Deciphering Mark Carney's appearance on 'The Daily Show'
In parsing through Liberal leadership contender Mark Carney's statements on U.S. television, it gives Canadians some early insights into the possible governing intentions of Canada's next likely PM.
Well before the resignation of Justin Trudeau, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney had been consistently touted as a future candidate to eventually replace Trudeau as both Liberal leader and prime minister.
Carney is now widely expected to announce his intentions to run for the Liberal leadership in his hometown of Edmonton this Thursday, yet as a means of soft-launching his campaign, he made a surprise appearance on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show this past Monday.
Although Carney's impressive resume has been well documented, his presence on the popular satirical talk show was likely for many Canadians their first impression of him, where they would have seen an affable, charming, and knowledgeable candidate vying to lead the country in a period of great uncertainty.
While some in conservative circles have been critical of Carney's decision to parade his aspirations on an American talk show as further evidence of elitism, the decision to do so should be seen as a savvy political maneuver for two reasons: one, many Canadians digest their news and current affairs more so through U.S. media outlets, meaning it serves as a wider introduction to the average Canadian who might be unfamiliar with Carney; and two, it cannot hurt to have one of Canada's leading contenders for prime minister defending its interests within the very country threatening economic upheaval.
Conservatives have also leaned on Carney labelling himself an “outsider” candidate, refuting this by pointing to his previous advisory capacities to Trudeau, including his stint as chair of the Liberal Party task force for economic growth, essentially casting Carney in the lot with the rest of the Trudeau Liberals. The open question becomes, how much of the Trudeau agenda was ever influenced by Carney, if at all, and whether Carney can successfully, and credibly, distance himself politically from the last nine years of Trudeau.
On that note, Carney did make a number of other statements in response to Stewart's questions that provide some interesting cues into the possible governing intentions should he win the Liberal leadership. Here are some of the noteworthy revelations:
On when an election would need to occur, and what could trigger an earlier election:
“They have to be by October, they could come sooner…it would be likely the choice of the current governing party, which is the Liberal Party.”
This was a very telling statement - knowing full-well all opposition parties have publicly declared their desire to bring down the Liberal government when the House returns from prorogation on March 24, and at the same time indicate the timing of the election would be of the Liberals choosing, would suggest Carney may intend to dissolve Parliament upon becoming leader and call for a general election.
Given Carney would be an unelected, and perhaps even coronated selection as prime minister following the Liberal leadership contest, he simply would not have the moral authority to govern the country, and would therefore require a plurality of support from the broader Canadian electorate.
Similarly long ago, when Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson resigned in the midst of his second minority government, which saw Pierre Elliott Trudeau emerge as his successor in a subsequent leadership race, Trudeau immediately called for a general election. While Trudeau triggered the 1968 election partly to ride the continued wave of his meteoric popularity famously known as “Trudeaumania,” he also understood that he required a mandate from the people of Canada to enact the changes he wanted to make. Carney may be mirroring the same situation.
Addressing the rise of right-wing populism and the headwinds facing incumbent governments:
“In a situation like this you need change, you need to address the economy. We got an economic crisis because of what Mr. Trump is about to do, but we also have challenges with housing, cost of living…Canadians have been very hard pressed the last few years, wages have not kept up with inflation, people are falling behind not getting ahead, housing is very expensive, and there's this broader concern about what the future brings…what are we going to do?
Truth be told, the government has not been as focused on those issues as it could be, we need to focus on them immediately, that can happen now, and that's what this election is about.”
It is within these statements that Carney begins laying out his recognition of the ongoing challenges posed to Canada, but subtly criticizes the Trudeau government's record in failing to address these same challenges, aiming to present himself as a potential change agent to effectuate results. The methods and policies by which these challenges will be tackled under a theoretical Carney government are less clear, though his next statement gives Canadians some greater indication of a concrete policy direction.
Responding to the tensions between dealing with climate change versus doing what is politically feasible:
“For Canada, what we need to do, is make sure that we are addressing these issues, doing our bit, while making these companies more competitive…but we need to do it in a way where Canadians today are not paying the price…
…the vast majority of our emissions in Canada come from our industry…so part of it is cleaning that up, getting those emissions down, more so than changing in a very short period of time the way Canadians live.”
The elimination of the carbon tax has been a major plank for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, and they have successfully demonized the policy as chiefly responsible for the rising cost of living, effectively making it deeply unpopular across the country. Moreover, Poilievre has tried to pin the toxicity of the policy onto his would-be opponent, fashioning the nickname “Carbon Tax” Carney, due to his prior and elaborate endorsements with carbon pricing.
In an attempt to carve out some political space, Carney's aforementioned statement could be interpreted as a move away from Trudeau's consumer portion of the carbon tax, insinuating it may need to either be paused temporarily, or even scrapped altogether to help Canadians struggling with the cost of living, while maintaining the industrial portion of the tax to help bring emissions down.
Should this approach fully materialize in a campaign platform, it may have a positive political impact for Carney's prospects in two ways. First, it gives Carney the ability to demonstrate tangible efforts in combating climate change and satisfying some ideological consistency, while still meeting the moment for Canadians who want to see economic relief, thereby undercutting the Tories in that regard. Secondly, it also boxes-in the Conservatives, as they have been unclear about whether their “axe the tax” slogan would apply to the industrial side of the carbon tax, and not just the consumer side. Granted, Poilievre may be reserving the balance of his platform for the upcoming general election.
Ultimately, with Poilievre having devoted much of his criticism at the incompetence of Justin Trudeau, Carney's candidacy could spell a political quandary in trying to make similar charges against a more accomplished figure, especially one who might even be willing to shift their policy approach away from Trudeau's record.
But will Canadians be convinced? Based on public opinion polling post-Trudeau’s resignation, it has not yielded any meaningful gains for the Liberals thus far, which seems to suggest that Canadians may not be willing to place their faith in change deriving from the Liberal brand at this late hour, despite any of Carney's best efforts to suggest otherwise.