Connect with us

National

Carney’s leadership style will make or break Canada’s future

Published

5 minute read

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Faith Wood

Canada is watching: Will he rebuild trust with premiers or revert to his predecessor’s unilateral leadership style?

Provincial premiers aren’t interested in empty gestures. While Prime Minister Mark Carney began his term amid high expectations, premiers across Canada are watching with measured skepticism. They’ve heard promises of collaboration before, only to see Ottawa centralize control.

This is a test of trust—one that won’t be passed with empty slogans or staged photo ops. Trust begins with openness, not authority. It’s built through leadership that makes room for others and treats people like equals and not problems. If Carney wants to heal a fractured nation, he must understand that people don’t follow power—they follow leaders who show up and listen

I recently facilitated a leadership retreat where the focus wasn’t policy or protocol. It was something more personal: What does it feel like to be led well? Again and again, one word came up: welcomed. People remembered leaders who made space, who adjusted the tone, who listened without interrupting.

Leaders who behaved not like commanders, but like respectful peers. This isn’t sentimental fluff. It’s a governing principle.

A good leader does more than offer kind words. They anticipate needs, notice discomfort and encourage honest participation. And most importantly, they do it before trust is earned. Openness comes first, and trust follows. Now imagine applying that to politics.

Premiers are meeting Carney with different histories and deep ideological divides. Some carry grievances, others cautious hope. But all are watching closely: Can Carney build the trust that premiers and Canadians demand? Trust doesn’t begin with a handshake. It starts with how the room is prepared: with tone, transparency and how feedback is received. Not in lofty speeches, but in real, reciprocal dialogue.

We’ve seen what the opposite looks like: top-down decisions made without consultation, provincial concerns dismissed and policies imposed with little regard for local realities. That style of leadership may deliver headlines, but it erodes trust.

So the question isn’t just about leadership style. It’s about survival. Can Carney create a climate that keeps the country working together?

Let’s stop with the clichés about “setting the tone from the top.” Start making room for others.

Are the right voices invited?

Are concerns met with curiosity, not defensiveness?

Is anyone actually listening?

And let’s be clear: making space for others doesn’t mean appeasement. It’s not weakness. It’s strength—authentic leadership requires discipline, humility and the courage to share control.

This isn’t just for Ottawa. Whether you’re managing a business, running a province or leading a family, the principle holds: people engage when they know their voice matters. Real leadership isn’t about control—it’s about creating space for others to contribute meaningfully.

That’s what fosters collaboration. That’s what earns long-term credibility. And that’s what lays the groundwork for the hard, nation-shaping conversations ahead.

If Carney is serious about national unity, he needs to stop trying to control the room and start creating space for others by:

  • Showing up early.
  • Listening.
  • Sharing the floor.

Because in today’s Canada, command-and-control leadership won’t hold. Only leaders who make space for others will keep the country together.

Faith Wood is a professional speaker, author, and certified professional behaviour analyst. Before her career in speaking and writing, she served in law enforcement, which gave her a unique perspective on human behaviour and motivations. Faith is also known for her work as a novelist, with a focus on thrillers and suspense. Her background in law enforcement and understanding of human behaviour often play a significant role in her writing’

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

Sending natural gas pipeline project back for environmental review could put $20 billion investment at risk

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Ksi Lisims LNG too important to fail

The BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) is expected to soon determine whether the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline project has been “substantially started” as per the conditions of its provincial environmental certificate. Later this summer, the EAO is also expected to issue a recommendation on the Ksi Lisims LNG project, which would be supplied by the PRGT pipeline.

If these regulatory hurdles are cleared, the project is still likely to face court challenges, including judicial review applications from environmental groups and potentially the Gitanyow First Nation. The stakes are high: Ksi Lisims LNG represents a $20 billion investment and is a clean energy mega-project that the government of Premier David Eby cannot afford to lose, both in terms of economic development and reconciliation with Indigenous communities.

