Freeland Lectures America. But What is Her Record?

 

By Henry Srebrnik, Fredericton Daily Gleaner

After a sudden political retirement in Canada, former finance minister Chrystia Freeland has made a leap back onto the American media stage. She’s done the rounds on U.S. TV, including the big political talk show Real Time with Bill Maher, presenting as a kind of elder stateswoman: someone who’s been in the room and can point to what’s coming next in our uncertain, tumultuous time.

 Her latest appearance is an op-ed piece in the New York Times, the country’s premier newspaper, entitled “The Great Capitulation Is Over. What Will Take Its Place?” It purports to be a thesis about the world moving from a state of helplessness, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s various foreign policy moves, to a more united and courageous front.

 Readers may agree or disagree that this is what’s happening internationally. But one could be forgiven for being skeptical about Freeland’s political position and interest in the issues she’s talking about. In fact, Freeland’s argument is not principally a reasoned case about the state of the world, but a partisan appeal to U.S. voters for the Democratic party, which is gearing up for mid-term election season.

 Whatever their politics, her American audience deserves to know what Canadians already do: namely, that her record in government in this country is deeply spotty, and the very matters on which she claims expertise she in fact has almost no credibility.

 The era of Freeland Liberalism in Canada began in an old, pre-MAGA world. Her boss, former prime minister Justin Trudeau, rose to prominence when the Grits had been reduced to a small parliamentary caucus. In the 2015 election campaign, Trudeau outmuscled the opposition New Democrats as the change option to defeat former prime minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

 It is fascinating how things have changed. Since, we have seen around the Western world a heightened skepticism of immigration, a rejection of globalism and elite institutions like the World Economic Forum, and backlash against energy policy centred more on environmental aims than the economy or security.

 Yet instead of reckoning with the heart of these developments, Freeland puts lipstick on them. She claims Trump’s victory over former vice-president Kamala Harris in 2024 “should not be understood as a secular or global shift toward the extreme right by the populace itself.” Meanwhile, she admits that “making market democracy work for working people is a daunting challenge, but it is hardly a new one.”

 You’d think, reading her article, that Freeland had nothing to do with the past decade of policymaking. Yet the populist backlash she dismisses did not arise in a vacuum. It emerged after years of policy choices by governments like her own: large-scale immigration without corresponding housing supply, unprecedented pandemic-era monetary expansion, surging housing costs, and public spending at levels even her successor, Mark Carney, has described as unsustainable.

 Perhaps the most important indicator is Canada’s falling living standards, the consequence of lost productivity gains. As of 2024, our per-person GDP (a broad measure of living standards) stood at US$51,649, a mere 3.2 per cent higher than in 2014, according to data from the Fraser Institute. Contrast that with the U.S., which had per-person GDP of $72,350, which is 20.2 per cent higher than it was in 2014, and is now 40.1 per cent higher than in Canada.

 In other words, Americans enjoyed growth in their living standards at almost six-times the rate we have seen over the last decade or so, and now have living standards 40 per cent higher than us.

 This is the record of Freeland’s time in office, which originated in Canada’s own policy choices, not pressure from Washington.

 The project, then, of “making market democracy work for working people” is in fact a correction to the circumstances Freeland helped create. What business does she have telling us how to fix the economy when she was part of the group that broke it?

 Freeland’s op-ed also glosses over a number of inconvenient realities. She praises China for resisting Trump, noting only that it is “hardly an avatar of liberal democracy.” Missing from the discussion are Beijing’s intellectual-property theft, threats against Taiwan, interference in Canadian elections, and its unjustified detention of two Canadian citizens.

 Her description of New York’s Zohran Mamdani as merely a “democratic socialist” similarly omits the controversies surrounding his views on Israel, which make him a deeply divisive figure.

 And in praising public resistance to immigration enforcement, she ignores the illegal immigration and border issues that lie at the heart of the American political divide. ICE’s excesses, and the public response, are a symptom of a wider, continental crisis. They aren’t the foundation of a political movement to rebalance America’s immigration needs and pressures.

 Freeland’s op-ed presents her as a seasoned guide to a changing world. But Canadians remember the record she left behind. No doubt she has seen much. But her record suggests she has more yet to learn than teach.

