It has been quite a week for Mark Carney who, without saying a public word, is daily included in the subterranean rumblings underneath Monday’s volcanic eruption, with Chrystia Freeland resigning from cabinet, pouring hot lava all over Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the way out the door.
The Globe and Mailreported that Trudeau told Freeland that Carney would replace her after the fall economic statement was delivered. Apparently not. Perhaps Carney thought better of placing himself in the line of fire.
For those keeping score, the running tally of those scorched under this prime minister includes an attorney general, president of the treasury board, principal secretary, clerk of the privy council, two finance ministers, two chiefs of defence staff, speaker of the House of Commons, commissioner of the RCMP, a current governor general, and a former governor general.
After a few frantic hours on Monday, Trudeau settled on Dominic LeBlanc for the flaming finance post. A lifetime friend of Trudeau’s, LeBlanc is unlikely to ever tell Trudeau what Jody Wilson-Raybould did to his face: “I wish I never met you.”
That was sufficient cause to be chosen in Monday’s moment of madness. That LeBlanc is also public safety minister and intergovernmental affairs minister is apparently not a problem. Canada now has the equivalent of the U.K. chancellor of the exchequer and home secretary being the same person.
It’s true that Carney was both governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, but he had the good sense to do them sequentially, not simultaneously.
What about Carney as finance minister, though, presuming that he wants the job?
It would be a good idea. I am an admirer of Carney’s approach to economics, which is grounded in a broader view of human flourishing, as he laid out in his 2021 book Value(s).
Disagree with him this or that policy, as I do, but he is the kind of thoughtful and experienced man we should have in our cabinets. That’s why we have collaborated on various events going back 15 years, including a public conversation last month at Cardus, entitled “Can Canada Afford Its Values?”
So yes, Carney for finance. But in a future Conservative government, not the current Liberal one.
That seems impossible, as the Conservative front bench derides him as “Carbon Tax Carney.” But there is a reason they speak about him more than most actual cabinet ministers. He has something to offer — more than the members of the current cabinet, including LeBlanc of the multiple ministries.
Carney offers fiscal discipline. Remember that it was a “blue” Liberal, Paul Martin, who stabilized Canada’s finances and eliminated the deficit. Carney is better placed than most to address the most pressing of Canada’s economic challenges, the sluggish growth in labour productivity. As for the carbon tax, Carney already distanced himself from that last May, and he favours what I call “climate prosperity” as opposed to Trudeau’s “climate penance.”
As to the sheer impossibility of it — consider six things.
First, impossibilities are impossible until they are not. See Monday, as the finance minister resigned on the day of the mini-budget, which Trudeau evidently did not consider a possibility. See also Monday that Premier Wab Kinew casually mentioned that, as a first step, Canada should spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, immediately. Who would have expected that from the Indigenous NDP premier of Manitoba?
As to wild ideas now in the wind, Eddie Goldenberg, Jean Chretien’s chief of staff and consigliere, has advocated that the Liberals simply expel Trudeau and install Freeland as prime minister on 6th January 2025.
Second, similar things have been done before. In 2006, after his first election victory, Stephen Harper appointed David Emerson as his minister of international trade, and later as foreign minister. Emerson’s arrival at the swearing-in caused jaws to drop, as he had served in Paul Martin’s Liberal cabinet, and had just been re-elected days earlier as a Liberal MP in Vancouver. True, the Conservatives did not vilify Emerson as they currently do Carney, but back in 2006 vilification was not the default setting of political discourse.
Third, while Brian Mulroney did not have Liberals in his cabinet, his signature economic policies were taken from the royal commission led by Donald Macdonald, finance minister under Trudeau père in the 1970s. The commission was set up by Pierre Trudeau in 1982 but reported to Mulroney in 1985. Free trade was the “leap of faith” Macdonald recommended. Other aspects of the royal commission informed much of Mulroney’s economic policy, including deregulation and tax reform.
Fourth, if Canada’s economic situation is as dire as the Conservatives maintain, and the threat of American tariffs a true national emergency, then a cabinet that includes members of other parties is well within the Westminster parliamentary tradition.
Fifth, as to the Westminster tradition: Winston Churchill. He spent twenty years in the Liberal Party, running under their banner as late as 1923, before joining the Conservatives in 1924 and being appointed chancellor of the exchequer.
Sixth, while everyone decries polarization, it will not diminish unless contrary practical actions are taken. Put it this way: Is there no one in the current Conservative caucus who might have more to offer than current members of the Liberal cabinet? Would it be terrible to include such talent in a hypothetical unity cabinet to face the American tariff threat? Doesn’t the argument work both ways?
I have no inside information, from Carney or anyone else. I only know that good players can play for different teams — especially when a coaching change is coming.
National Post