Should the EAO conclude that PRGT has not made a substantial start, the project’s environmental certificate would expire. The proponents—the Nisga’a Nation and Western LNG—would then be required to restart the environmental review process from scratch. This would result in years of delay and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs. Timing is especially critical for LNG projects targeting Asian markets, where long-term supply contracts, often lasting 15 to 20 years, must align with project timelines. Ksi Lisims aims to be operational by 2029.

Petronas Energy Canada CEO Mark Fitzgerald recently told the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade that Canada has an 18-month window to move key projects forward or risk losing investment opportunities. This warning echoes past experience: in 2017, Petronas canceled the Pacific Northwest LNG project just one week after the NDP government took office, despite having invested nearly $1 billion. That decision resulted in the mothballing of the PRGT pipeline and signaled the collapse of other major LNG projects, including Kitimat LNG (Chevron), Aurora LNG (Nexen), WCC LNG (ExxonMobil), and Prince Rupert LNG (Shell). Many investors instead shifted their focus to the United States.

While previous cancellations were partially attributed to macroeconomic factors, these did not deter LNG investment in other jurisdictions. In contrast, Ksi Lisims LNG has recently gained momentum, with significant financial backing from Blackstone Energy Transition Partners, Shell, and TotalEnergies through private placements, off-take agreements, and planned equity stakes. However, investor confidence is fragile and can evaporate if the project becomes mired in regulatory or legal delays.

The PRGT pipeline received its original environmental certificate in 2014 with a five-year term, later renewed once. The Nisga’a Nation and Western LNG must now demonstrate that substantial construction has commenced to maintain that certification. According to Western LNG, work completed includes clearing 47 kilometers of right-of-way on Nisga’a treaty lands, constructing 42 kilometers of road, and building nine bridges. Whether this constitutes a “substantial start” is under review. Groups such as Ecojustice and the Gitanyow First Nation have submitted objections, arguing that it does not meet the threshold.

It is notable that the Gitanyow originally supported PRGT through impact benefits agreements with the province and project agreements with the previous proponent, TC Energy. However, their position shifted after ownership transferred to the Nisga’a Nation and Western LNG. The Gitanyow now argue the project has changed substantially, including a re-routing near the western terminus to accommodate the new Ksi Lisims LNG terminal, which is located further north than the originally planned Pacific Northwest LNG terminal.

Such disputes highlight why both federal and provincial governments have recently begun developing fast-tracking legislation for major infrastructure projects deemed to be in the national interest. These new legislative tools are intended to reduce bureaucratic delays and provide greater regulatory certainty. Ksi Lisims and PRGT meet many of the criteria such legislation is designed to support and would be strong candidates for such treatment should the EAO’s decision result in further delays.

Importantly, Ksi Lisims LNG is not simply a project supported by the Nisga’a Nation—it is being led by them. In addition, all other First Nations along the proposed pipeline route, except the Gitanyow, appear to support the project and are being offered equity participation. This makes Ksi Lisims a powerful example of reconciliation in action.

Furthermore, the project’s floating LNG design significantly reduces its terrestrial footprint and associated environmental impact, particularly on fish habitats. The proponents have also committed to using electricity to power the liquefaction process—when it becomes available—to align with British Columbia’s net-zero emissions targets. These factors support the classification of Ksi Lisims LNG as a clean energy project.

If this project does not meet B.C.’s environmental and social standards, it is difficult to imagine what project could. As Ellis Ross, the newly elected Conservative MP for Skeena–Bulkley Valley, recently stated, “It hits so many of the bullets that politicians have been talking about for so many years.”

If federal and provincial leaders are serious about supporting “nation-building” infrastructure, then Ksi Lisims LNG should be at the top of the list—particularly if the EAO process creates further complications. That said, proponents remain cautiously optimistic. “I don’t think the Nisga’a will give up,” Ross added. “I don’t think it will fail. But if it doesn’t get approved, it will have to incur more cost and more time.”

