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 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 interest 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. >> Takes time. >> It takes time. It takes time, but it's worth it because we never want to be in this position again. We never want to be in this position again. And so that's building at home and it's diversifying abroad. We're having this interview in London. Part of the reason I'm in London is deepening our trade relationship with the UK. Exactly. Yeah. Because 75% of your trade is with is with the United States >> and that now has that now has problems. I want to change. >> Okay. Have you learned anything from President Trump? Uh, have I learned I've learned lots of things from President Trump. You always learn things from from people. I've learned that the value I don't fully subscribe to this, but I see the effectiveness the value of the term they would use is flooding the zone of doing multiple things at the same time and the effectiveness that can have. I think that he has a very effective way in his own almost unique manner of framing issues and of dominating the agenda if I can put that way as well. >> I even wondered about the way that you you know when you canceled 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? cuz it didn't feel very Canadian to do that the the signing on camera with the flourish. >> 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 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 a crisis, particularly this case, a 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. [Music] 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 backs stops 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 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 3 years ago. The start was 2014 with the uh 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. 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 first line of defense will be the Ukrainian army re reinforced the coalition of of the willing of which Canada is a member UK others France will provide important security guarantees but the ultimate backs stop does need to have some form of backs stop in our judgment and judgment of many others of the United States. So the United States >> which is which it there's been no commitment to there has which is why I asked you how far can Ukraine get? There has been well there 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 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, durable end of hostility will require US like it 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. >> I I I I would I would rephrase. I Russia's under pressure. Russia's under pressure. They're trying what they can to shift, but they're under economic pressure. Their military situation, they were making some progress over the course of the summer. That progress has stopped. Some of it's begun to be in reverse. But it's unnerving for a country like Estonia to have Russian jets in its airspace. >> It's un Canada has frontline troops in uh in Latia. >> All right. 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? >> All options all options are on the table without question. There are ongoing consultations within NATO. NATO countries defend themselves and um certainly we will we will do what's necessary in order to protect those countries. >> Are you warning Russia that it is possible that a NATO country has one of their planes? >> If I may, so 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 10 years ago. >> Yeah. Is that the kind of message that you think it might take at a moment like this to to show Russia that NATO is serious? Because President Trump isn't really showing Russia that America is serious about Ukraine. >> I think President Trump has been very important in this process. He has given peace a chance so to speak with Russia. He has been, you know, at lines of communication with Vladimir Putin, with his special envoy Steve Wickoff. There's been direct conversations. There's been opportunities for Putin to take off ramps. Putin has not taken any of those offramps. The president speaks for himself, but I think his patience is being exhausted. 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 direction and I would underscore Russia has been moving at literally a snail's pace in terms of temporary acquisition of territory in Ukraine over the course of the last 3 years and they're not going to win they're not going to win this war and it's a question of they're 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 him on multiple occasions these drone incursions if they are, you know, intentional as they increasingly look to be that is >> making the calculation that America doesn't there are no consequences for spurning. >> President Putin has done nothing but miscalculate in this war. He made the calculation that NATO would become divided. NATO is 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 Zullinsky 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 priorities has been the recognition of a Palestinian state on which the US fundamentally disagrees. What what is your next step on that issue? >> So the I would say the foreign policy priority was the 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 most others want. Yes, the US disagrees with the 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 end 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. >> You'd be prepared to do that? >> Yes. >> Are we also in a climate crisis? >> We are in a climate crisis. Yeah. The last time we spoke was at the Glasgow climate conference. Grab your headphones cuz I want to play you something that you said around that time when 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 are really well known for these words, this phrase, the tragedy of the horizon. It's all about how you need to think long term rather than in terms of a short-term horizon. And yet in office, you scrapped the consumer carbon tax. paused the mandate that was pushing car makers 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? So, I'll break those issues down. The consumer carbon tax was at best going to be responsible for high singledigit 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 aspect of the carbon tax relative to >> Yeah, it wasn't perfect. It wasn't perfect but 