Traditions thrown overboard as media leave unexplained Carney’s redefinition of acceptable conduct during an election

Privy Council rules give the caretaker extra room to star in the role of prime minister while auditioning for it at the same time

This week, we continue to look at stories and issues swirling around the election that media have left uncovered. Please share and, if you haven’t already, consider a free or paid subscription.

Liberal leader Mark Carney, without challenge from the media, has steamrolled traditional conventions regarding political behaviour during elections by redefining what’s considered permissible.

Historically, it was rare, if not unheard of, for a person in the role of caretaker prime minister to be meeting with premiers and making phone calls to foreign leaders, as Carney did with US President Donald Trump on March 28, German Chancellor Olaf Schultz April 2 and again yesterday with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

According to the Prime Minister’s Office, Carney and Schultz “discussed the importance of reliable partners working together to protect transatlantic security and deepen economic ties, particularly in the current global trade context.”

In other words, nothing that couldn’t wait. The same could be said about the call with Starmer and the meeting with premiers, particularly given the less than feared impact of America’s reciprocal tariffs.

In the case of Trump, Carney said he promised that, once the election is over, he will open discussions on a new trade deal. When he did so, he appeared oblivious to the idea that someone other than himself could become prime minister.

Meanwhile, Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet says he has yet to receive so much as a courtesy call from Carney.

It’s important to emphasize that nothing illegal is taking place here, but while Carney may get one soon he has no electoral mandate now to be discussing trade deals since Parliament was dissolved. He has never been an MP and was installed as Liberal leader and PM in March while Parliament was prorogued. Before it could return, he asked the Governor General to dissolve it March 23. He has no mandate to do any official business or spend taxpayers money - as he has done by using the PMO to issue news releases - under anything other than the most dire circumstances.

What he does have, though, is power and he is using it to enhance his profile and headlines in a fashion unavailable to his opponents and that, from my perspective, is likely to diminish the public’s confidence in the fairness of the election, particularly when the matter is left unaddressed and unexplained by media - of whom many are already suspicious.

Carney isn’t just auditioning for the role of prime minister during this election, he’s also taking every opportunity to star in it.

He’s able to do so because at the dawn of this campaign, he got the authority to do pretty much whatever he wants when fresh guidelines for appropriate behaviour were posted.

Either no one within our media noticed, or there was a collective decision the changes didn’t amount to a big enough deal to let people know about them.

So I will. At the launch of the election, the Privy Council Office updated the official Caretaker Convention Guidelines that outline what actions sitting politicians may take when Parliament is dissolved.

Posted online on March 24 - the day after the election was called - new wording was inserted to make international announcements and engagements permissible during an election period under the justification of “evolving circumstances on the international stage” - which is about as vague as it gets. A second sweeping change was made allowing caretaker governments to “preserve legal options for the future.” (Here is the previous - 2021 election - version of the guidelines.)

These allow Carney to behave in a presumptuous manner inconsistent with historic conventions. That, in turn, raises questions that media should have asked concerning respect for boundaries.

There’s no doubt that, given the threats posed by Trump’s trade wars and unpredictability, circumstances may develop that demand a response. The country should not be left leaderless or defenceless when in peril (the guidelines for the 2021 election gave Justin Trudeau leeway to act on the pandemic if needed, for instance.) But there’s no reason why the reactions so far couldn’t have been couched within a “and if I am elected I will ensure that ….” context that respects we are in the middle of an election. If there is a reason that makes other unconventional responses like those we have witnessed acceptable, it should be explained and not assumed. That is where curious reporters come in handy.

As noted in these clips contained in a single X post, Carney struggles to use the right words while fellow Liberal candidate Anita Anand had to be reminded by CTV Power Play host Vassy Kapelos that the possibility exists she could no longer be in government next month.

Other than that gentle tap, there’s little evidence media have done their due diligence on this file. There are people, after all, who think it’s not OK for an incumbent to play the contest as a home game on a tilted rink.

Retired broadcast journalist Alan Fryer acutely described the issue in a post on X when he said, “no one can be certain the decisions taken - and they will be consequential - are in the best interest of Canadians or of the Liberal party.”

As one public policy expert told me, this could all be the logical outcome of democratic erosion:

“What we have learned in recent years is that conventions have been so degraded that they are only followed by the party in power when convenient. Omnibus budget bills are another good example. Conventions require parties to exercise self-control. I see none. All parties share the guilt.

“He (Carney) should not be making the calls and foreign leaders should not be taking them. If they want to brief the leaders of both main parties that’s fine but they should wait for the election to confer with the duly elected leader of Canada.”

One political scientist to whom I posed the question said this:

“For what it is worth, I think that Carney is violating (certainly) conventions and (maybe) the law. That said, both conventions and legal issues are downstream from political power, which he’s got and is using. That says something about his character more than anything else.”

When asked how Carney was getting away with this, another poli sci prof told me “I suspect the trade agreement is as fake as the order in council he signed upon assuming his office” while other experts I reached out to carefully explained how, notwithstanding my and others’ objections, Carney is well within his rights.

Fair enough, but having the right to do something doesn’t always make it the right thing to do. Me? I don’t find what has taken place to be proper. Or fair.

More, though, I am disappointed that the nation’s media failed to do what we need them to do to keep our trust - shine lights on the shadows, hold the powerful accountable and let people reach their own conclusions, as I reached mine.

---

(Thank you to a couple of Twitter/X posters for bringing my attention to the before and after PCO changes. Please check out TheHub.ca for my column there Tuesday and the Free Press podcast on Thursday. We reached out first thing Friday to the PCO and will update if and when it responds.)

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)