Continue Reading

Business

Bank of Canada Flags Challenges Amid Absence of Federal Budget

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Governor Tiff Macklem signals the central bank is flying blind as Mark Carney’s Liberal government withholds fiscal plans, leaving Canadians to face rising prices and economic uncertainty.

The Bank of Canada—yes, the people in charge of stabilizing your currency, protecting your savings, and guiding the economy through the storm—held a press conference. The takeaway? They have no idea what’s going on.

If you missed it, Governor Tiff Macklem stood at the podium and told Canadians, with a straight face, that the Bank is keeping interest rates unchanged at 2.75%. Now, if you’re expecting that decision to come with some clarity, a plan, maybe even a roadmap for the months ahead—don’t hold your breath.

Why? Because Macklem said the Bank’s navigating ‘unusual uncertainty’ from U.S. trade moves, and they’re too unsure to pin down a forecast. Instead, they’re waiting for more numbers to make sense of the mess.

Just pause and think about that for a second. The central bank of one of the wealthiest nations on Earth—tasked with steering the economy—is flying blind.

But don’t worry, we were told. A rate cut might come in July. Maybe. Depending on how inflation behaves. Depending on how the economy holds up. Depending on a whole list of things no one can actually predict right now. Macklem says it depends on inflation being “contained.” But look around—consumer spending is falling, housing is slowing down, and people are losing jobs in sectors tied to trade. And he knows it.

He said, “The second quarter is expected to be much weaker.” Why? Because the growth we saw earlier this year was a mirage. Canadian companies rushed to export goods before U.S. tariffs hit. That inflated Q1 GDP to 2.2%. Now the adrenaline is gone and reality is setting in.

He didn’t say we’re in trouble. But he didn’t need to. When your central banker says growth was “pulled forward” and Q2 will be “much weaker,” he’s telling you the economy is already running on fumes.

And then there’s inflation. Now, according to the headlines, inflation dropped to 1.7% in April. Sounds good, right? Until you look at why. The reason inflation dropped is because the federal government eliminated the carbon tax, which temporarily lowered gas prices. That policy change alone knocked 0.6 percentage points off inflation. Not because goods got cheaper—because the tax man backed off for once.

Meanwhile, core inflation—the kind that actually matters—went up. Higher food prices, rising goods prices, supply chain costs—it’s all hitting Canadian businesses and families right now. Macklem even said it himself: “Underlying inflation could be firmer than we thought.”

So what does the Bank do when prices are rising for the wrong reasons and growth is falling for the right ones? Apparently, they wait. They gather “intel” from business owners and talk about “soft data.” That’s the technical term now: soft data.

But the real kicker—what’s actually driving a lot of this chaos—is U.S. trade policy. Tariffs are back. Yes, tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum were doubled again. And Macklem admitted that unpredictability is the biggest threat we’re facing. He said: “The trade conflict initiated by the United States remains the biggest headwind facing the Canadian economy.”

And what has Canada done to protect itself from that risk? Absolutely nothing.

In fact, Macklem came right out and admitted it. He said Canada’s overdependence on U.S. trade has been obvious for years. Here’s the quote:

Canada’s trade is very concentrated with the United States. Look, it’s always going to be concentrated with the United States… but that doesn’t mean we can’t diversify our trade.

So the solution has been obvious for decades. Diversify our exports. Strengthen our own internal market. Get serious about reducing  interprovincial trade barriers—yes, those still exist in this country. But none of it happened. None of it. Not under Trudeau. Not under Chrystia Freeland. And certainly not under the new “caretaker” prime minister, Mark Carney—Trudeau’s old global finance buddy.

The Deafening Silence from Ottawa: No Budget, No Plan, No Leadership

Now, let’s talk about what Tiff Macklem didn’t say—but might as well have.