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 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 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 it's a housing strategy, it's an economic strategy, but it's a climate strategy at the same time. And yet reading your book, which is all about values rather than market value, and reading the way that you emphasize that these are urgent issues, that everything you do ought to take you further towards the common good, which is keeping global temperatures as close to 1 and a 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? >> A few things in what you said. First, it's not about my my role as prime minister is not about my reputation. My role as prime minister is about what's in the best interest 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? There is a there is a cap that's supposed to come in. Is it true that you're considering dropping it? I what we're what we're focused on, look, 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 in other efficiencies. We are making it then. That's what it sounds like. >> What? We're dropping emissions from the oil and gas. Dropping emissions. Michelle 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 and capture and storage. We signaled our first major nation building project is something called the pathways which will get those emissions down. Second thing related to this and this is crucial from a climate perspective is so-called fugitive methane flaring which is depending on your horizon and the horizon that we should we're all in in the next few decades in terms of climate warming is up to 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 >> I think the Mark I think if you look in the mark 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? Canada prospered under the old world and we're not going back to the old world. >> How long do you plan to serve? >> It's a great question. Um I think that um I'm I'm in a minority position. Our my party is in a minority position in parliament. We have we ran on a very strong mandate. In other words, going to do big things that were going to put the country in a build the country strong. >> But I think you made such big pledges that it's hard to imagine that you could fulfill them in less than a decade. So I imagine you do want to serve two terms. You want to build a huge number of houses. You've made a big pledge on defense spending. You're in a tight economic framework where growth is hard to find. >> Well, it's a democracy and you have to ask permission from voters for the time served. I think what's essential again we are in a crisis we're in an economic crisis this 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. >> That's true. They know how to talk about it, but they know how to run economies down. I think I'll answer the question this way. We're doing big things. We're building the economy. What's important is how we're building as well. We're building, for example, with indigenous Canadians. There were in these major projects, there'll always be indigenous participation in the ownership. We are building in a inclusive way with unions. These we're creating hundreds of thousands of highpaying skilled careers. So when I announced our first batch of nation building projects, we had the heads of all the major unions were there with me representing the millions of workers that are part of those unions. We are building sustainably. So when we are energy projects, huge swath of clean energy projects, anything in other sectors is top quartortile or top decile in terms of the lowest carbon emissions. But are you are you optimistic about all of this? Because everything that you're signaling is these are very hard roads to go down where there are a lot of high expectations and arguably your chances of delivering certainly in the next 5 years are probably relatively low. So where do you find the optimism? >> Well, I think that I know that Canadians recognize the scale of the challenge. They want the government to act. They feel fundamentally that we need to take care of ourselves. That's building for ourselves and it's diversifying around the world and they're fundamentally supportive of that. Yes, we have to deliver. They're not Canadians are 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 and as it happens we're talking on a weekend. That's you you you've come into the office to record this on a Saturday. What are prime ministerial weekends like for you these days? >> Well, I took off my tie, so that's a big big step. They are pretty indistinguishable from prime ministerial weeks. There is no weekend. >> In effect there in effect there is no weekend with the sole exception of >> on a weekend you can find one evening where just with the family you might be able to go Canada in the winter cross country skiing or or something or or for a run or there there is some element of that but it's pretty limited and that's fine. That's exactly what I would have expected in terms of the scale of the task and uh weekend. I don't know if it's a chance to catch up, but it's a it's on work, but it's a chance to to to plan a bit ahead. >> Yeah. And the space to think. How do you find that? Because >> I I find >> the papers, 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, Michelle. [Music] And that's the Michelle Hussein Show this week. To make sure you never miss an episode, please subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you want to leave us a comment while you're there, I hear that's a good thing. If you'd like to see my conversation with Mark Carney, you'll find the video online. And at bloomberg.com/weend, you'll find the written version of this interview with an illustration of a guest and my notes. Why I asked what I did and the context around it. The Michelle Hussein show is produced by Jessica Beck and Chris Mart. Guest booking by Dave Warren. Social media by Alex Morgan. Our sound engineer is Blake Maples. Our video editor is Evando Thompson. Our executive producer is Louisa Lewis. Brendan Francis Nunham is editorial director of audio and special projects for Bloomberg Weekend. Katherine Bell is the executive editor of Weekend. Our music is composed by Bart Wshaw. And we'd also like to thank Elana Susnau, Victoria Wakeley, Adam Bledford, Summer Sardi, and Sage Bowman. And thank you for listening. Do come back next weekend. [Music]