Welcome to Need to Know, The Hub’s roundup of expert insights into the biggest economic stories, political news, and policy developments Hub readers need to keep their eyes on.
Sometimes even silent symbols need to speak up
By Harrison Lowman, The Hub’s managing editor
These past few months have been a torturous time to be someone who’s both a Canadian patriot and a monarchist.
In the face of a “51st state” barrage from a Manifest Destiny president, we looked across the pond for clear signs of support from the King of Canada for his northern realm.
Instead, Canadians have been forced to follow a coded breadcrumb trail of clues to understand just how much he is actually willing to defend this country.
In March, King Charles was spotted wearing a set of Canadian medals. He was seen planting a maple tree at Buckingham Palace. He chose to sit in a Canadian-made chair at a Commonwealth Service. But he also personally invited Trump, our would-be Canadian invader, to his home in Windsor Castle
“I remember with great fondness your visits to the United Kingdom during your presidency…,” he wrote to Trump in an unprecedented second state visit invitation, at the behest of the British government. “He’s a beautiful man,” the president told media after reading it live on air. It was the love letter Canadians wished they’d received.
How to make sense of these mixed messages? One wondered if the palace would be delivering royal decoder rings to each and every Canadian household to decipher the monarch’s moves.
Today, Canadians will get King Charles III in the flesh and on Canadian soil to open the 45th Parliament. It will be the first time our head of state has delivered a Canadian speech from the throne in nearly half a century, and the first time a king has done it, ever.
But the King’s presence in the Canadian Senate (royal) red chamber below the Canadian coat of arms is not enough. I will be looking for a clear, full-throated, and decisive defence of our country. Our Constitution requires that such a request would have to come from our elected government. But while most of the speech will come from the Prime Minister’s Office, the first part will be written by the King himself and palace aides, with help from the Governor General. That’s where there’s room for Charles to speak from the heart.
“Canada is and will always remain a distinct, independent, sovereign nation, a parliamentary democracy, and a cherished member of the Commonwealth.”
Wouldn’t that be nice to hear from the King, rather than the painstakingly-worded “don’t rock the boat” milquetoast statement we’ll likely hear?
Under normal circumstances involving domestic political disputes, our figureheads can remain silent. But when a foreign power threatens our nation’s very existence, we need them to stand out and speak up—even if the words they are saying are put in their mouths.
The official stamp is unveiled at Canada Post during coronation celebrations in honour of King Charles III in Ottawa, on Saturday, May 6, 2023. Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press.
Can Tim Hodgson deliver where his predecessors failed?
By Falice Chin, a freelance journalist based in Calgary and The Hub’s Alberta senior producer
In his first major address as Canada’s new minister of energy and natural resources, Tim Hodgson signalled a clear departure from the tone that has defined the last decade of Liberal governance for many Albertans.
Whether that message holds will be an early test of Ottawa’s new approach.
Speaking to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce last Friday, Hodgson emphasized pragmatism and partnership. Drawing on his background as a former MEG Energy board member and Hydro One chair, he positioned himself as someone who understands the concerns of Alberta’s energy sector. His Bay Street ties and experience with major infrastructure and energy files lent him credibility in a room often skeptical of Ottawa’s climate and regulatory agenda.
More notably, Hodgson adopted the language of the industry itself.
“Every barrel of responsibly produced Canadian oil and every kilowatt of clean Canadian power can displace less clean, riskier energy elsewhere in the world,” he said.
He acknowledged the need for infrastructure that gets Canadian energy “to tidewater and to trusted allies,” adding that diversification beyond the U.S. remains a strategic priority—though he stopped short of explicitly endorsing new pipelines.
His remarks come at a pivotal moment. Earlier this spring, dozens of oilpatch CEOs signed a joint letter warning Ottawa that regulatory delays and a looming cap on emissions were costing “billions in lost opportunity.” They called for reforms to the Impact Assessment Act and the West Coast tanker ban, and proposed a six-month timeline for major project approvals.
Hodgson’s speech offered something of a response.
He committed to a two-year approval window—far from the six-month benchmark requested, but still a notable improvement from the five- to 10-plus-year delays of the past. Most strikingly, he promised that this new government “will no longer be defined by delay,” but rather it will be “defined by delivery,” a phrase which he repeated for emphasis.
Federal lobbying records reveal a growing consensus across sectors. From utilities and energy firms to small and big business groups, there is a broad push for faster approvals, removal of interprovincial trade barriers, and stable policy frameworks that can survive political cycles.
