What is Carney really up to?

But Thiessen’s words also might help to document how much the job has changed between the late 1990s and today, when the current governor has just scolded big business for sitting on $500 million in “dead money” and generally dragging its collective feet in helping to promote economic growth.

So, what was Mark Carney up to when he delivered that rebuke at the Canadian Auto Workers union’s annual convention in August?

It is clear that Carney does not share the narrow definition of the Bank of Canada governor’s job that some of his predecessors had held to _ that is, defender of the currency and soother of financial markets.

Indeed, Carney appears to be in the process of becoming this country’s leading voice on the state of the economy, weighing in on everything from household debt to economic stimulus.

Does this mean the governor has so much political capital that the government dares not intervene as it generally does when the hired help strays from the official talking points?

After all, the man who had just turned down the lead job at the Bank of England and moonlights as the chairman of the international Financial Stability Board is the human embodiment of the “too big to fail” syndrome (or, perhaps, “too big to fire”).

The government probably likes things the way they are. If the governor misstates the economic outlook _ as he did with his very first forecast _ that comes out of Carney’s political capital, not federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s.

Why not let Carney roadtest bad news before the minister sticks his neck out?

A case in point is Carney’s decision to admonish business for sitting on potloads of money. As commentator Dan Veniez had put it, Carney, in effect, called Canada’s business elite “fat and lazy” _ terms normally reserved for the Senate.

It’s little wonder that the business elite have reacted with indignation.

This indignation, however, has had little traction with either the public or the media. And in a me-too gesture, Flaherty stepped from behind the governor only two weeks later and blasted business for not doing its patriotic duty for the economy.

In the past three months, there have been plenty of hints that Flaherty was growing frustrated with the corporate elite for not plowing some of their cash into the economy after Ottawa has provided a business tax rate that is less than half that of the U.S.

But the minister left it to Carney to go public first. And when Flaherty did speak up publicly, there was hardly a whimper from the private sector.

Message successfully delivered.

It is one thing to take on either the governor or the minister individually. When they are a tag team? No way.

But there could be consequences. Carney’s outspokenness could touch off a debate about an expanded mandate for the central bank. Would the government like it so much if the governor decides to critique it?

Currently, there is enough wiggle room in the bank’s official mandate that the government can say the governor is exceeding his mandate any time that is expedient. Demands for an expanded mandate might change that.

Ottawa is a place where coincidence does not happen. If the governor and the minister keep saying the same things, at around the same times, will Canadians start wondering if Carney is truly independent _ as he is supposed to be?

Strangely, the Opposition has been missing in action during the Carney/Flaherty duet. They could have pounced on Flaherty for pandering to business without securing any gains for the economy, just as former NDP leader David Lewis did in his famous “corporate welfare bums” tirade in 1972.

Perhaps we don’t need an Opposition when the governor is looking out for us _ when he’s not minding interest rates and overseeeing the world banking system Just as C.D. Howe was the minister of everything.

© 2012 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.