At a time when Canadians are facing real economic stress—on housing, food, jobs, and savings—the Liberal government under Mark Carney has failed to table a federal budget. Let that sink in. We’re halfway through 2025, inflation is shifting, trade policy is in turmoil, and the federal government has not provided a single fiscal blueprint.

This isn’t just a minor oversight. In a presser filled with caution, hedging, and uncertainty, Macklem was asked point-blank how the lack of a spring budget is affecting the Bank’s ability to do its job. His answer? Chilling in its understatement:

“Whatever announcements come out of the government that are… concrete, clear plans with numbers on them—we will take those on board.”

But here’s the thing: there are no numbers. There are no “concrete” plans. There is no spring budget. Which means the Bank of Canada is operating without a fiscal anchor.

And that’s not a partisan jab. That’s a direct acknowledgment from the central bank governor. Monetary policy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It relies on fiscal policy—how much Ottawa plans to spend, what kind of debt it’s taking on, whether it’s injecting or withdrawing demand from the economy. Without that information, the Bank is effectively being asked to navigate blindfolded.

Macklem was careful, as central bankers always are, but he sent a signal to anyone paying attention: the absence of fiscal clarity is a problem. In his words, it “complicates monetary policy planning.” That’s about as blunt as a central banker gets.

Yet in a moment of unintended honesty, he added this:

“To be frank, the budget is not the biggest source of uncertainty… It’s U.S. tariffs.”

Well, sure. America’s economic unpredictability is real. But what Macklem didn’t say—but we all know—is this: Canada’s lack of internal leadership is a close second. And that’s the part Ottawa doesn’t want to talk about.

And here’s the part that’s impossible to ignore, even if every outlet in this country refuses to say it: Mark Carney knows better.

He used to run central banks. That’s his entire résumé. He understands, better than anyone, that monetary policy doesn’t function in a fiscal vacuum. He knows the Bank of Canada requires a federal budget to plan ahead. He knows you can’t forecast inflation or economic activity if the federal government won’t even tell you how much it plans to spend, borrow, or tax. That’s not some fringe economic theory, that’s Monetary Policy 101.

And yet, despite knowing all of this, Carney is choosing not to deliver a budget. He’s actively keeping the Bank of Canada in the dark. Why?

Well, maybe it’s because he doesn’t want to show you the numbers. Because the numbers are bad. Because the spending is out of control. Because the debt is spiraling. Because if he puts it all on paper, if he gives us the hard data, then suddenly, the opposition can do what it’s supposed to do: hold his government to account.

And maybe, just maybe, Carney doesn’t want that. Not yet. Not so early in his reign as Trudeau’s heir. He doesn’t want the Conservative Party pulling apart his economic plan, and he certainly doesn’t want the Canadian people realizing that we are not collecting retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, even as the Americans hammer us again with steel and aluminum levies.

He doesn’t want you to see the imbalance. Because if you did, if the average Canadian saw how weak and passive this country has become in the face of American economic aggression, you’d be furious. You’d demand answers. You’d demand change.

But instead, its all, “elbows down.” Quietly filtered out of the official narrative. No plan, no numbers, no debate—just vague promises, half-hearted reassurances, and a press conference where your central banker admits he’s guessing.

And you, the ordinary Canadian, are stuck with the consequences. You feel it every time you go to the grocery store. Food prices are still climbing. The latest inflation data shows that even as headline numbers tick down, your groceries are getting more expensive. Your paycheque isn’t going as far. And nobody in power seems to care enough to fix it.

So here’s the truth: the system is rigged. Not in some conspiratorial way, but in the most obvious, bureaucratic, cowardly way imaginable. Those in charge know the damage they’re causing. They just don’t want to be blamed for it.

And as always, it’s the people who work, save, and pay taxes—the people who still believe in this country—who get left holding the bag.

So the next time they tell you “everything is under control,” ask yourself: whose hands are on the wheel?

Because right now, it sure doesn’t look like anyone is driving.

Good-day, Canada.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X