Keeping politicians accountable for their words

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/05/2025 (185 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The dust had hardly settled after the federal election when pundits everywhere — especially on the right-wing side — started muttering about accountability. Prime Minister Mark Carney now has to deliver on his election promises, and “we” will all hold him accountable, if he doesn’t.

For myself, I put little weight on campaign promises delivered on the fly, in the midst of an election for which Carney’s team (as opposed to Justin Trudeau’s team) had little time to prepare.

While Carney tried to offer something more than the BS (bumper stickers) of Pierre Poilievre — who actually did have time to prepare — as voters, we were barraged by their sound bites rather than persuaded by their policies.

From the reporters’ side, it is hard to ensure even-handed coverage of a campaign where one side (the Conservatives) avoided debate — even casual conversation — at all costs. Carney and his Liberal candidates were hardly garrulous, but the disparity in reporting fodder was painfully obvious.

That reporting would have been even more lopsided had they considered what each of the leaders wrote. Now-former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and Green Party co-leader Elizabeth May both wrote books to explain who they were and what they thought were important issues. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, however, has not offered that kind of personal reflection. Biographies of him describe him as a “ripper” not a “weaver,” and conclude he is still as infatuated now with the disastrous economic philosophy (read: ideology) of Milton Friedman as when he was as a teenager.

Carney, however, went a step further than his competitors in his book, Value(s): Building a Better World for All, which was a co-winner of the 2021 National Business Book Awards. Personal stories and anecdotes are woven throughout, but we also learn a lot about what he thinks, where his ideas come from, and why he believes them to be important.

Several thousand bumper stickers à la Poilievre would be required to match the 531 pages of Carney’s COVID-project book, so no serious comparison between what these two leaders think is possible.

So, at the risk of irritating my pundit colleagues, I suggest they need to do their homework, first, before fulminating about Carney’s performance. He does need to be held accountable, not for those glib political campaign promises, but for what he has written — thoughtfully, and at length.

Yet, throughout the election campaign, I don’t recall hearing any of the pundits comparing what Carney said to what he had written, or using what he had written to formulate questions for any media scrum. Granted, I wasn’t there, and I might have missed such questions, but certainly by the time the editors were done with selecting what would hit the news, every day, such analytical depth was MIA.

So, let me suggest how we should hold Mark Carney accountable as prime minister:

First, if Canada is facing serious problems, we need to see Carney handling those problems seriously. That means ending the juvenile tantrums that have become the norm in Question Period. If anyone on his team doesn’t get that message, removal from caucus should be automatic. People don’t respect politicians because they don’t respect each other.

Second, ensure that the Conservatives don’t hold up the passage of legislation by playing filibuster games, like they did last year. If they continue to obstruct what Canada needs to do and therefore put the country at risk, make that case very clear to Canadians. Then call another election — right away — to get the majority required to govern without them. Personal ambition should not hold democracy hostage.

Third, address “the tragedy of the horizon,” a term Carney first used in 2015 to describe the climate crisis, now considered a global “polycrisis” because of all its interwoven issues. On a dead planet, we won’t need to worry about housing, jobs, or economic policies.

Carney is a pragmatic capitalist. As long as the market serves society as a whole and includes the needs of future generations — not just catering to the billionaires and elites of today — he will support it. Confronting that polycrisis requires corporate entities and financial institutions to be stewards, however, not pirates. So, expect windfall profits and government subsidies that prevent transitioning to essential new, green technologies to be eliminated. Expect a thoughtful plan, delivered with competence — not a performative one — and adjusted as it needs to be, across the country, for everyone.

Fourth, and most importantly, Carney needs to be held accountable for his personal leadership style. He talks all about participative, transformational leadership, observing that “authority is not leadership and institutional authority is not sustainable without social licence,” (page 344).

Concluding his book with the crucial importance of humility, which “allows us to set goals before we know all the answers” (pg. 522). Carney believes that good leaders don’t claim to have all the answers, but they should inspire and support a team whose efforts will earn back (not further undermine) the public trust, amid the uncertainty of our time.

May it be so.

Peter Denton writes from his home in rural Manitoba.