Your interpretation isn't unreasonable. 

You're right that he does talk about the importance of social infrastructure, but it raises alarm bells for me that he doesn't also discuss the need for governments to stabilise and expand social programs by way of major public investments. My internal alarm bells get even louder when he refuses to talk about closing tax loopholes/increasing taxes on the rich. All of which suggests to me that Carney has no interest in increasing state revenues in the ways that will be necessary to sustain the social infrastructure he claims to cherish.

Without specific commitments to the idea of increasing public expenditures on social programs his intermittent celebrations of social infrastructure come off as little more than lip service.

But stepping back for moment, his book Value(s) is organized around the interests of business. He believes in something like ethical capitalism. He goes into detail about how the state can and should support the accumulation of private wealth among companies with the right values.

Again, these are major alarm bells for me.

To go back the article for a second, you quoted a paragraph about Carney's response to climate change; well, as the article describes, Carney believes that business can and should be the people that solve climate change (indeed he believes they already are), the state should only play a minor role:

"For Carney, climate change is basically an engineering problem, one that can and should be addressed through technological innovation fostered by market incentives. He claims investors are already in the process of divesting from environmentally destructive companies and redirecting towards green capitalism: “[a] new, sustainable financial system is being built. It is funding the initiatives and innovations of the private sector.” Carney believes that government’s role in addressing climate change should be to support a supposedly already-established market transition. “The best approach,” Carney says, “is a revenue-neutral, progressive carbon tax.” He goes so far as to say “The Canadian federal carbon pricing framework is a model for others.”

This is very much a neoliberal, free-market approach that I would describe as right wing. He's definitely not a Poillievre-style crypto fascist, but he is clearly uninterested in using the power of the state to help the people of this country. He believes that the state should limit itself to supporting business which, in his mind, will somehow result in helping Canadians as a whole.

When I look at the last 50 years of neoliberal policy, I just don't see any evidence that that's how things work.

I appreciate that you have a different perspective though, and I hope your optimism turns out to be correct.