Mark Carney, 2026 Davos Forum, Interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flsgJe8mN-A

Facebook ?   / worldeconomicforum  

YouTube ?    / wef  

Well, thank you, Prime Minister. Um, I don't think I've seen many standing ovations at Davos, so uh that was that was interesting. Um, you said there was
a phrase in your speech where you said sovereignty now is the ability to withstand pressure. Hisn't Canada almost uniquely vulnerable to pressure because of the extent of your trade dependence on the United States?

Mark Carney

Well, the the proof is that we have been able to withstand the pressure and there has been considerable pressure. Uh I'll give you a couple of facts. We've
actually created more jobs in uh since the tariffs were put on than the United States in absolute number. Uh economy is growing at the second fastest rate within the G7. Uh that's not there. There are pockets of extreme pressure
without question in Canada. Uh but headline we're reacting. The second
thing and it's a fundamental point is the recognition that we can give ourselves far more than any foreign country can take away. Uh there's lots of efficiencies in having one Canadian market. the trillion dollars of domestic investment and building these partnerships abroad. Uh all of which are bigger returns than what's been lost. That's not to say we would rather not lose it, but we can withstand the pressure and we are.

Gideon Rachman

I was interested that you said basically the old world's not coming back. So you're not seeing this as a period where you just have to get through a normal seable return.

Mark Carney

I think the that is what that is our view. Um, and we we regret it, but we're not going to sit around and and and mourn it. We're we're we're acting um and we're acting in a way both that's in our interests, but we believe in a way with others that's building imperfectly in steps a new system. I'll give you one example and handback which is um we're members of we are members of trade agreements that comprise already 1.4 billion people around the world. So we have the most extensive network. We are trying with others to bring some of those networks together. The most prominent example is the trans-pacific partnership in the EU acting of a bridge. It's it's not a direct benefit for Canada, but it is a benefit for Canada that these groups come together uh and go is here
consistent with the WTO rules, both of which are and in that way we're building
back out amongst willing partners.

Gideon Rachman

You talked about uh the need not to put the sign in the window anymore to to pretend that things are still the same. Do you think to put it directly that the NATO alliance is still doing that, still pretending it's the old transatlantic partnership when it's really kind of going?

Mark Carney

Well, uh,  I think clearly NATO is experiencing a test right now. Uh, and the first response to that test has to be to respond in a way that ensures the the security of the Arctic in a robust way for uh for all possibilities. This is actually a point that we have been making in recent years. It's a point that I made at the NATO summit uh back in June which seemed like a pledging summit but also was a uh uh was to get NATO policies in the right direction. So I think in the immediate term one of the imperatives is to reinforce things that Canada is doing, Nordic Baltic 8 are
doing, uh the UK are doing, other NATO partners, France included, in a comprehensive way that pro provides much
greater security uh in the Arctic. That's this is the test. And so I wouldn't say the sign the NATO sign stays in the window, but we've got to meet the uh meet the moment of that.

Gideon Rachman

You also a big theme of your speech was the need for middle powers to work together, but you've just been to the other great power to China. And I think people very intrigued by seeing that meeting and some people say kind of that's a mistake really because you know you're going to make yourself more dependent on China. They're not that benign either. Um the US will be very annoyed. What's what's the defense of what you're doing and what do you hope to get out of it?

Mark Carney

Well the the first thing is to say it's not a defense. It's it's an I know the way you framed the question but it's offense. Um it's building out. It's it's something positive as opposed to um against. We're for something as opposed to being against. The second is there are very clear guard rails in that relationship. I spoke of calibration of relationships in my remarks. That's what I mean by it. Um but within those clear guard rails are huge opportunities in energy both clean and conventional. uh obviously in motor vehicles, in agriculture, in financial services, all of which is mutually beneficial. So it's it's additive and I look it's the second largest economy and it's our second largest trading partner. We should have a strategic partnership with them uh in that uh in within those guardrails and that's what we've achieved.

Gideon Rachman

And it is an interesting reversal though because I think certainly during the Biden administration there was this sense that
the western world was trying to decouple from China or derisk at least. Yeah. And is now in this new world that really
going to go into reverse and d-risking from China because there are other risks is is less of a a thing.