At the heart of these demands is a call for predictability. Business leaders say they are not seeking exemptions—just clarity, speed, and fairness. Many argue Alberta’s core industries are being disproportionately burdened at a time when they should be viewed as national assets.
Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Tim Hodgson arrives for a meeting of the federal cabinet in West Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, May 14, 2025. Justin Tang/The Canadian Press.
Hodgson’s appointment suggests the prime minister is aware of that shift. He was reportedly recruited by Mark Carney—a former colleague from Goldman Sachs and the Bank of Canada—in what may be part of a deliberate effort to help rebuild trust with Alberta.
But both Hodgson and Carney are new to Parliament. Neither has yet navigated the procedural and political bottlenecks of the House of Commons, or the entrenched positions within the Liberal caucus on climate and energy.
Hodgson’s occasional stumbles during his speech and in his first major media interview further highlighted his inexperience and fresh entry into politics.
That “newbie” challenge may explain why the prime minister retained seasoned hands in key cabinet roles. But the extent to which those veterans—including former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, now overseeing the Canadian identity and culture file—may shape or constrain the new direction remains a concern for industry observers.
For now, the tone has changed.
Hodgson said the government will begin with “small wins.” But unless those wins materialize quickly, Alberta’s business community is likely to remain in wait-and-see mode.
Canada’s productivity reckoning
By Sean Speer, The Hub’s editor-at-large
The OECD’s latest economic survey of Canada comes with a stark diagnosis: the country is facing what Andrew Coyne has characterized as a “growth crisis” and poor productivity is the underlying cause.
For years, our politics have failed to confront this inconvenient truth. We’ve relied on population growth to prop up GDP headlines, while per capita output has silently stagnated. The result is a hollow kind of prosperity—an economy getting bigger without getting better.
The OECD gets to the heart of the problem. Its findings are blunt: productivity growth is lagging, business investment is weak, and structural impediments—from regulatory burdens to internal trade barriers—are hampering innovation. Canada’s R&D spending lags behind peer countries. Our capital stock per worker is falling.
This isn’t just a short-term cyclical story. These are structural failures that threaten Canada’s long-term wealth and prosperity.
The OECD rightly points to a path forward: reform our tax system to favour investment and innovation; scale up competition policy to spur business dynamism; repeal and streamline regulations; and remove the domestic chokepoints that fragment our internal market. These are not radical ideas—they’re overdue ones.
As we’ve regularly discussed at The Hub, our politics have too often set these structural issues aside in favour of shiny-bauble populism. The major parties compete on ideas to redistribute pre-existing wealth through tax cuts and new entitlement spending. There’s far too little discussion about how to generate new wealth.
We should be grateful, therefore, for the OECD’s candour. Its message is clear: the growth of the past decade cannot be relied upon to secure the future.
The new Parliament should dedicate itself to building Canada’s next generation of wealth.
How Alberta can turn its weak hand into real leverage with Ottawa
By Karamveer Lalh, a lawyer with an Edmonton area law firm
Threatening separation has always been about leverage, not exit. Reputable polls consistently show Alberta independence languishing in the mid-30s, half the support Quebec mustered at its peak. Voters like the idea of a bigger stick in Ottawa’s eye; they don’t relish passports at the Saskatchewan border. Still, history warns that even an improbable threat can become brutally expensive if Ottawa thinks the ransom note will be mailed again and again.
After Quebec’s first referendum failed in 1980, federal leaders bought calm with hazy promises of “renewed federalism.” That open tab invited a second, far costlier showdown in 1995, decided by 50.6 percent. Only the Clarity Act finally reassured investors and Mandarins that unity wouldn’t be auctioned every election cycle. In the end, all Quebec had to show for its flirtation with its dreams of independence was the loss of dozens of multinational headquarters and billions in lost investments.
Alberta now wants tangible goods—pipeline corridors, equalization tweaks, and modest regulatory reform—yet opinion polling makes clear it can’t credibly threaten to break up the country on its own. To turn weak cards into real leverage, the province must offer Ottawa enough credibility that concessions will be a one-and-done affair, and it will not throw a fit every time it does not get its way.
Without that assurance, federal strategists may conclude a single constitutional collision—ugly but final—costs less than underwriting an endless cycle of performative brinkmanship. Provide true finality, and suddenly, compromise looks like the cheapest insurance policy Ottawa can buy.
