By now it is absolutely clear, if there was ever any doubt, that Mark Carney is a Progressive Conservative in Liberal clothing. This has its advantages, at least as far as ‘capital L’ Liberals are concerned. To begin with it has kept the party in power for an unprecedented fourth term of office. And as far as Canadians writ large are concerned, it has put someone in charge who is clearly best qualified to deal with the fallout from the Trump chaos. Every day that passes, public opinion polls demonstrate just how important that advantage is for both the Liberal Party and the country.
Even so, while the Liberal victory over the Poilievre Conservatives in April 2025 owed a great deal to Mr. Carney’s c.v., it should not be overlooked that one other issue played a major role in their success as well, namely that the Carney Liberals are seen as economic conservatives but NOT social conservatives. The Poilievre version of the new Conservative Party is an even worse example of social conservatism run amok than the Harper version that preceded him, and this simply will not fly with Canadians. Yet Mr. Poilievre remains in charge of the good ship Conservative and there are no apparent plans to replace him, indeed there is no obvious successor in the wings.
So far, so good.
But now, roughly 18 months into the Carney government’s term in office, a few cracks in the Liberals’ own armour — their renowned party solidarity — have begun to emerge. Former Environment Minister Stephen Guilbeault’s departure from cabinet, and even from the Liberal caucus, is only the most outward and visible sign of growing concern among so-called ‘social’ Liberals as well as all progressive Canadians. The environment has clearly been downgraded in importance during this “existential” economic crisis, and this in a year of unprecedented drought, floods and forest fires heralding the onslaught of accelerating climate change. In fairness, though, most Canadians seem to agree with this strategy. Polls demonstrate the environment has fallen far down on their priority list in the face of cost-of-living issues and precarious employment outlooks.
This crack may soon grow significantly, however, when the inevitable effect of the government’s laser-like focus on economic development and a massive increase in defence spending begin to appear. The question is not which social programs will be affected but the extent of the cuts to virtually all of them. When these cuts begin to be seen by the average person, look out. The collective pain which Mr. Carney has told Canadians they must shoulder to overcome Trump’s folly will not likely be seen by those most affected as either fair or equally shared, and it will take a major public relations campaign to convince them to keep the faith.
Nevertheless some lifelong Liberals, including this author, have been trying to refrain from negative public commentary. But there are limits to anyone’s patience. Word today from Mr. Carney’s Toronto Investment Summit that the government may be considering the sale of major airports – presumably as an additional way to raise money for his projects – has left even economic conservatives speechless. As for progressive Liberals, when they find themselves on the same side as those conservatives you know something is seriously amiss.
And so it is that the definitive economic critique of this plan comes from James Moore, one of the most competent members of Stephen Harper’s cabinet. He has outlined in detail why this plan is sheer folly for which there is no economic justification. (See his article here: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/james-moore-the-government-is-exploring-airport-privatization-heres-why-it-wont-fly/)
It is conventional wisdom these days to say that the Carney government has moved the party to the centre-right of the political spectrum, far away from the left-wing progressivism of the Trudeau years, and this is what has enabled them to maintain public support. It is also conventional wisdom to say that Carney’s government has adopted many of the economic planks of the Conservative platform, much to Mr. Poilievre’s dismay. But when even a Harper Conservative argues that an economic proposal is unjustified, surely we should all take note.
More importantly, If there is no economic case to be made for selling off these airports, what is the political advantage? Answer, none at all. Instead, the political argument is clearly against a move which, quite apart from the increased cost to passengers, will certainly lead to an even further decrease in regional airline service and greater regional disparity, (especially in the west), in a country already struggling with national unity. What on earth is the Carney government thinking?
