LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

Mark Carney’s new book is equal parts memoir, economic history textbook, leadership and management textbook, and political audition.

The memoir portions focus on his time as Governor of the Bank of Canada during the Great Recession, and of the Bank of England during the Scottish referendum, Brexit and the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.  He tells us an earlier story in brief of the man as a young Canadian athlete and academic, and as an investment banker, before entering public service in glimpses.

The memoir portions are constantly bookended by economic history: it is as if he needs to take us on discursive detours to ensure his reader has the same knowledge of our economic past such that it is prologue to his present discussions.  In this regard, it's actually more of an academic tome.  His conversational but formal tone makes it a readable trip to the economics professor.

Similarly, the memoir portions are also used as case studies for what reads like a management textbook.  In many regards, this is where the book was most engaging to me: we learn axioms from a former US treasury secretary such as "a plan beats no plan", the values of preparedness and the centrality of humility to remind oneself that global economics owes us nothing and the most worrisome words are the confident declaration from financiers that "this time is different".

The sections on the financial crisis take us inside "the room where it happened" to quote the musical, and the passages on Brexit planning reveal that Carney took seriously the need to game out all eventualities, leading him to be able to calm British and global markets even with a prime minister resigning when the Leave vote unexpectedly won.  (As a fellow Canadian who has lived, studied and worked in Britain, I enjoyed the book's occasional Britishisms and spelling.)

Carney's final chapter focuses on a prescription for Canadian economics, one that dovetails rather well into the budget the Trudeau Liberal government just unveiled (Carney is an occasional advisor to the government and spoke at the party conference).  He suggests separating spending into three buckets: emergency pandemic measures, ordinary operations of government and investments in lasting capital infrastructure projects to stimulate the recovery.  He also is sanguine but not without warning on spending now when interest rates are low; it is probably worth noting that Canada's recent budget, for all its focus on red ink, is actually a comparatively modest spending plan when compared to the Biden programme to our south, although admittedly we have many of the things Biden is seeking to implement all at once in place already.

Throughout the book, he also engages in outlining the technical reforms at the heart of transitioning finance to work to address the climate crisis.  He argues that we need to value on our balance sheets what we value in our civic conscience; this is the central conceit of the book that forms its title: that we "value our values".  He points out repeatedly, and referenced it in his speech to the Liberal party conference, that we have a valuation for Amazon the company, but the Amazon rainforest is only valuable once it is stripped for forestry or farming, not as the carbon sink and priceless ecosystem that it is.

The values he repeatedly comes back to are fairness, solidarity, resilience, responsibility, sustainability, humility and dynamism which, taken together, form a pretty thorough distillation of modern liberal economics.  We're all in this together, so things need to be fair, and we need to work together in sustainable and responsible ways, he says, but this is all fuelled by economic dynamism, the ability of the market to create value, which can fund our values, if we are humble enough to be on guard for new threats to our resiliency.

The book as a whole reveals a sense of a liberal economist who values responsibility.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


The government has introduced a bill in the Senate that would entrench in legislation some of the changes that have been made to how the Chamber operates and that's not necessarily a good thing.  Certain Senate caucus leaders have been agitating for these changes to the Parliament of Canada Act for years now, and prime minister Justin Trudeau has finally obliged them, but as with so many things this government does for the sake of looking good and progressive, they haven't taken any of the unintended consequences into consideration and there are a lot of potential unintended consequences with this bill that could impact how the Senate operates for a generation.

In large part, the bill reflects the 2018 briefing note by the Senate Law Clerk, that was included in the thirteenth report of the Senate's modernization committee.  The changes in this bill will both entrench the ridiculous nomenclature that has grown up around the different leadership roles, such as the farcical and half-pregnant "Government Representative in the Senate," and encourage its propagation.  There was a reason why there was a Government Leader in the Senate, and why that Leader was a member of Cabinet, because it reflected the Senate's role in holding government to account, and having a direct line of accountability to Cabinet was important.  By allowing for this "Government Representative" nonsense to continue, they are devaluing the role that the Senate should be playing within our parliamentary system, and tries to enforce a viewpoint that marginalizes them away from being a co-equal chamber to a diminished status of a kind of council of elders, or a glorified debating society.

It also seeks to put all Senate caucus on an equal footing, not just the government and opposition.  Traditionally the Senate has been a duopoloy, with a few independents along the way, and that did create its own problems.  There is also a good reason why the government and opposition in the Senate had broadly similar powers, which ensured that one couldn't overpower the other in spite of an imbalance of numbers, and many times, if there is a new government, there is a real imbalance in numbers in the Senate especially if a government has been in power for a while and been active in making appointments along the way.

This equal footing for all caucuses applies to both allowances for leaders, meaning that the leadership teams of the Independent Senators Group, the Canadian Senators Group and the Progressives will all now get salaries equivalent to government and opposition leaders something that the leader of the ISG in particular has spent years agitating over (while insisting that it wasn't about the money).  More than that, they will also now have sign-off authority on the appointment of officers of parliament, such as a new Auditor General or Privacy Commissioner, as well as powers related to the Emergencies Act.  Granted, up until this point, they have largely been consulted by the government as part of the appointment processes for those officers of parliament, but this has the potential to be a fairly significant change in the longer term.

Why this has the potential to backfire is that this creates the incentive to create yet more caucus groups within the Senate, especially as the ISG continues to be so unwieldly in its current state.  There could be another two or three groups that could split off and carve out their own groups that meet the requisite nine senators to achieve official status, and under these changes, they will have greater allowances, and now greater powers to sign-off including participation in groups like the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.  Joint committees will continue to grow until senators are in danger of outnumbering MPs because of the proliferation of caucus groups.  And because they are intended to be co-equal in power with government and opposition, they will set up for even more power struggles between leaders than are already happening, as evidenced by the fact that it took a year-and-a-half to get all of the Senate's committees up and running as a result of those struggles.

I will grant you that this could have been worse.  There have been calls by certain members of the Senate who think that there shouldn't be an official opposition, and that that it should be solely a chamber of independents, minus the government team and the Speaker, meaning a hundred "loose fish" to be individually co-opted by a government, and with no organizational ability to push back against problematic legislation by a government with a majority in the House of Commons.  Not that they think of these things most of these senators are still new and ideologically aligned with the government that appointed them, unaware of how much things change when another government with a very different ideology comes to power and wants to push though legislation that they find unpalatable.  Their tunes will change really fast then, but in the interim, it's a hypothetical that they refuse to even contemplate, which is a problem.

Generally, the "new" Senate has been getting a lot of praise by those who have only been seeing the surface-level activities, and insisted that the "non-partisan" changes have been great for the institution.  They have not, and there are some real problems with the way the Senate is now operating, which many people refuse to see because they are enamoured with the idea of it being a non-partisan body, when it really isn't, nor should it be.  The government, similarly enamoured with the optics of it being "non-partisan," is also studiously ignoring the problems, and bringing forward this bill to entrench the changes shows that they once again are more concerned with appearances over substance.  At some point, one of Trudeau's successors will rue the changes that have been made and legislated, but until then Trudeau can ignore the mess he made and keep patting himself on the back.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.