January 18, 2025
Click the “Listen Now” below to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
Monday is presidential inauguration day in the United States. While most seem focused on what the incoming president will do through the office, it is also worthwhile reflecting on what he will do to the office. The pomp and circumstance surrounding the inauguration are a reminder that the office doesn’t belong to any one person. It is something that is both received from history and is to be passed on to a successor. It doesn’t belong to the incumbent; it belongs to the country. That’s why the oath is to uphold the constitution — to provide leadership while in office and to pass the state of the union off to a successor in better shape than you received it.
The concept of “office” is important. The technical definitions vary by institution. (Ecclesial office is different from political office, just as serving as a CEO of a public company implies different accountabilities than leading a private company.) There are also clear differences between the various institutions that are part of the government sphere. Holding political office requires a different accountability than being a judge or CEO of a Crown corporation like the Bank of Canada or a government agency like Elections Canada. But all of those differences do not take away something fundamental and common to them all: office-holders are entrusted to carry out duties and make decisions on others’ behalf and they must steward the powers of the position in a manner that not only achieves certain goals, but also preserves the integrity and prestige of the office so that it can be passed on to a successor. Offices are stewarded, not owned.
This reflection flows out of a lunchroom debate regarding the nature of office and who should hold it. Mark Carney, a former governor of the Bank of Canada, officially joined the Liberal leadership race this week. If he wins on March 9th, he’d be in position to become prime minister as well. One of my colleagues argued that whatever merits Carney brings as a candidate, he should not be running for office because, as a former governor of the Bank of Canada, his ascent to the office would inevitably politicize the central bank’s brand. The perception that the bank is political would undermine how the public and business community receive its monetary policy and interest rate decisions. My colleague also seemed to suggest that experience with the bank should not be leveraged for political advantage. His argument was political campaigns by former bank governors would end up influencing the brand of current bank governors. So, if this practice were repeated often enough, the central bank’s independence from direct politics would come into question. The involvement of former Supreme Court justices in the SNC-Lavalin affair a few years back was cited as a parallel. When bank governors, judges, chief electoral officers, and other similar offices, which are only effective when they are seen to be neutral, get involved in the muddiness of politics, the inevitable result is a tarnishing of the independent institutions, making the job of their successors more difficult.
You don’t have to agree with the specific applications of his argument to recognize that there is a valuable insight embedded within it. A healthy society requires confidence that officeholders carry out their duties according to the norms of their positions. That means judges rely on justice and legal precedence, not the familiarity of those who appear before them; bank governors make monetary policy decisions based on long-term economic criteria and not just immediate winners and losers; electoral officers ensure fair processes and not desired outcomes. When it comes to political office, on Monday, the U.S. President will swear loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. The preamble uses terms like justice, tranquillity, defence, and liberty to describe its purposes.
Sometimes, the formalities of oaths and offices are seen as stodgy historical leftovers that have no real consequence. I prefer to view them as a reminder of the fact that the office isn’t and should never be defined by an individual. (An adjacent, worthy view is that these rituals are an “antidote to the dangers of amnesia, political and otherwise.”) Offices carry a responsibility defined by history and a duty that transcends the immediate consequence. Part of the responsibility of an office-holder is to uphold the dignity and criteria of the office so that any successor can carry on with the responsibilities of that position. Public service isn’t simply defined by what we do while we are in office, but by how we uphold the dignity and the capacity of office, even after we leave it.
I’m not convinced that by seeking political office former governors of the Bank of Canada automatically diminish the perceived political independence of the bank. (I would agree that retired Supreme Court judges who seek office would bring the court’s independence into question. But the specific applications of these arguments are beside the point.) The main point I pass on is the obligation for all office-holders, during their entire life, to be mindful of how their conduct and approach to office affects the gravitas of how the office is perceived, which in itself is a factor in how well the public can be served.
Serving in office is a serious privilege. The success of any term should be measured both by what is done with the office and by whether the office is preserved in a healthy condition for a successor. These considerations apply not only to presidential or prime ministerial terms, but to all of us who hold office and provide leadership in the various institutions that comprise a flourishing society.
The Captain and Compass Search
The present uncertainty regarding Canadian domestic and trade affairs will not be resolved until after the federal election. Until then, this Insights section will provide a brief punditry take on “the week that was.”
