This is not the endorsement we thought we would be writing six months ago.
In October of last year, Canadians appeared to be done with the Liberals. On housing, immigration, innovation, competitiveness and many other fronts, the government was falling short. Justin Trudeau had overseen significant gains on social policy. He had guided us admirably through the pandemic and the first Trump administration. But the prime minister who was once a symbol of hope too often failed to adapt to new economic pressures or to address Canadians鈥 most pressing frustrations. He had lost trust.聽It was time for change.
Then change came, abruptly and dramatically. Donald Trump returned to the White House. He threatened Canada鈥檚 sovereignty and launched a campaign of economic intimidation. Trudeau鈥檚 political troubles caught up with him, and he rightly resigned. And the Liberals chose a new leader 鈥 one who, despite having no background in electoral politics, came to the job with experience and a pedigree well suited to the moment.
Suddenly, the question wasn鈥檛 whether Canadians wanted more of the same. More of the same was no longer available. Now the questions were: Which party would be best placed to carry us through the chaos and peril of the Trump years? And which party鈥檚 leader would be most able to protect our country and help it thrive amid an increasingly unstable global environment?
In the three months since he entered the political arena, and in the six weeks since he became prime minister, Mark Carney has made a compelling case that his Liberals are the answer to both questions. He has been a steady hand in his response to Trump, securing a change of tone from the president (Trudeau was 鈥済overnor鈥; Carney is not) and a promise, for what it鈥檚 worth, that the Trump administration would come to the negotiating table after the election. He has proposed serious, if expensive, solutions to some of the defining challenges we face. And he has approached the task of governing in this chaotic moment with a calm that will serve our country well as we vie for foreign investment. Carney has begun to outline an agenda rooted in the sort of pragmatic leadership Canada needs now.
It鈥檚 a case his rivals have struggled to counter.
Jagmeet Singh deserves credit for the work he did during the Supply and Confidence Agreement between the Liberals and his New Democrats. The dental care and pharmacare programs, both of which he was instrumental in creating, will continue to make life better for millions of Canadians for years to come. But caught between a faction of his party that wants to hew to the centre to win power and another that wants to play the traditional third-party role as the conscience of Parliament, Singh has never offered a clear vision. That鈥檚 a shame. Canada benefits from a credible social-democratic alternative.
As for Pierre Poilievre, the Star disagrees with the Conservative leader on many fronts. But there is no denying that he has been an exceptionally effective leader of the Opposition. With his unwavering focus on bread-and-butter issues 鈥 affordability and public safety, in particular 鈥 he exposed the Trudeau government鈥檚 failure to meet Canadians where they were. When the Liberals put symbol over substance, as they too often did, Poilievre held them to account. When they adopted a moralizing, hectoring聽tone that divided Canadians, Poilievre found a way to reach those who felt left out. More than anyone else, the Conservative leader was responsible for dislodging a prime minister who was past his best-before date and for pushing change on a governing party badly in need of it.
In this way, if the polls bear out, Poilievre may prove 鈥 along with Trump 鈥 to have been the architect of his own undoing. He pushed the Liberals to renew, and renew they did, producing a platform that appears to be more broadly appealing than his own.
Meanwhile, Poilievre has failed to adapt to changing circumstances. He seems to prefer to avoid talking about Trump, though for many Canadians, all other public issues pale by comparison. His platform looks like a Conservative platform in normal times 鈥 tax cuts and smaller government. It does not meet the existential threat Trump represents with forward-looking investments nor protect those hurt by the current trade war. His glib attacks on Canadian institutions, such as the CBC and the Bank of Canada, and his threat to use the notwithstanding clause,聽are not only democratically troubling; they are also economically risky. Even some traditional Conservative allies on Bay Street are uneasy. They understand that in the all-important competition for foreign investment, stability and predictability are key.
Poilievre has shown skill in opposition, but leadership demands more than tearing down.聽His derisive tone and divisive rhetoric would be dangerous in normal times, and they are totally out of tune today with a country experiencing a surge of national pride. It doesn鈥檛 help that he鈥檚 struggled to land on an effective message since Trudeau, his favourite foil, left office, failing to find anything better than his claim that Carney is just like his predecessor.
If that attack isn鈥檛 landing, it鈥檚 likely because it isn鈥檛 true. With world-class academic pedigree聽and an illustrious career in bureaucracy and business behind him, Carney comes to politics via a very different path and armed with very different expertise and experience. He helped Canada manage the financial crisis of 2008 and helped the United Kingdom weather the chaos of Brexit. He has acquitted himself well in positions of power, in聽moments, like this one, of crisis. Poilievre, fond of slogans, likes to say that a resum茅 is not a plan. That鈥檚 self-evidently true. But as any hiring manager will tell you, a resum茅 is not nothing. And, of course, Carney does have a plan.
The Liberal platform has been attacked from both the right and the left. Some point to the $130 billion in proposed new spending over four years as a sign that Carney, like his predecessor, lacks fiscal discipline. But Carney understands that these are not ordinary times and that they require extraordinary ambition, not least from the federal government: to make Canada more self-sufficient, diversify our international partnerships, protect vulnerable workers, keep investment and talent in Canada and improve productivity and innovation to address our abysmal per-capita GDP growth. He鈥檚 right, too, that government should sometimes get out of the way. Carney has shown a welcome willingness to cut red tape and break down barriers to internal trade, working with business and premiers in the process. (If the Liberals win, Ontarians will benefit from Carney鈥檚 good working relationship with Premier Doug Ford.)
From progressives, Carney has faced criticism for his proposed tax cuts, which they claim contradict his plans for active government. But perhaps a middle path is precisely what鈥檚 needed to hold our country together, across geographic and ideological divides, in a moment when unity has rarely been so important. A climate policy that gives consumers a break, understandably dropping the unpopular consumer carbon tax,聽while intensifying the pressure on polluters; a fiscal policy that strikes a balance between investment and cost savings, wisely resting on conservative growth estimates in this highly volatile environment; a housing policy that sees an important role for both government and the private sector. In this way, Carney evokes successful Liberal governments of the past. He has often cited the Chr茅tien-Martin years as a model. More of that would be most welcome.
And yes, a new Liberal government would no doubt include many of the same faces as the Trudeau government that had overstayed its welcome. But Carney has shown he understands why so many were angry and wanted change. By way of contrast, he has said he鈥檇 rather be at a ribbon-cutting than an announcement. Less talk, more action, with a greater emphasis on the economy and the issues Canadians care most about. For better or worse, we live in a time of centralized government, in which the prime minister and his office wield outsize influence on the shape of the executive. Carney is different from Trudeau. He has described a different vision. There鈥檚 reason to be confident his government would be different, too.
Whoever wins this election will have an enormous challenge in the months and years ahead. They will not only have to meet the threat of Trump but will also have to counter our persistent economic stagnation, repair a broken immigration system and balance stewardship of the climate with a push for greater energy independence, among many other daunting tasks, all while putting us on a path to get our spiralling debt under control. Whoever wins, we will wish them well as they pursue the nation鈥檚 interests, and we will hold them to account as they do so.
But the question for today is who is best to take on this challenge. No, this is not what we imagined we鈥檇 be writing six months ago. Yet the world has changed, and so has the job. Mark Carney has the best resum茅. His team has the best plan. His Liberals are the best choice for Canada.
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation