G7 in Kananaskis: Why Carney’s Guest List Speaks Volumes About Canada’s Global Priorities

As the G7 descends on Kananaskis this weekend under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s stewardship, the summit feels less like a closed-door meeting of rich democracies and more like a reflection of the messy, interconnected world we live in today.

Carney’s choices — whom to bring to the table and whom to leave outside — tell us a lot about Canada’s view of its role on the world stage. It signals a dramatic shift from the G7’s traditional “club-like” view of itself toward a more flexible, pragmatic approach — one that considers the perspectives of key players outside its own circle.

Take India, for example. Inviting Modi — a leader under mounting criticism for alleged human-rights violations — might seem a puzzling move at first. But it underscores a hard reality: ignoring the world’s most populous country simply isn’t viable if you want a seat at the table where future decisions will be made. Carney is betting that constructive engagement — alongside tough conversations about transnational repression — is more productive than isolation.

Then there’s Brazil’s Lula, a leader trying to balance climate responsibilities with developing country priorities. His invitation highlights a growing understanding that the G7 can’t resolve climate change without the buy-in of the Global South. The same thinking applies to Indonesia and South Africa, two key players in a multipolar world who will have their own seats at the table — reflecting a more inclusive view of multilateral diplomacy.

Some might say this dilutes the G7’s unity. But the reality is we’re not living in the Cold War era, where a small group of rich democracies could dictate policy to the rest of the world. Today, power is more diffused; multilateral institutions need to reflect that. If we want to find solutions to issues from climate change to food insecurity and the future of technology, we need to bring all the key stakeholders into the room.

Of course, this approach isn’t without controversy. The invitation to Modi has provoked strong criticism from Sikh groups in Canada, who view his government as complicit in political violence. The UAE’s invitation has raised eyebrows, given its role in a bloody conflict in Sudan and its poor human-rights record. Nevertheless, ignoring these players is not a realistic way forward.

Meanwhile, the U.S., UK, and Germany — traditional powers — remain at the center of G7 conversations, alongside close Pacific allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia. But now, this core is surrounded by a wider circle of influence — a recognition that multilateralism must reflect 21st-century realities, not 20th-century ones.

Some might say this weakens unity. I’d argue it strengthens it by making the G7 more representative and more effective in addressing the greatest challenges we collectively face.

So when the G7 summit concludes in Kananaskis, we shouldn’t measure its success by whether everyone nodded in agreement, but by whether it opened conversations that were previously closed and challenged the comfortable view that a small group of rich democracies can solve the world’s problems on their own.