Mark Carney — a progressive conservative

Progressive conservatism is having a moment again in Canada. And there’s a Manitoba connection.

Eighty years ago next month, Canada rejected its first official Progressive Conservative party leader for prime minister, awarding the Liberals a strong minority government. Last month, Canada elected its first unofficial progressive conservative prime minister in over 30 years, as it awarded the Liberals a strong minority government.

John Bracken, Manitoba’s longest-serving premier, led the Progressive and then the Liberal-Progressive parties, winning five successive elections. Recruited to federal politics, he insisted that “progressive” be placed alongside “conservative” before he would agree to be drafted as its first PC leader. His provincial success was non-transferable. Three years later, in 1945, he lost his first and only national election as leader.

Mark Carney’s political pedigree is the exact opposite. Until now, he had never run in, let alone won, an election at any level. He won his first time out as Liberal leader and prime minister by promising to be the opposite in many ways of his progressive predecessor, Justin Trudeau. From cancelling the consumer carbon tax, to pledging to build pipelines and offering a middle-class tax cut, Carney is actively placing conservative alongside progressive in his party’s governing policies.

Carney came to political prominence serving within Conservative governments, first in Canada and then in Britain as Governor of the Bank of Canada and then of the Bank of England. Perhaps this was a clue. More of a clue can likely be found in what he experienced during his time as a central banker where the importance of institutions was primordial.

First, he dealt with the 2008-09 financial crisis — the “Great Recession” — and then Brexit in the U.K., which sparked a 13 per cent depreciation in the British Pound and a sustained decline in national economic growth ever since. He has seen first-hand the economic damage wrought from policy excesses, financial and political. And he applied first-hand the levers of institutional stability of an independent central bank and properly regulated financial system to mitigate impacts.

One of the key tenets of traditional conservatism is respect for institutions — constitutional, governmental, and political — and their roles in advancing change. This is the antithesis of today’s conservative populism which avers that institutions are “rigged” against people and must be disrupted or dismantled.

It is impossible to keep a country united if citizen trust in its institutions has disappeared. In Canada, traditional progressive conservatism included a national vision that saw the country whole with national institutions and policies to help bind the country as one.

Carney has spoken about the value of institutions and the custodial trust leaders must demonstrate by asking if they are “part of the system,” asking this in a 2021 interview: “Are your actions (advancing) things that go beyond your time, and beyond your specific institution? Building that sense of responsibility takes time. And it must be demonstrated over time for people to really trust you and the system.” Inviting the King to open Parliament fits with this ethos.

Federalism is the greatest institution Canada has known. It literally created our country. It bridged distance and differences allowing for unity and distinctiveness at the same time. It’s not for nothing that national unity remains “job one” of any prime minister in this vast diverse, difficult country.

Carney’s early steps to rekindle collaborative federalism in “building one economy” by eliminating interprovincial trade barriers is a highly visible example of nation-building. Meeting premiers face-to-face, in early June in Saskatchewan, where national alienation has grown, is another. Restoring balance to the federation in how federal, provincial, and territorial governments work together, particularly on energy and climate policy, will be a tougher yet essential test of the new prime minister’s respect for the institution of federalism.

Still, the true test of progressive conservatism resides in how it sees the role of government. Progressives prefer broader, deeper state interventionism to eradicate any inequality, the very existence of which is an enduring moral and social failure. Conservatives prefer targeted, limited government to address glaring inequities, understanding that the human condition is naturally flawed, that society is too complex to be gerrymandered into utopian perfection.

This test Mark Carney has yet to pass. The Liberal platform offered more government — over 300 specific initiatives along with five new agencies. But it also spoke about the need to use government to unleash dramatically more private sector investment to build the economy, housing, and pipelines.

In his book Values, Carney wrote “unchecked market fundamentalism devours the social capital essential for the long-term dynamism of capitalism itself.” Since classic conservatives uphold family and community as bedrock to social cohesion, this quote is very progressive conservative sounding.

Although it did not opt for a formal progressive conservative leader, the 1945 election marked the advent of Canada’s progressive welfare state. Universal family allowances came into being. Progressive pressure from the left prodded a reluctant Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, to stop acting too conservative and put them in his platform. Today, conservative pressure is prodding Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney from acting too liberal with his own platform promises.

Welcome to the new Canada, where PC doesn’t stand for “politically correct” but “progressive conservative.”

David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.