Carney For Canada

Why He’s The Right Choice

“I’m not here/This is not happening”

I cannot believe I’m writing this column.

I cannot for a million reasons and in a million years believe I’m about to say what I’m about to say, but I am. Mark Carney is the right choice to lead the Liberal Party. And I don’t think it’s even particularly close.

The path to getting here has been … I was going to say rocky, to say the least, but honestly that feels like a dramatic undersell. I never thought I’d get here. And then I started to think about things and I can’t stop. Carney, for all of my (I’d like to think) legitimate concerns, has the opportunity to be the candidate we need in this moment, and to position the party in a better place moving forward. He has the profile, the resume, and the team around him to lead and lead well. And his interview with Jon Stewart was genuinely good, which is important.

I will not lie and pretend that I’ve been a dyed in the wool Carneyite since the beginning of this process. I’m precisely as surprised as everybody else that I’ve ended up here. But given this field of candidates, it’s Carney, and honestly it’s pretty clear.

..

In a vacuum, the case for Carney has always made sense. Carney is a candidate who wasn’t in this government and who has never been tied to Justin Trudeau. He didn’t sit at the Cabinet tables that approved mass expansions of immigration paths, that greenlit demand side Housing policies in the majority years without focusing on supply, or that allowed the PM to go on his flights of fancy on WE and other issues. He has none of the baggage of the worst of this government.

He can play well in places the government had done well in in 2019 and 2021, especially the socially liberal suburbs of the GTA. There are a lot more places in Canada where being a banker and an expert can play well, because in upper income areas Carney’s life would be a success if replicated by voters’ kids. And, if you want to shift the topic back to the economy and to show just how unserious Poilievre is on any economic topic, there’s few that would ever bring the experience to the table as Carney. It always made sense in a vacuum, and I could never see it.

The case for Carney is also fundamentally a bet on him - an untested politician who, whatever experience he has in the more staid world of central banking, has not done the rough and tumble of a political campaign. Plenty of people were great at other things and suck at politics. It’s by no means a guarantee that being smart is a transferable skill to being good at politics. And there are still concerns.

Carney’s record as a central banker is one marked by conservatism - his view of economics was shaped by the inflation crises of his youth and university days, and he carried those tendencies into his time at the Banks of Canada and England. He was willing to let inflation undershoot rather than overshoot, preferring a tighter alignment all else being equal. I’m not sure that conservatism is acceptable now, given the scale of the crisis. I hope he’s less cautious as an elected official, if he wins this leadership race.

I’m also not sure about Quebec, plainly. His French is good, by all accounts, but there’s a difference between speaking the language and understanding Quebec. But given the decision of Steve MacKinnon not to run, I’m not sure there’s a candidate in this race who can make a more honest or convincing case to understanding Quebec.

His interview with Jon Stewart did a lot to reassure me on himself, though. He seemed looser, funnier, and a bit better on his feet than I’d have thought. Did every joke land? No, but that’s not the point. He sounded plausibly real, and honestly in the great vain of fairly Dad-ish politicians this country has embraced. Hilariously, given their time working together, I could see Stephen Harper and Carney getting on well despite differences solely on the basis of their mutual affection for hockey.

To the extent that the next Prime Minister needs to be in a position to Stand Up To Trump, I’m fully comfortable with a man who has met with world leaders for nearly two decades and worked with three British Prime Ministers in the midst of crisis while in London. He had to deal with a Tory Party where whether Jacob Rees-Mogg wanted to be an asshole that day or not could legitimately make or break the future of the British economy. It’s not quite Trump, but it’s not exactly a bad training ground.

But the case for Carney is not just a case for one man in a vacuum. It is a case for him in the field he is facing, and against named individuals who are real people and not idealized versions of some campaign strategist’s vision. It is here where Carney is strengthened. Christy Clark is a candidate for reasons passing understanding, a candidate who has already proven a disregard for honesty and truth and someone who treats Liberals concerned with her values as beneath contempt. Karina Gould might run, and I’d say I wish her well, but I must admit I am unpersuaded of her lane with the membership and in the virtue of electing someone with all the negatives of having worked for Trudeau and none of the positives of having resigned from the government. The others, it is fair to say, exist.

At the end of the day, the choice facing us is Chrystia Freeland or Mark Carney. Chrystia has devoted a decade of her life to this party, and she has been a part of many solid achievements that are and will continue to help people. She also cannot be the one to lead this party moving forward. Freeland is a flawed politician who has invoked her family’s Disney+ subscription in a conversation about the inflation crisis and has repeatedly engaged in the sorts of “costly political gimmicks” she railed against in her resignation later. She has overseen the carbon price in her over four years as Finance Minister and there is more than enough footage of her praising it to make her either stick with the policy or be humiliated by having to backtrack. Whatever you think of the merits of Freeland, if she wins the leadership we will see the Disney+ clip 75 million times between now and the election - and it will end us.

I cannot see how Freeland will be able to be the change we need, tied so closely to the Prime Minister as she is. Her resignation is fine, but only resigning because you have already been told you’d be demoted, and slamming a policy you’d already shepherded through the House on the way out, will not be seen as an act of patriotism. It will be seen as, in large part because it is, an act of self-preservation. If Freeland was so opposed to “costly political gimmicks” like the GST holiday and the cheques, her multiple “Grocery Rebates” qualify too, of which she was very willing to take credit for while still in the job.

On a less visible level, the decision to hire Tom Allison is a huge red flag. Allison, probably most famous for winning Kathleen Wynne the 2013 convention, has been in a run of bad form - nearly losing Bonnie Crombie the leadership race in a contest that had no business going multiple ballots with rules stacked in her favour, coming in third in a two horse race in Mississauga, and getting demoted after the Ontario Liberals went backwards in the Milton byelection. How much of any of those things are his fault is unclear, but if he gets the credit for winning Bonnie her race he gets the blame for that getting as close as it did. Allison also has to wear ever having thought Michael Ignatieff running the Liberal Party was a good idea, so his judgement is suspect for a whole host of reasons.

On the other side, Carney has hired well. Any operation that has the good sense to hire Gerry Butts instantly rockets up on all questions of seriousness and competence. Whatever one thinks of Butts, he is the prince that was promised. He is, actually, one of the very few operatives that matter. And I have full faith in Gerry to steer Carney well and ruthlessly execute a strategy to the best they can.

I come at this under no illusion Carney is a perfect candidate or my first choice. I have no interest in lying to you or myself about either of those points. But it’s not about perfection. It’s about reality. Pierre Poilievre is a dangerous politician who will do significant damage to this country if we let him run it. Worse yet will be the damage he will do if he truly is given the carte blanche that a massive, 250 seat majority would be taken as. It is an imperative we do everything in our power to mitigate that as much possible.

The honestly reality is that I cannot believe that I’m here, and that this is happening, but I also fully believe I’m right. Mark Carney is the right choice to lead this party and this country. He can make a credible case for change at a time when we need it. He can be who we want, at least at this moment. He certainly is who we need to choose.