Mark Carney announced Thursday that he’s seeking the Liberal Party’s leadership. Yesterday, Chyrstia Freeland, who was the federal finance minister until recently, announced her leadership campaign via social media. Given the series of announcements by most other expected high-profile candidates that they are not in, Carney may well be the perceived front-runner to become Canada’s next prime minister. The conventional wisdom remains that the new Liberal administration will face Parliament on March 27th, only to be defeated in the first week, forcing a May election. However, Carney seemed to suggest that he might go straight to the polls, were he to win his party’s leadership. That would have the advantage of seeking a clear and direct mandate separating himself from the Trudeau mandate he inherits and also avoids the awkwardness of a prime minister without a seat in Parliament. As I’ve pointed out before, and Sean Speer reiterated this week, there is an opposite case also to be made of doing a new deal with an opposition party (presumably the NDP) and seeking to govern until the fall.
For Canadians, the U.S. inauguration has become a participatory sport. Instead of just observing the significance of a new president for American and global politics, we will also learn the extent to which the tariff talk was a threat or reality. This past week, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith made her case directly to President Trump to exempt her province’s energy from his tariffs. This has her off-side from the perspective of the federal government and other premiers who met Wednesday to plan strategy and issued a communiqué which Premier Smith did not sign. The federal approach to this will be made public on Monday. There’s lots of commentary and daily updates on this emerging story but I found Mark Cameron’s piece helpful in fleshing out what speaking for Canada really means. I also appreciated former prime minister Stephen Harper’s forceful defence of Canada, calling out Trump’s tactics and the disrespect he shows this country.
WHAT I’M READING
Liberal Futures
The Liberal leadership process has prompted a wide range of musings about their short- and long-term prospects. Sean Speer provocatively asks whether the time has come for a political restructuring of the progressive left in Canada. Ironically, this is a question my colleague Michael Van Pelt and I asked in the pages of Policy Options 14 years ago. Since we predicted it would take “a decade of dissensus” to sort through, it could be that we were right in principle but had the timing wrong, so that the arguments we made then apply today. However, it also does bring to mind the validity of Cole Hogan’s National Post reminder that the Liberal Party has historic resilience. Counting them out based on present circumstances is probably unwise.
Is Leadership Moral?
Some follow-up with Insights readers on last week’s musings about needing a compass, map, and captain to safely steer the ship of state prompted me to re-up an essay I wrote two decades back: “Can Bad People be Good Leaders?” It prompted some appreciative feedback and I thought it might be worth passing along, written as it was at a time when none of the current names in the political arena, were on our radar screens.
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
“Donald Trump’s kidding-or-is-he suggestion that Canada belongs inside our union is not a threat but an opportunity,” writes Ross Douthat in The New York Times, as he suggests “Canada might be better off” as part of the United States. Former deputy prime minister and finance minister John Manley, offers a sarcastic opposite take in the Globe and Mail, suggesting the U.S. essentially become Canada instead. Meanwhile, Prof. Robert Huish at Dalhousie University has this warning for the constitutional (and historical) means available to Washington D.C. to take what it wants.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
To IP or not IP
The Globe and Mail’s subheading was catchy; the data presented was even more provocative. The comparison between housing investment versus investment in intellectual property (IP) products was startling. Admittedly, I had to look up a definition of intellectual property products. In this context, I understand it to mean research and development outputs, computer software and databases, and original artistic/creative works, such as manuscripts, films, and music. As the article notes, Canada spends significantly more on housing than on intellectual property compared to other OECD countries. It is clear that housing affordability is not simply a concern for Canadians balancing their household budgets. It also has an opportunity cost given what that money is not being spent on. I hadn’t thought of it before, but this makes a compelling case that lack of IP investment is at least a contributor to our low productivity measures.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Tarnished Medals
“All that glisters is not gold — Often have you heard that told,” wrote Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice. His phrase seems particularly apropos (or à propos) as athletes who won medals in the 2024 Paris Olympics increasingly ask for hardware replacements. Pourquoi? Well, the shine has really come off the medals — literally. Athletes report the awards are deteriorating and getting tarnished at an alarming rate, in fact. It seems the gold medal is looking more like an old metal. The Monnaie de Paris (not to be confused with the Monet de Paris) which normally makes coins, but also produced the Olympic medals, has promised a replacement for anyone whose medal has not stayed in mint condition. That’s hardly medal-worthy quality control. C’est la vie.
Well, I also learned from Shakespeare that “brevity is the soul of wit,” so I’ll end this here. Look for another Insights worth its weight in gold in your inbox again next Saturday morning.