Mark Carney steps into an unprecedented moment
Social Sharing
Into this unprecedented moment, enter Mark Carney.
In the more gossipy corners of Ottawa, this has been a long time coming. At least as far back as the summer of 2012, an eager group of Liberals tried and failed to woo him. That same year, according to Carney, Stephen Harper asked him if he wanted to be finance minister. Justin Trudeau seemingly made multiple attempts to bring Carney in.
"Certain people want things to happen … the political world, it seems to me, is a world for optimists," Carney told the Globe and Mail in 2012. "I'm in a world that's a world for realists."
Carney now has two feet planted firmly in the political world, but he and everyone else is faced with a reality that would have been scarcely imaginable in 2012 — an American president who poses a real and multi-faceted threat to Canada.
"I'm not the usual suspect when it comes to politics but this is no time for politics as usual," Carney said at his campaign launch, just seven short weeks ago, neatly trying to turn his lack of retail polish into a virtue. After the highly emotive reign of Justin Trudeau, it is indeed a bit jarring to hear the Liberal Party led by a central banker.
WATCH | Who is Mark Carney?:
Who is Mark Carney, Canada's next prime minister?
3 hours ago
Duration 2:49
A 59-year-old father of four, Carney has a long list of formers: governor of the Bank of Canada, governor of the Bank of England, deputy minister in the Department of Finance, UN special envoy for climate action, chairman of Brookfield Asset Management, banker with Goldman Sachs.
But he is the 14th leader of the Liberal Party and he will soon become the 24th prime minister of Canada. The question now is how long he will occupy that office — whether he is the man for this moment or a man who will only momentarily be prime minister.
The cautionary tales of Turner and Ignatieff
Though this moment is incomparable, there are at least two cautionary tales that could be said to hang over Carney's ascent: John Turner and Michael Ignatieff.
The last time the Liberal Party of Canada replaced a member of the Trudeau family, the unlucky winner was Turner. And the last time Liberals gravitated toward a figure who had built an international reputation outside politics, they (eventually) went with Ignatieff. That ended badly too, except insofar as it indirectly led the Liberals back to a Trudeau.
Ignatieff has long been the easiest point of comparison to Carney. The son of a Canadian diplomat, Ignatieff was a celebrated intellectual and author who was smart and worldly and decent and interesting. But he failed to master politics and couldn't provide the leadership, organization or vision the Liberals desperately needed when he took the helm in 2008. The subsequent election in 2011 was the worst result in the party's fabled history, surpassing the previous low established by Turner in 1984.
Carney's political abilities — how he handles the constant poking, prodding and parsing — are still being tested. But he has been involved with government at the highest levels and he would already seem to have a clearer idea than Ignatieff of what he wants to do in politics — namely, a focus on strengthening the Canadian economy. And he has now won an overwhelming victory in his first electoral contest, his share of the vote surpassing even the total won by Trudeau in 2013 against lesser competition.
With Justin Trudeau's government worn down by the wages of time and the cost of inflation, the Liberals entered this leadership race in desperate need of something different. And among the leading contenders to replace Trudeau, Carney was in the best position to represent change — a word he used half a dozen times in his remarks on Sunday night. His unique resumé added a sense that he was a serious person for a serious time.
"Canadians know that new threats demand new ideas and a new plan," Carney said. "They know that new challenges demand new leadership."
On that note, he announced the carbon tax would soon be cancelled.
WATCH | The moment Carney is annouced winner:
Mark Carney is the new Liberal Party leader
3 hours ago
Duration 1:39
During the leadership convention in Ottawa on Sunday evening, president of the Liberal Party of Canada Sachit Mehra announced Mark Carney as the new leader of the party with over 85 per cent of the vote.
For all intents and purposes, this race might have been over the moment Carney appeared on The Daily Show and seemed comfortable under the glare of American television. The new Liberal leader came into Sunday's victory parade with the endorsement of 90 Liberal MPs, including 28 members of cabinet. Even more important are the polls that suggest Carney gives the Liberals a real chance to win the next election.
Like Carney, Turner seemed to revive Liberal fortunes after a long period in office. He was a former finance minister, but he came from outside the government with business-world credentials. In the spring of 1984, Turner comfortably bested Jean Chrétien, a trusted lieutenant of Pierre Trudeau. Buoyed by favourable polls, he proceeded directly to an election.
