Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic Leblanc and Prime Minister Mark Carney meeting with premiers on March 28/Mark Carney X

By Philippe Lagassé

March 30, 2025

Mark Carney is the Prime Minister of Canada. He held this office despite not having had a seat in Parliament prior to the general election, and he still holds the office during it.

He does not hold the office and the title during some events and not during others based on a temporary, election-period, church-and-state distinction between political and executive activities.

Nonetheless, some Canadian media are pointedly referring to Mr. Carney as the “Liberal leader” when he is campaigning, and as “Prime Minister Carney” when he does things as head of government, such as conducting a telephone call with U.S. President Donald Trump.

This hat-switching is apparently meant to level the playing field for the other party leaders, in other words, to offset the advantage of incumbency. The media are doing their best to work within the awkward bounds they have imposed on themselves, but it gets confusing, especially since it is not the role of the media to override fact in the name of offsetting the perceived advantage of a title and office. Also, it may lead citizens to wonder who’s running the country when Carney is only the Liberal leader and not the prime minister, which is absolutely never the case.

Another rule is being stress tested during this election: the “caretaker convention“, also known as the “principle of restraint”. At the core of caretaker, as some in Ottawa call it, is a simple idea; namely that the prime minister and cabinet should act with restraint when they have lost the confidence of the House of Commons or when there is no Parliament to hold them to account. Acting with restraint during an election is usually pretty straightforward. There are guidelines issued by the Privy Council Office (PCO) that explain what the prime minister and cabinet should and should not do during the caretaker period, and they are pretty easy to follow.

The current trade war with the United States, however, may demand less restraint than usual during an election. In fact, the crisis highlights why caretaker remains a flexible set of unwritten political rules, rather than black-letter law.

Before getting into the nuances of the caretaker convention, it is worth reviewing why we need these types of rules. Under Canada’s Westminster constitution, there must always be a prime minister. This is because the Crown acts on the advice of the prime minister and thus a first minister is needed to proffer advice. Similarly, statutes empower ministers to exercise various executive powers and functions. The constitution and many laws assume there is always a political executive, i.e. a prime minister and cabinet, in place. Parliaments can be dissolved, but the government persists.

The persistence of the executive is a strength of our system. Unlike other parliamentary democracies, which can go for months without a government, Canada always has a functioning political executive. We know who has the authority to make decisions and we can rest assured that the prime minister and cabinet can deal with any crises and contingencies.

But the persistence of the executive also presents a challenge. If a government has lost the confidence of the Commons, the prime minister and cabinet no longer have the democratic legitimacy to govern. And when Parliament is dissolved, the prime minister and cabinet do not have to face a legislature to answer for their actions. Whether confidence is lost or Parliament is dissolved, moreover, there is also a possibility that a new government will be replacing the one that is in power. In that context, it would not be constitutionally proper for the prime minister and cabinet to wield unfettered power.

There is no such thing as a ‘caretaker prime minister’ and Carney should not be referred to as such. It misrepresents both the convention and our current context. The office of the prime minister is always full-fledged.

Caretaker developed to address this challenge: how do we retain the benefits of a persistent executive while checking governments that have lost their democratic legitimacy, do not have a legislature to hold them to account, or are being replaced?

The answer was not to impose legal limits on the government or to temporarily grant ministerial authority to the public service. Instead, a practice was put in place within the executive such that the prime minister and cabinet would act with restraint during caretaker periods.

What does restraint look like? As the PCO guidelines tell us, it means that the government should not make decisions that cannot be easily reversed, or they should consult with opposition parties if they do need to do so. It further means that the government should keep delivering services and performing routine functions, but that anything that can be delayed until an election or transition is over should be. As importantly, the prime minister and cabinet should not use government resources to advance partisan agendas or help them win re-election.

Since restraint is fundamentally a matter of judgement, we have left it with the prime minister and cabinet to decide what they should and should not do, in close consultation with senior public servants. Some decisions and actions are clearly off-base, such as signing and cancelling contracts during a caretaker period. Others are less evident, including signing treaties that have already been negotiated.

Restraint, however, is not always wise or practical. The PCO guidelines state that the prime minister and cabinet can make decisions that are urgent and in the public interest. This links back with the benefits of a persistent executive. We do not want to be without a government that can act decisively or deal with emergencies. Accordingly, the guidelines provide for exceptions to the principle of restraint when the wellbeing of Canadians and Canada is in jeopardy. We expect “energy in the executive”, as Alexander Hamilton once argued, when confronted with threats and dangers.

President Trump’s mercurial threats are demonstrating the value of always having a prime minister who can make decisions. We would be worse off as a country at the moment if the Governor General or public service were running an interregnum government, or if we had strict laws limiting the head of government’s powers and discretion. When dealing with an American president who is looking for weaknesses to exploit, it is best not to present them with a figurehead or a functionary.

But, three points are worth clarifying:

First, while we are in a caretaker period, there is no such thing as a “caretaker prime minister”, and Carney should not be referred to as such. It misrepresents both the convention and our current context. The office of the prime minister is always full-fledged. All the caretaker convention does is demand restraint from the prime minister and cabinet in recognition that they are functioning within a writ period.

Second, flexibility and ambiguity necessarily accompany political rules like caretaker. Not everyone will agree on what counts as urgent or in the public interest. Different governments will interpret restraint in various ways. The debate and discussion that surround how governments interpret caretaker allow the rule to evolve to suit our political and constitutional expectations.

Finally, the end of the caretaker period is fundamentally a question of judgement, too. The PCO guidelines tell us that caretaker ends when a new government is sworn in following a transition or when “an election result returning an incumbent government is clear.” The clarity of an election result is like the principle of restraint itself: a call that rests with the Prime Minister.

Policy contributing writer Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor and Barton Chair at Carleton University.