What Has Carney Got That Poises Him To Win

Patrick Gossage • April 23, 2025

I’ve seen a lot of Mark Carneys in the last few weeks and the very fact that he is not your typical pumped up politician has made him more and more likeable and trusted by me and apparently enough Canadians to position him to win the election.

In fact, his thoughtful, informed calm speaking style and the authentic way he interacts with the public reminds me very much of my old boss Pierre Trudeau, himself also not a natural politician but a thoughtful genuine leader. I so remember his quietly making a key point in a speech rather than loudly emphasizing it – a technique Carney uses to effect. In a time of crisis what we need above all is believable competence in economic policy and deep experience in high level decision making in Canada and internationally. This in a very Canadian unflashy way is what he

demonstrates.


His quiet demeanor masks a deep determination to turn the crisis we face into an opportunity to rebuild a strong Canada. He is proposing further spending arguing that in a crisis the private sector pulls back and government has to step in with what he calls an “overwhelming force”, a strategy he used here in the 2008-09 financial crisis and in post Brexit England where he was also Governor of its Bank. His strategy is is very convincing he is

the man to execute it.


He also has convinced us that he is the mature skilled negotiator that can get Canada a new deal from the mercurial Trump who obviously was impressed by him. Strength recognizes strength. He was also the first to sell off US bonds and urged other countries to follow which spooked Trump into revisiting his tariff policies.


I think we can see the impressive Oxford hockey player in him. He is married to the equally notable goal scorer from the women’s Oxford team (where they met) his athletic wife, the economist Diana Fox. Three smart girls make up their treasured family.


Carney, the son of two activist teachers, grew up in Edmonton, earned a bachelor’s degree (1988) from Harvard University, where his interest in economics was kindled by the lectures of another Canadian-born economist, John Kenneth Galbraith. He then studied economics at the University of Oxford (M.Phil., 1993; D.Phil., 1995). Prior to and following his studies at Oxford, Carney worked for Goldman Sachs in New York, rising to become

managing director of investment banking.


He is a practicing Catholic and meditates for 20 minutes a day. His eulogy to the Pope was a masterpiece – he called him, “a voice of moral clarity and boundless compassion. He was in many respect’s the world’s conscience never hesitating to challenge the powerful on behalf of the vulnerable.” Obviously like PET a man of considerable depth. We need such a leader.


His calm under relentless attacks in two debates ensured that his positive polling numbers remained almost unchanged. Nationally poll tracker shows Liberals at 43.1%, Conservative at 38.4% and NDP at 8.3%. The two-way race shows NDP support bleeding to the Liberals. The provincial data in vote rich provinces is even more convincing. Liberals are way ahead in the Maritimes and Urban Ontario and enjoy a comfortable 40.4% lead in Quebec.


As far as how Canadians feel on issues that matter Angus Read Institute reported: “Carney holds advantages on nearly all top issues for Canadians, though he and Poilievre are tied on ‘reducing the cost of living’ with 37 per cent of Canadians choosing each. Carney is preferred by 24 points on handling the U.S. trade relationship, 26 points on growing non-U.S. trade, 15 points on growing the economy, and 13 points on improving

health care. Carney’s overfall favourability holds at 54 per cent (the second last week of April), while Poilievre’s ticks upward to 38 per cent.


It would take a world shaking Liberal gaff or a “bozo eruption” from a Liberal candidate to spoil what looks like and inevitable Carney majority. Then the big test for him begins.

Patrick Gossage Insider Political Views

Well-meaning Assault Weapons Ban and Buyback victim of poor timing and major opposition

By Patrick Gossage • April 14, 2026
In contrast to US inaction after almost weekly mass killings, it took one horrible shooting rampage at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, in 1980, to start the drive for public policy changes around gun control. But years delays between the mass shooting outrage and actual policy to rid the country of assault rifles doomed the eventual gun buyback program. The polytechnique horror was huge news in our relatively massacre-free nation. That December day, 25-year-old Marc Lépine stalked the hallways and classrooms of the École Polytechnique de Montréal with a semi-automatic rifle and murdered 14 women and injured another 13 people before killing himself. A year later, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to push for stricter gun laws, led by survivors of the Montreal massacre. Later that year, the federal government passed Bill C-17, which imposed safety training and a mandatory waiting period to get a firearms licence-- not an effective means of controlling automatic rifles. Much later, in1996, Parliament passed the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, driven in part by a push for stricter gun laws following the Montreal massacre. The act created a national firearms registry and imposed new rules for obtaining a gun licence, including background checks. The former Conservative government, under prime minister Stephen Harper, abolished the long-gun registry, which it said placed an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun owners. Quebec subsequently created its own provincial registry to replace it. It took another horrific killing nine years later in Nova Scotia to force Ottawa to take real action on miliary-style guns. On April 18 and 19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations, killing 22 people before he was killed by the RCMP. On May 1, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, following through on a 2019 campaign promise, announced an immediate ban on some 1,500 makes and models of assault weapons.. The Canadian government sought to follow New Zealand's lead when at the same time it announced the ban it promised a plan to force gun owners to surrender military-style firearms. But while New Zealand acted quickly, in 2019, Ottawa only launched a long awaited buyback program in 2026. In contrast, the government of then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda announced its firearms buyback program shortly after a white supremacist killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch in March, 2019. In order to move quickly, New Zealand set up mobile units where firearm owners could get refunds in exchange for their firearms. They worked hard to get co-operation from gun owners. Meanwhile, here, the firearms industry and individual gun owners vigorously opposed the project, and it was delayed for years. The program was finally initiated this year with little of the sense of urgency it could have had right after the Nova Scotia killings. It has not been going well. In April, the federal public safety minister's office said more than 67,000 assault-style firearms have been declared by 37,869 firearm owners across Canada. That's just under half of the 136,000 firearms the government had budgeted for when it set aside aside $248.6 million for the program. The precise number of banned firearms in Canada is unknown due to the end of the long-gun registry in 2012. There are other deeper problems. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba have indicated they will not assist with the program, meaning police are not co-operating as in New Zealand. Conservative MPs and firearm owners say the buyback is a wasteful exercise that targets law-abiding citizens. The original gun-control advocacy group, PolySeSouvient, blames “weak political leadership” for what it calls “poor participation” in the compensation program. It looks like Ottawa - to put it mildly - has blown the opportunity to really reduce the number of people-killing guns in this country.

