In The Weekly Wrap Sean Speer, our editor-at-large, analyses for Hub subscribers the big stories shaping politics, policy, and the economy in the week that was.
Canada must summon its inner Crosby to compete in a changing world order
The intersection between politics and sports is well known. Historical episodes like Jesse Owens’ gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics or Paul Henderson’s winning goal in the 1972 Summit Series are defined as much by their political significance as notable expressions of athletic competition.
When the National Hockey League and NHL Players Association conceived of the Four Nations Faceoff tournament, one suspects that politics weren’t at the forefront. Their motivation was far more prosaic. They wanted to boost league revenues and generate greater interest in the game.
But as Canada and the U.S. faced off last Saturday in a much-anticipated round-robin game, the tournament had become shot through with politics. Donald Trump’s relentless musings about Canada as the 51st state has catalysed a powerful sense of Canadian nationalism in search of an outlet.
The opening faceoff’s round of fights proved wrong those who thought the games wouldn’t be more than an exhibition series. The entire tournament, including Thursday’s final game, felt like it transcended the sport itself.
Yet Team Canada’s players and coaching staff never let themselves get sucked into the politics. They saw themselves as elite athletes rather than political combatants. They left the (oft-annoying) political commentary to others. (It’s frankly a healthy aspect of professional hockey that it generally hasn’t come to be imbued by politics in the same way that the NBA or the NFL have.)
The one exception was after the final game, Canada’s head coach, Jon Cooper, who is among the most interesting and thoughtful voices in the game, rightly acknowledged that Canada as a whole needed the win. It was as much a sense of relief as it was elation.
Ever since Trump launched his attacks on Canada, we’ve been thinking at The Hub about how to channel the attendant rise of nationalism in a constructive direction. One that would convey an affirmative patriotism and avoid narrow parochialism.
We still think this is among the biggest tests facing our country over the coming months. We cannot let Trump’s antagonism cause us to make self-limiting decisions, including attempting to build a “shield” around our economy and society. Put bluntly: misdirected nationalism can become the source of a lot of bad ideas.
But not the nationalism that we witnessed at the Four Nations tournament. It exposed a healthy competitiveness, a killer instinct, and a determination to be the best, one that Canada will need to call upon in what we’ve characterized as a “changing global order.”
Last weekend, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre delivered his major Canada First speech. In his telling, Canada First reflects the idea of prioritizing Canada—of putting the country ahead of others. But as the Canada-U.S. final game showed, it also works on another level: Canada First can also be about Canada leading or winning against its global competitors.
We now need to summon our Sidney Crosbys and Connor McDavids in the world of industry to have the same outward ambitions. That, it must be understood, is the opposite of economic nationalism at least as it’s typically expressed. It’s instead a sense of national self-confidence that looks out to the world and believes that we, Canadians, can in fact hold our own.
A Canada First nationalism that’s channeled in the direction of aspiring to compete and win could ultimately be good for the country. It’s certainly one that served us well on the ice.
Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland holds a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa, Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2024. Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press.
Freeland’s only hope is to hit Carney hard—here’s how
Although there are limits to assessing the dynamics of leadership races—it typically requires proxy measures like donations or endorsements—there’s a strong sense that Mark Carney is running away with the Liberal Party race and, all things being equal, poised to become prime minister next month.
His campaign has thus far been a front-runner campaign. It’s been rather conservative. He’s held small private events and released vague policy directions. There have been no major speeches or media interviews.
The overarching narrative is that Carney is experienced and knowledgeable and ready to represent the country at a moment of crisis. Yet this week his campaign staff had to walk back the candidate’s comments on fiscal policy and resource development with the explanation that he’s still “refining his thinking.”
It leaves one with the sense that if Carney were exposed to greater contestation and scrutiny, we may learn something. It’s one thing to answer tough questions as a central banker. It’s ostensibly something else to answer them as an aspiring politician.
The first—and perhaps only—opportunity for spontaneous exchanges with Carney may be next week’s Liberal leadership debates. Monday’s French debate in particular will be an interesting test in an environment that isn’t perfectly familiar for Carney.
A big part of the story will depend on his chief opponent, Chrystia Freeland. She herself isn’t particularly skilled at political combat. But at this point, Freeland’s only chance is to seriously destabilize Carney’s campaign. And the only way to do that is to challenge him on the debate stage.
She needs to create doubts in the minds of Liberals that Carney’s transition from public service to politics will go as smoothly as they assume. That while they may like his technocratic persona, even technocrats still need to get themselves elected.
What are some of the potential lines of criticism or attack that Freeland could pursue? At the risk of being presumptuous, here are some suggestions.
- You owe it to Liberals to be transparent about your secret discussions with the prime minister to replace me—the first and only female finance minister in Canadian history—without even having a seat in parliament.
Since you’ve been out of the country, our party has reconceptualized itself as a progressive party. How can you appeal to progressives when you’re talking about cutting spending and forcing through pipeline projects? - As Pierre Poilievre challenged you in a parliamentary committee hearing, how can you credibly argue for the energy transition and yet invest in coal projects and underreport your own carbon emissions? Aren’t you a climate hypocrite?
- You’ve brandished your experience during this race. But there’s a big difference between advising governments or implementing their agenda and actually being an elected official. I’ve been the finance minister for three-and-a-half years and a cabinet minister for more than nine years and I’d put my experience up against yours any day. Now isn’t the time for a political hobbyist.
It’s improbable that Freeland will adopt these arguments or even confront Carney too directly during the debates. He’s her son’s godfather after all. But if she chooses the path of least resistance, she’s neither doing Carney nor the Liberal Party itself any favours. These are precisely the types of arguments that can be expected from the Conservatives and NDP in a general election campaign.
Isn’t better for everyone to know how Carney will respond and ultimately withstand (or not) such scrutiny now rather than waiting until it’s too late?
Check it out
While I’m mostly on the side of the interviewer when it comes to podcasting, this week I sat down with Macdonald-Laurier Institute senior fellow Shawn Whatley for one of the first episodes of his new podcast, Concepts.
It was a wide-ranging and big-picture conversation. We covered, among other topics, how to define conservatism and Canadian identity, the limits of pluralism, the place of religion in modern conservatism, and the tensions between the instinct to conserve and the instinct to progress and how to possibly reconcile them.
Shawn’s a smart guy and it was a fun conversation. I enjoyed it a lot. I hope you do too. You can find it here.
Sean Speer is The Hub's Editor-at-Large. He is also a university lecturer at the University of Toronto and Carleton University, as well as a think-tank scholar and columnist. He previously served as a senior economic adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper....