And that's when it all fell apart. Whatever chance Turner ever had, he was undone by disorganization, a party that wasn't ready to wage a campaign, a hostile press, a patronage scandal and his own mistakes (including a bad debate and a "bum-patting" controversy). The better-organized and better-funded Progressive Conservatives won a massive majority.
Turner's time as prime minister was over after a scant 79 days, the second-shortest stint in history.
Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives have already begun throwing everything that isn't nailed down in Carney's direction, if only to see what might stick. The attack ads began airing on television well before Sunday.
In one case, Carney has already learned how easy it is to stumble in politics. His attempt to split hairs over the decision to list Brookfield in the United States turned what could be a minor issue into a multiple-day story.
If all else was equal, the Conservatives would be heavily favoured to win the next election after nearly a decade of Liberal rule — and perhaps the Conservatives still should be. But what defies comparison now — what is without precedent in the history of Canada and Canadian elections — is the presence of Donald Trump and the standing threat he personifies.
Is Carney the answer to a new ballot question?
A report in the New York Times this weekend enumerated a list of grievances on the part of the American president that includes not only this country's dairy sector, banking regulations and national sales tax, but the very border that separates Canada and the United States. The president has reportedly threatened the Five Eyes intelligence network, the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and the agreements that govern the Great Lakes.
For good measure, the Globe and Mail reported that Trump has raised the Columbia River Treaty.
Next week could bring a new round of tariffs. Or the full weight of Trump's trade agenda might land on April 2 — by which point Canada may be in the middle of an election campaign.
WATCH | Carney's full victory speech:
FULL SPEECH | Carney addresses Canadians as new Liberal leader and PM-designate
2 hours ago
Duration 32:19
It is impossible to know what the American administration might do from one day to the next — as evidenced by the on-again, off-again trade war — but Canadian leaders are obligated to take all of it seriously. And while Trump's presence does not suspend the laws of politics, it has scrambled the playing board and rewritten the ballot question.
On Sunday, speaking to a national television audience, Carney pressed the case that not only was he well suited to this moment, but that Poilievre was uniquely unsuited — that the Conservative leader wouldn't just fail to stand up to the American president, but that his politics were similar to what Canadians have watched play out in the United States.
"Donald Trump thinks he can weaken us with his plan to divide and conquer," Carney said. "Pierre Poilievre's plan will leave us divided and ready to be conquered."
Highlighting his own experience in the private sector — and Poilievre's lack of same — Carney needled the Conservative leader's faith in the free market.
"I know how the world works," Carney said.
After "change," Carney's second-favourite word Sunday night was "build." Hinting at what sounded like a wartime effort, he said "we will have to do things we haven't imagined before at speeds we didn't think possible."
Carney may still be new at politics, but he at least grasps the value of a slogan. His apparently will be "Canada strong" — no doubt a rejoinder to Poilievre's "Canada first."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
41 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Canadians favour other countries over Donald Trump's America, survey suggests
As G7 leaders gather in Kananaskis, Alta., a new poll suggests Canadians are souring on the U.S. and embracing relations with other world powers. The Pollara Strategic Insights survey found net impressions of the U.S. have plunged since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. At the same time, Canadians are feeling positive about the other G7 member nations: Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'We've kind of lost our best friend in the United States and maybe, as a country, Canada is now looking toward some of its older friends to reconnect with as a result of that,' said Dan Arnold, Pollara's chief strategy officer, referring to Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods that have led to a trade war between the neighbouring countries. Indeed, the firm polled people in Canada and the U.K. and found similar results on both sides of the Atlantic. Five out of six Canadians — 83 per cent — said the bilateral relationship with Britain was 'important' with only 17 per cent saying it wasn't. Across the pond, 76 per cent of Britons said their country's relationship with Canada was 'important' while about one in four said it was not. The British have a more positive view of Canada (+78 per cent) than any other country in the poll — ahead of Japan (+61 per cent), Germany (+60 per cent), France (+50 per cent) and Ukraine (+47 per cent). But the poll found they have a negative view toward India (-1 per cent), the U.S. (-3 per cent), China (-24 per cent) and Russia (-63 per cent). ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Among Canadians, Italy has a +66 per cent favourability rating followed by Japan at +64 per cent, the U.K. at +59 per cent, France at +57 per cent, Germany at +54 per cent and Ukraine at +41 per cent. China was at -27 per cent, India at -29 per cent, the U.S. at -47 per cent and Russia at -63 per cent. That's a 60 percentage point drop in Canadian sentiment toward the American since Pollara's survey last year when Joe Biden was U.S. president. Using online panels, Pollara surveyed 3,400 Canadians on May 16-20. While opt-in polls cannot be assigned a margin of error, for comparison purposes, a random sample of this size would have one of plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Similarly, the firm polled 2,511 Britons on May 2-16. The margin of error for comparable surveys is within 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 'If the Americans aren't going to be the number-one ally in many respects for the next three years (of Trump's presidency) … then the Canada-U.K. relationship is something that bears some noting,' said Arnold, pointing out Canada's recently elected Prime Minister Mark Carney used to be governor of the Bank of England. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Because of that, 60 per cent of Britons are familiar with him, and of those, 80 per cent had a positive view of Carney, who succeeded Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader on March 9 and was elected April 28. Just seven per cent had a negative view and the rest had no opinion. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is not as well known among Canadians. Only 26 per cent were familiar with him. Of those, 58 per cent had a positive view with 30 per cent negative and the remainder had no opinion. That's an overall +28 per cent for Starmer, who won power last summer. The most admired foreign leader among Canadians was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who will attend the G7 summit that begins Sunday. Zelenskyy, whose country was invaded by Russia in 2022, was at +53 per cent, ahead of French President Emmanuel Macron (+46 per cent), German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (+33 per cent), Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba (+31 per cent) and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni (+29 per cent). On the negative side of the ledger, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who will also be at the G7, was at -17 per cent, ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping (-52 per cent), Trump (-66 per cent) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (-69 per cent). Neither Xi nor Putin was invited to Kananaskis. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Ford's new energy plan for Ontario increases reliance on nuclear, fossil fuels
The Ford government is projecting a major shift toward nuclear power to meet rising electricity demand and support Ontario's transition to net-zero emissions by mid-century. Its newly released long-term Energy for Generations plan — billed as the province's first-ever integrated energy strategy — also shows an increased reliance on fossil fuels over the next decade, with emissions expected to rise before declining after 2030. The province describes the plan as 'a comprehensive roadmap to meet future energy needs, support new housing, and power the most competitive economy in the G7.' 'As energy demand soars, our plan leverages 'Made-In-Ontario' to build affordable, clean, and always reliable power, built by and for Canadians,' Ontario's Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said in a statement. The plan will help the province meet growing electricity demand while achieving over 99 per cent zero-emissions electricity by 2050, he added. Critics say the plan misses key opportunities to scale-up renewables, puts energy affordability at risk and increases Ontario's dependence on foreign energy supplies. The plan projects total electricity production in 2050 to be just under 275 terawatt-hours (TWh), with nuclear making up the largest share at over 200 TWh. That means nuclear plants could supply more than 70 per cent of Ontario's electricity by 2050, up from about 50 per cent today. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington nuclear power stations. Currently, Ontario's nuclear fleet — Bruce, Darlington, and Pickering — provides 12,000 MW of capacity. The plan projects the province could need up to 17,800 MW of new nuclear power by 2050, equivalent to building five new Darlington stations. To support this buildout, the province says it is preparing new nuclear sites and has already begun early engagement with First Nation and local communities. A new nuclear technology panel will guide technology choices and project timelines, with input from Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, the Independent Electricity System Operator and government officials. The province says nuclear projects are complex and costly, and it plans to explore new ownership models and equity partnerships to attract private capital and help finance the expansion. It aims to attract investment from Canadian pension funds and institutional investors to 'keep more Canadian energy dollars working here at home,' the province said. 'This isn't a plan — it's a policy statement' Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative, said the plan lacks a clear decision-making framework and basic accountability mechanisms. He said there is no process in place to evaluate whether the government's chosen energy path is the most affordable or lowest-risk for the province. 'There is no oversight or review process to assess whether this represents the least-cost or lowest-risk option for Ontario,' Winfield said. By 'review,' Winfield refers to independent assessments — such as those typically conducted by regulatory bodies or outside experts — that evaluate costs, risks, and alternatives before major infrastructure decisions are finalized. Winfield also questioned the long-term focus on nuclear. 'All of the proposed reactor technologies rely on enriched fuel that comes from the United States,' he said. 