Two Opposites – Mark Carney and Donald Trump

By Patrick Gossage • March 12, 2026
One of the major differences between these two men is that Carney understands the value of well-thought-out strategy, abundantly clear in his Davos speech, which laid out one for middle powers to deal with the end of a rules-based international order and the rise of hegemony. Trump's lack of strategic understanding is clear in his bumbling attempts to justify the billion-dollar-a-day Iran war. His overall tactic of “flooding the zone” – mounting a new initiative or major announcement every day, or even several times a day to ensure press and opposition can never catch up. This tactic has served him well – confusing the world and his would-be opponents into submission under a valley of activity and harsh opinions from the leader of the world. Contrast this approach to leadership from Carney. He is systematically building a nation less dependent on US trade by travelling the world building new alliances and trading partners. And in the scare of Australia giving substance to his idea of alliances with middle powers. All laid out in the Davos speech. It is instructive to appreciate how much Trump was irritated by the Davos speech. Carney got a standing ovation; Trump’s rambling lengthy diatribe did not. He won’t soon forget being so upstaged. He surely recognized an intellectual power he could never match. Carney is a realist and pragmatic when he stated recently “We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” He is dealing with the world that is being reshaped by an irrational power-mad president, a world the powerful Stephen Miller said “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” Does Carney sometimes err on the side of supporting Trump likely to ensure that critical talks on free trade and tariffs have some chance of finding a sympathetic ear? Yes; first he seemed to fully support Trump’s war with Iran. He later made his support more nuanced, saying Trump’s actions were against the rules-based international order. He now says we will not get involved unless a NATO ally is threatened. But generally, Carney is highly rational in contrast to Trump’s self-centered irrationality. Take Trump’s bizarre ill-informed letter to the Prime Minister of Norway, who had no role in deciding if he got the Nobel Peace Prize: “I no longer feel obligated to think purely of Peace (he subsequently engaged in an ever expanding war against Iran). He then reiterated his demand for “complete and Total Control, of Greenland. Thank you!”. His late-night rants, complete with caps, on social media show a mind out of control. Thay are dutifully reported on US news media and often astonish with their non sequiturs and nastiness. One of his more unpresidential quotes came as he fingered White House drapes: “I chose these myself. I always liked gold." The big question for Canadians who are more and more disillusioned with the antics of the President: could these two opposite ever sit down and do a deal that works for Canada. The two do text, and Carney has admitted that in private Trump does listen. But there is also evidence that the trade people in the White House do not like Canada, and as Trump has said, we owe our very existence to the US. And we are “difficult”. They have said that the current trade deal is not good for the US and could be trashed entirely and -deals with Mexico and Canada could be separate and the current trilateral deal may be dead.  Canada was at the brink of reducing the heavy sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber when Premier Ford’s unfortunate ads during the Rose Bowl that featured President Reagan speaking against the usefulness of Tariffs led To Trump suspending talks. They only recently resumed. So can our world-renowned businessman and banker hope to sit down with the unpredictable and unstable President and cut a deal? Some hope that if we extend talks, the President, weakened by the midterms, the bad economic fallout from an unpopular war, and the fragmentation of the MAGA movement may be easier to deal with. On the other hand he may badly need a “win,” bullying big concessions out of Canada and reaping so-cabled benefits from a weaker free trade deal. There is a scenario where Trump gets a black eye if Carney simply walks away with the conviction, perhaps easily shared with an increasingly nationalistic and confident Canada that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” In any case, what a decisive and challenging future we face with Canada at play. Can Carney win for Canada against his opposite by losing a deal?"
More Posts