Mark Carney

You need again many in this room this is their livelihood. You need a web of connections. Um and to miss out in that web some of the largest ones, United States, we already have that. Uh China, India, Merkasaur, European Union, that's
a mistake. That's not managing your relationships properly. That makes you stronger, makes you more resilient. And
then on top of that, I'll give you again I'll appeal since it's in the headlines to the Nordics. Uh Nordics plus Canada,
it's 20% of global GDP. It's not the first thing people would realize, but that relationship which is deepening for
security reasons because we're like-minded, those are the types of partnerships that I think we'll see more
of. And you got a round of applause when you said something strong about standing on
principle on Greenland. Do you think uh we can find an offramp
on that? I mean, I'm sure you you'll speak of it, but put it this way, if there isn't an offramp, where does this
go? Uh I I strongly believe that uh there is a better there's a better outcome that come from the discussions
that have been catalyzed in a unusual way admittedly but uh uh and we
absolutely stand by uh the principles that I that I referenced. Um that
solution starts with security and a security yes of Greenland but more broadly of the Arctic. Uh Canada is for
square uh contributing to that. uh we're at the start of a major ramp up above
and beyond. So we'll be a major uh contributor to that. NATO has to deliver on that. We're working intensively in
order to do it as well. Uh prosperity for the people of Greenland uh this in
the end it comes back uh to the people there and there are opportunities to do that in ways that would strengthen uh
all of the alliance. And when President Trump says oh you know Greenland's under threat from Russia, even from China, is that for
real? Uh I would say that there are there are
threat Russia is without question a threat in the Arctic without question.
Russia does lots of horrible things. Uh and I'll take the opportunity to uh to
condemn their unjustified and uh horrific uh assault on Ukraine uh almost
at its fourth year. Uh they are a real threat uh in the Arctic. uh one against
we need to protect which is why we have 364
5day air sea and land presence. It's why we're uh adding to our submarine fleet,
adding to our uh air fighter uh fleet. Uh why we're building out over the horizon radar to protect from Russian uh
missile threats and others uh and why we will work with our NATO NATO partners.
the threat is more perspective than actual at this stage in terms of actual
activity uh in the Arctic and we intend to uh to keep it that way. Another big issue that's going to come
up this week uh is this board of peace uh that President Trump is keen on. Uh
I'm not sure whether it's for Gaza or for the entire world, but apparently Canada's been invited. Are you going to
join? Uh we have been invited. Um and uh let me start by uh I I think we should
recognize the progress that has been made um in at least uh getting to the
towards the end of the first phase of this of this process and the activation if I can put it that way of the process
to set up the border of peace is the start of phase two. U our view is and
and that's to be welcomed and this is a this is a a positive vehicle. Our view is we need to work on the actual
structure of the vehicle. You just referenced is it for Gaza? Well, the UN
uh resolution, security council resolution 2803 references a border of peace for Gaza. That's where we see it
becoming immediately operative and it needs to be in our view it's better to be designed in that way for the
immediate uh needs there. There are many other needs around the world. First point, second point. uh it needs to
coincide with the immediate full flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. We are still
not where we need to be. Conditions still are horrific. Uh so that needs to come alongside. We think there's aspects
of the governance and the decision-making process that could be improved. Uh but we will work uh with
others uh obviously work with the United States um because we will do anything
that we can to improve the situation terrific situation there and to move uh
onto a path to a two a true two-state solution. There's a suggestion you can get permanent membership of the board of
peace uh by pwning up a billion dollars. Uh you you going to write a check for that? uh we would write checks uh and
deliver in kind to uh improve uh the welfare of the people of Palestine, but
we want to see it uh delivered direct uh to those outcomes, those outcomes promoting peace. Uh and so the mechanics
and how it how it works that way. Okay, final question. Um President Trump and a lot of people who
agree with him condemn globalism a lot. Um, and I I suspect, you know, you you
would be the kind of epitome of a globalist. You know, you worked for Goldman Sachs, I believe you were a central banker. Um, you know, you're
comfortable in lived in several countries. Is globalism first of all, is it a thing? And is it over?
Um I think well look understanding how the
world works having an appreciation for other cultures understanding the connections and and being able to or at
least appreciating uh ways that how we connect whether it's through technology,
trade, investment, culture, uh can enrich our lives and that's a good thing and also help solve problems. being
detached from where you live and the broader needs of society. Uh
there is an epithet for that. I I I don't know that the G-word is the one. uh there certainly what we're finding to
go back to uh the points I was making is that there are a number of like-minded
countries that want to work through uh through
partnership uh to achieve those goals for their citizens and for the world uh more more broadly. The call is for more
to recognize what's really going on right now and to
uh and to pull their resources to the benefit of citizens. So it won't be global. It won't cover the globe. Uh but
it will um be more powerful. Okay. Prime Minister, thank you very much indeed.
Heat. Heat.