'This exposes Ontario to new energy security risks.' In recent months, the Ford government has committed billions to nuclear energy, announcing new builds and refurbishments it says will create tens of thousands of jobs. Earlier this year, it unveiled plans for a massive nuclear plant near Port Hope, projected to generate 10,000 megawatts — enough to power 10 million homes — though key details like costs and timelines remain undisclosed. Last week, the province introduced legislation to expand access to Ontario's public clean energy fund for nuclear projects. Industry groups welcomed Ontario's new energy plan, with major players praising the government's commitment to both nuclear power and natural gas. Enbridge Gas called the plan a 'clear affirmation' of the essential role natural gas will continue to play, citing its importance for affordability, grid stability and economic growth. The company said investments in gas infrastructure are foundational to Ontario's prosperity. The Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries also applauded the plan, calling it a bold step toward clean energy leadership. The group highlighted Ontario's strong nuclear track record and said the proposed expansion — including large reactors and SMRs — positions the province to secure long-term clean energy supply. 'Where are the renewables?' Aliénor Rougeot, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, said Ontario's new energy plan could lead to higher household bills, more air pollution and increased reliance on the US fossil gas. While she welcomed the idea of a long-term, integrated approach, she argued that the plan should be replaced with one built on publicly shared modelling. To Rougeot, the most glaring problem is the plan's failure to prioritize wind and solar — Ontario's cheapest and cleanest energy sources. 'I kept flipping through the document, asking: Where are the renewables?' Rougeot said. The supply forecast is particularly troubling to her, as it shows Ontario having less wind and solar in 2050 than in 2030. She believes the refusal to give renewable energy a central role in the province's future grid will come at a high cost — both economically and environmentally. Wind and solar make up approximately nine per cent and two per cent of Ontario's current electricity generation, respectively. In its plan, the government says their role is expected to grow over time. Starting in 2025, nearly 3,000 megawatts of energy storage will be added to the grid. However, the plan argues that nuclear is more cost-effective and land-efficient than wind and solar. It claims that to generate the same amount of energy as a proposed 10,000 MW nuclear station at Wesleyville, Ontario would need roughly 100 times more land for solar and 500 times more land for wind. But new analysis suggests solar doesn't require large tracts of land — for example, more than half of Toronto's electricity needs could be met through rooftop and parking lot solar alone. A new report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance argues that wind and solar could meet the same energy needs as the proposed Wesleyville nuclear station much faster and at far lower cost — potentially saving the province up to $19 billion annually. It highlights Ontario's untapped potential for offshore wind in the Great Lakes and large-scale solar at the Port Hope site. Another report warns that electricity from new nuclear could cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and 1.7 times more than offshore wind. Lia Codrington, a senior analyst at the Pembina Institute, said the province's new energy plan represents a positive step toward long-term planning, noting that many jurisdictions around the world are already moving quickly toward clean energy and decarbonization. She viewed it as important for Ontario to follow that trend — and even potentially lead — by modernizing its electricity system. Codrington questioned the government's argument that land use limits renewable energy expansion. She said wind turbines allow for shared land use — such as farming — and solar panels can be installed on rooftops, parking lots, and other built environments. In her view, decisions about land use should reflect what Ontarians want in their communities when it comes to energy sources, not just technical comparisons in megawatts per square kilometre.
National Observer
an hour ago
- National Observer
Carney shows his hand on infrastructure and trade bill
Ever since June 6, when Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that he expects Bill C-5 to become law before summer break, one question has loomed over Parliament: How? It normally takes months for a bill to become law. Proposed legislation (which is what a bill is) must go through several readings and committees run by MPs and senators alike, who all call witnesses to weigh in on the pros and cons, which trigger amendments, which then require further deliberation, all before a final vote is cast. If that sounds slow, that's because it is — and it usually takes even longer in a minority government, where Opposition MPs make up a big portion of the committees and so, have ample opportunity to bog the process down. So how did Carney expect to whiz his signature policy through such a quagmire in a mere two or three weeks? But on Thursday, June 12 – one head-scratching week after Carney unveiled the bill – he dropped his cards: a special parliamentary order that would, if Parliament votes for it, condense the entire process into five days. The order's formal name is ' An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.' Or as NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice calls it, a super-motion. '[It] will, if passed, speed up the debate and study of that bill in an incredible and scandalous way,' Boulerice said in a phone interview soon after the Act to Enact the Act was introduced. Parliament will vote on this super-motion on Friday. It requires a simple majority to pass. If that happens, a parliamentary committee will be formed next week and given just two days to scrutinize Bill C-5, plus make whatever amendments they can squeeze in. The bill will go through the final two readings and hit the floor next Friday, June 20, for a final vote. On that day, according to the terms of the super-motion, '[t]he House shall not adjourn until the proceedings on the bill have been completed.' Meaning, in other words, MPs are stuck in their seats until the bill either becomes law or dies. The procedural mystery behind the prime minister's plan to rush his treasured legislation has been unveiled. Now it's Parliament's play. All of that hinges on the super-motion. If that passes on June 13, Carney will almost certainly get his legislation by next weekend. 