It’s not impossible that Mark Carney could be just the guy to repair Canada’s economy and guide the country through what threatens to be several years of turbulence.
He certainly has the resume. Every article about the former banker, bureaucrat, investment executive and corporate honcho takes note of his skills, experience, education and success in handling difficult and complex problems across a range of situations, both economic and political, over a period of 20 years in top levels of business and government.
Canada has just come through nine years of leadership by a prime minister who boasted none of those attributes when he came to power. It’s not unfairly prejudiced to say it shows in the results. Unlike Justin Trudeau and the other Liberals seeking to replace him, Carney’s not an amateur when it comes to economies and finance.
Only two of Trudeau’s top deputies remain in the leadership hunt. Neither Chrystia Freeland nor Karina Gould represent much of a change, though they’re trying hard to claim otherwise. We’re told whoever wins will likely junk or dilute the carbon tax. Are we supposed to be impressed by that after Liberals ardently promoted and defended it since the day it was introduced?
The highest-profile alternative to Carney is Freeland, the former deputy prime minister and finance minister. Until a few weeks ago she was deemed among the loyalest of the loyal to the Trudeau cause, spending much of her time as finance minister pledging to get Canada’s fiscal house in order while introducing budgets that heaped one massive deficit on top of the other. Is it logical to accept that as prime minister she’d tread a different path than the one she’s followed so resolutely until now? If so, why did she stick to it for so long if she secretly thought she should be taking a different route?
It doesn’t make sense. None of the Liberals who served Trudeau since 2015 can make a valid claim to represent new blood, new thinking or a meaningful break from the past. Maybe they’d tweak a few Trudeauvian programs, abandon some of the obvious failures and spend less time fussing over their own image, but none of those efforts represents more than a bit of window dressing. They might also treat their caucus kinder and even occasionally spend time with mere MPs, but that doesn’t do much for ordinary Canadians.
Carney also represents the starkest alternative to Pierre Poilievre. The Conservative leader has been a politician his entire adult life. He’s only 45 and has been an MP since 2004. He’s long since qualified for a federal pension yet has never run anything bigger than the cabinet post he held for a short period under the Harper government. He’s bright, a skilled communicator — especially when on the attack — and has pledged a sharp turn away from the gross misspending and managerial incompetence that has been such a characteristic of the Liberal record.
Poilievre’s ability to deliver his vision remains anyone’s guess. He seems intent on fighting an anti-Trudeau campaign, which may or may not be a good idea. There’s no question voters’ dislike of Trudeau has contributed significantly to the Tories’ lead; whether it continues in his absence is a key question. Poilieve’s weakness for occasionally posting juvenile online videos could also be a factor if voters find it off-putting.
If you base the choice for Liberal leader on who has the broadest range of experience outside politics in handling the sort of economic challenges that lie behind so many of the dangers confronting Canada, Carney easily stands out. So why is there real doubt he’ll get the chance?
The answer reflects a reality with politics itself. Ability isn’t necessarily a big part of winning votes. Based on his life’s work up to 2015, Trudeau had no place running for prime minister. His “career” consisted of a brief time as a part-time teacher. His chief attributes were looks, youth, name recognition and an ability to charm voters. He was exciting, seemed like a nice person, said all the right things. He was sure a lot cheerier than Stephen Harper. Inexperience and an evident lack of depth didn’t seem like fatal considerations.
Carney isn’t exciting. He’s not glamorous. His official leadership launch was low-key as such things go. He’s not a scintillating speaker, Vogue won’t be on the blower seeking a photo shoot; Bankers Weekly, maybe. His policy positions are, to say the least, vague. He hasn’t been seriously challenged on anything, the few questions he’s answered having been notable for their soft-ball friendliness. The most noteworthy aspect of his thinking during the tumult leading to Trudeau’s resignation was his refusal to share it.
In Britain — which is struggling with a surprisingly similar collection of problems as Canada — he’s been criticized for his staunch backing of Rachel Reeves, the Labour party chancellor of the exchequer whose performance has come in for fierce criticism since Labour came to power in July. He publicly endorsed her before the election, but a budget strewn with tax increases has sparked protest marches and complaints of job losses, while her recent trip to China in search of trade gains seemed at odds with efforts across Europe and North America to contain unfair Chinese market advances.
Given his evident sympathy for Labour’s leftist inclinations, can he be counted on to lift the regulatory burden that is squelching investment and strangling Canada’s vital resource industries, as Poilievre pledges to do, end the corporate welfare that encourages sloth in place of initiative or competition, and halt the takeover of the economy by a grossly swollen public sector that stifles the energy and creativity essential to a healthy economy?
Carney’s immediate challenge is to win over the Liberal party. It’s a tired, beaten and dispirited organization. Its MPs are quitting in droves, the cabinet is in disarray, its fundraising is a distant second to that of the Conservatives and the prime minister who made it so unpopular is sticking around — and lobbing ill-judged insults at the premier of Alberta — until the very last minute.
Winning over the country would come later and likely be harder. Are calm, reasoned speeches about the economy and the need to rebuild it enough to offset Canadians’ deep-seated sense that it’s time for a change in Ottawa?
Poilievre has shown himself to be an effective campaigner. It would be a distinct surprise if Carney turned out to be as good at the game. He might have what it takes to do the job, but he has a very short time to prove it to a great number of frustrated and disillusioned Canadians.
National Post