Mark Carney is the freshly anointed Prime Minister of Canada. He has stepped before the press, hyper guarded, unpolished, and—perhaps most revealingly—unprepared for scrutiny. A man who has spent decades basking in the adulation of elite banking circles, Vatican and United Nations gatherings, now faces a different beast: democratic accountability.
One of his first press interactions as prime minister tells us more about the man than a dozen policy speeches ever could. The small details and reactions that have not yet been well rehearsed tell us much about a person. In just three minutes in the video clip below, Carney unwittingly laid bare his instincts—self-regard, condescension for women journalists, and utter unfamiliarity with being challenged. Let’s unpack the moment.
The Press, the Women, and the Omniscient Carney
It must be noted right at the start that Carney’s joust with the media was with friendly voices—female journalists from the CBC and The Globe and Mail, two of the Liberal Party’s most reliable megaphones. But even this friendly environment proved too much for him. When the Globe reporter Stephanie Levitz asked about accountability, Carney was dismissive and responded with an eyebrow-raising assertion: he already knew what she was thinking. Then he ascribed ill intent to the next question from CBC’s Rosie Barton, a woman whose job description practically includes carrying water for the Liberals.
The Globe journalist had dared to ask about Carney’s investment portfolio and the 120-day reporting loop required for transparency. A simple question, one might think. But Carney reacted as though she had accused him of financial misconduct. He bristled at the implication that his personal finances were even worth questioning. His response dripped with arrogance, as if public scrutiny and accountability were beneath him. This is the man, after all, who spent years at Goldman Sachs and the Bank of England, institutions where scrutiny tends to be polite and pre-negotiated if any at all. Now, when he must explain himself to the press, he defaulted to attack and condescension rather than candour.
This is not a hardened politician deftly parrying tough questions. That may not be a bad thing at all, one might say. But this is not a man with any experience fielding questions. This is a man who, when facing only the mildest inquiry from sympathetic journalists, reacted as though he were a visiting professor forced to explain elementary economics to an unruly classroom. His tone—patronizing, dismissive—was particularly revealing given the gender dynamic at play. These were not Andrew Coyne or Terry Glavin pressing him. These were establishment-approved, progressive women from super friendly outlets. If this is how he behaves in the honeymoon phase, imagine his demeanour when the press inevitably turns on him, as they eventually do with all leaders.
The Man Who Believes Canada Owes Him
Another striking moment in his response came when Carney framed his new role as an act of national sacrifice. This man has spent his career oscillating between cushy roles in state bureaucracies and the private banking sector, amassing significant wealth and some prestige among the right people. A quick perusal of his book, Value(s) exposes a bureaucratic soul. But now, he positions himself as Canada’s reluctant saviour, implying that the country should be grateful for his service. There was not much sense of humility and no deference to democratic principles on display—just the expectation that Canada should recognize and be grateful for his presumed greatness.
Carney has lived in a world where his words are received reverently, not questioned. In central banking, where policy consequences take years to manifest, he has been accustomed to speaking with absolute authority, largely unchallenged, even though the record shows a trail of blunders. But politics, particularly in Canada’s Westminster system, does not afford such luxury. It demands resilience in the face of criticism that he has not demonstrated. After Justin, it might be difficult for Canadians to accept a moralistic pontificate from the PM’s chair.
What Happens When the Gloves Come Off?
Now, consider what would happen if Carney had faced actual adversarial questioning. Imagine Trish Wood, Sheila Gunn Reid or Andy Lee being in that press pool. Chances are Carney would snap and fume under their questions. Or, more entertainingly, perhaps, he might collapse into a puddle of wounded indignation?
The fact that he struggled even with the CBC queen of woke reporting bodes ill for his ability to handle parliamentary combat. Conservative MPs like Melissa Lantsman, Rachael Thomas and Stephanie Kusie, formidable female parliamentarians, will not hesitate to dismantle him. Nor will Pierre Poilievre, a man who has reduced Liberal ministers to incoherence in less than 30 seconds. And what about the Bloc en francais? Carney may find himself pining for the days of Davos panel discussions and cocktail-party climate consensus.
And then there are the likes of Victoria NDP MP Laurel Collins—a doomsday environmental activist, a hyper-emotional crusader for the planet. At some point, she could rise in Parliament and, with all the theatre of tears in her eyes and a trembling voice, demand to know why the great Mark Carney has abandoned his moral duty to stop climate change. She might wail about the planet’s destruction at his decision to (for now) pause the consumer carbon tax. Carney, the internationalist climate warrior, will not enjoy being cast as a villain by his ideological allies.
Canadian politics is up-close and personal. It’s not brutal, but it is relentless. Unlike in Britain, where Prime Ministers get the questions in advance and can stage-manage their responses, Question Period in Ottawa is a rapid-fire, think-on-your-feet affair. It’s more like manly 1970s hockey. There are few timeouts and polite exchanges. It’s not always gentlemanly; it’s often confrontational. If you can’t handle the chaos and the pressure, you get exposed—fast.
Carney and the Trudeau Trap
Carney, like Trudeau before him, embodies an exceptionally Liberal brand of entitlement. Justin Trudeau was born into privilege and assumed he was destined to lead this country. Carney’s entitlement is similar but of a different breed—the expert elite’s entitlement, the belief that technocracy is too significant to be left to mere politicians. He has been lauded in elite circles as the Next Big Thing for so long that he seems genuinely perplexed by the notion that anyone would challenge him.
To read the rest of the post, please go to our Substack list here.
Share Your Thoughts