If people paid attention to his history, yeah, they'd see it. What Carney did at the Bank of Canada and his various comments there are pretty telling.
The 2008 financial crisis, we avoided the worst of it because Carney and them were 'slower' to roll out the same dangerous lending practices that we saw down south, but they were still going forward with them -- we just had less exposure at the time the US popped, so they were able to quietly prop up the big banks (and just the big banks, they let the smaller ones figure it out themselves) using the CMHC. Canada's small FIs, Credit Unions and such, got through it without a scratch, because they weren't in to risky convoluted mortgage block trading, and had various safeguards in place already like a shared liquidity pool. Carney's reaction to Canada doing so well in 2008, was to demand that the industry align more with the international standards which had allowed for those issues to occur. Things like the shared liquidity pool were dismantled as a result. Fast forward, and Thiel and his buddies pop SVB -- and suddenly regulators are making noise like "Maybe banks and FIs should have some kind of shared liquidity pool for this sort of issue!". Carney's comments at various events also displayed a blatant lack of understanding for the smaller financial industry players in Canada -- likening Canada's credit unions to spain's private banks (which were run by oligarch-ish families, with zero underwriting due diligence).
The guy trusted the international community hierarchy / structure, more than the Canadian system. He trusted that hierarchy even after it had failed, while the Canadian approach had more success. He forced Canada's FI's to align with worse-practices, just because it aligned to international norms. He is not pro-Canada, nor is he pro-small business.
He's still likely better than PP would've been.
Strange semi related old person story -- back in highschool, one of our teachers had the class write essays on whether nationalism was good or bad. We were then given an option to either present our papers, or do a debate exercise with a kind of round robin pro or con. So you'd partner with 1 other person, debate if it was good or bad, then groups of 4 doing the same, until it was the whole class. In my paper and in my discussions, I had used a similar approach as this comic -- basically just establishing what nationalism was vs patriotism, and drawing nazi's in as an example too. No one in those discussions contested that Nazi's were nationalists -- but they still argued in favour of it.
By the end, I was the only person who thought nationalism was overall 'bad'. The tide had turned in the groups of 8 stage. Because a hot girl had declared her support for nationalism. That's all it took for people to like/excuse nazis, even back in the early 2000s. An excuse.