'It's really against the rights of parliamentarians,' Boulerice said. 'It's really anti-democratic. It's all the horrible things that a government can do to shut down debate and pass a really controversial project through the throats of the MPs and the general public and First Nations and environmental groups.' Two Acts in one Bill C-5 is really two bills in one, both named in the unwieldy title. The first part is about breaking down interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility, and is, in general, less controversial than the bill's second part: the 'Building Canada Act,' which would give cabinet the power to deem certain megaprojects (from pipelines and electricity grids to ports and high-speed rail) in the 'national interest,' which would then put them on a two-year fast track to federal approval. It's the second part that Boulerice, along with many environmental advocacy groups and Indigenous leaders, have deep misgivings about. ''National interest' is so vague that they can put whatever they want [on that list], and after that, guarantee the two years maximum. … Once it's on the list, it cannot be removed. It cannot be blocked or stopped by anybody – provinces, First Nations, citizens, cities. I think it's the dream of Stephen Harper coming true.' Indeed, Conservatives do appear to like the bill – the party's members, not known for their shyness about legislation they dislike, didn't once mention it or the super-motion to accelerate its passage, in Thursday's Question Period. What's less clear is whether they want to hand Carney the political gift of having his signature policy turned into law in such short order against such odds. The Conservative Party did not immediately respond to an inquiry about their plans. It's far from a done deal yet, however. Boulerice is in talks with the Bloc Quebecois, both of whom are busy scouring the 'really big book' of parliamentary procedure for tools that might at least put the brakes on the super-motion. 'We will try some obstruction procedures,' he said. In addition to motions that could slow the day down, Boulerice said they might try splitting Bill C-5 into two parts, allowing the first to rush through, while reserving the second part on 'national interest' projects for proper scrutiny.' In a best-case scenario for Boulerice, the NDP and Bloc will be able to stall voting on the super-motion until Monday. In that case, 'we'll gain some time to raise awareness' with the public, in the hopes of generating enough bad press that the bill becomes too toxic for Parliament to support. But the government is already working on getting its own message out. In a separate briefing about wildfires, several cabinet ministers were asked by reporters to explain the rush embodied by this super-motion. 'We're in a very difficult situation right now,' said Tim Hodgson, minister of energy and natural resources. 'We have a trade war that is affecting sector after sector after sector. Canadian jobs are at risk, Canadian livelihoods are at risk, and quite frankly, the prosperity of the country is at risk … to deal with this, we need to do things that we have not done in a long time, in time frames we have not done since the end of World War II. What we are doing is allowing for debate – I spent four hours last night in a committee of the whole. There is going to be the same sort of process in the Senate. It is important that we start moving, or we will find ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation.' Asked if the Liberals have spoken with Conservatives for a sense of whether they'll support this push, Hodgson said, 'I don't think it's appropriate to talk about the private conversations that are going on.' Mandy Gull-Masty, the minister of Indigenous services and a former Grand Chief of the Cree Nation government in Quebec, was also at that press conference. Asked if the government had addressed the question of First Nation consultation and support for this legislation, Gull-Masty said that in her view, Bill C-5 is 'not just critical for the Canadian economy, it's also critical for Indigenous people.' She said the prime minister has made himself personally available to Indigenous leaders across the country, and felt that Section 35, which enshrines Indigenous rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, along with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, are both embedded in the process. 'I think this is something that is unique to the One Canada Economy Bill, is that we're not just inviting Indigenous partnership to the table, we're actually asking them, 'What is your process of consultation, and how can we work with you in collaboration to carry out those steps?'' For now, it won't be Indigenous groups, or environmental advocates, or anyone but the MPs inside the House of Commons who decide whether Gull Masty's faith in her new party's good faith is warranted. And of those parliamentarians, it is now the Conservatives who hold the future of Carney's prized legislation in their hands. They could choose to gift it to him all at once, delay it until after summer, or withhold it altogether.