  

The Politicization of International Hockey and Soccer

By Henry Srebrnik, Saint John Telegraph-Journal

The Winter Olympics, including the men’s hockey tournament, are over, and the winners of the hockey medals were the United States gold, Canada silver, and Finland bronze. The American media were over the moon. But actually, they should all have an asterisk beside their awards, because a major hockey power, Russia, was not allowed to compete in the games.

The politicisation of international sports has also roiled soccer. There has been talk of a potential boycott of the World Cup being hosted by the United States, along with Canada and Mexico, this summer.

The Russian Ice Hockey Federation (RIHF) was not admitted to the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) Council meeting held Jan. 21 and expressed its disappointment at not being able to participate. The RIHF announced it would appeal the IIHF’s decision to disqualify its teams from participating in international competitions during the 2026-2027 season to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Meanwhile, as a result of the continuing ban, prominent Russian players within the National Hockey League, as well as players in other leagues, were conspicuous by their absence this year. They included Alex Ovechkin – the all-time NHL goal scoring leader – and major stars like Nikita Kucherov and Andrei Vasilevskiy,

With no Russian team, it wasn’t “real.” You simply cannot describe this as being the best of the best in the world without a nation that accounts for approximately 6.8 per cent of the players in the top professional hockey league. Who would watch the Stanley Cup playoffs if the seven NHL teams were excluded from even competing? Who today would condone major league baseball fielding all-white teams, which was the case before Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947?

It’s not just that a Russian team couldn’t play. Their presence might have made a difference in how the other teams ended up. Some might have done better, others less so, had they also played against Russia. And that could have affected the final standings.

“We were hoping for this year, but I guess not and it’s tough,” Boston Bruins player Nikita Zadarov told the ESPN television network. “Everyone is excited about the Olympics but us,” Columbus Blue Jackets Kirill Marchenko stated prior to the opening. “And of course we would love to be at the Olympics. Russia would have a great team because our roster would have looked so nice.”

Artemi Panarin of the Los Angles Kings suggested that “probably 98 per cent of the hockey players would love to play against us and they’re not thinking about anything else.” Ovechkin, the Washington Capitals star, who would have been the likely pick to captain a Russian Olympic squad, didn’t comment publicly.

Russia is also banned from international soccer. But the role of U.S. in hosting soccer’s World Cup has also come into question in recent months. It has even led to a cross-party group of politicians in Great Britain signing a motion in parliament calling on the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to consider expelling the U.S. FIFA is the governing body that organizes soccer events all over the world.

With relations between Europe and the United States strained, calls for European teams to boycott the tournament are beginning to gain traction. Politicians, fans and soccer executives are among those who believe that the actions of President Donald Trump’s administration, particularly in relation to his calls to annex Greenland, a Danish entity, make participating in the competition problematic.

It isn’t just Danish politicians who could be forced to consider their options. In Germany, Roderich Kiesewetter sits on the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee and expressed his concerns. “If Trump follows through on his announcements and threats regarding Greenland and starts a trade war with the EU, it's hard for me to imagine European countries participating in the World Cup,” he told the Augsburg Allgemeine newspaper.

Dutch broadcaster Teun van de Keuken has backed a public petition urging withdrawal from the competition while French parliamentarian Eric Coquerel has warned that participation risks legitimising policies that he argued undermine international human rights standards.

The producer of television and radio programs is leading a petition against participation by the Netherlands. He is now looking for the best way to get the petition to a broader global audience and tap into what he believes is broad fan dissatisfaction with the tournament. “This boycott idea is now popular amongst football fans, like me,” he contends. “I wouldn't like it if this happens as we won’t have a World Cup. But I think now the political situation is more important.”

Meanwhile, African countries, especially those with Muslim populations, are also contemplating a boycott due to Washington’s support of Israel’s war in Gaza. A coordinated boycott would require joint decisions by governments representing the qualified teams -- Morocco, Senegal, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cape Verde and South Africa -- supported by the African Union, regional institutions and the Confederation of African Football.

But none of this will fly. After all, Trump was handed the “FIFA Peace Prize” at the World Cup draw in Washington D.C. in December, with FIFA President Gianni Infantino telling Trump, “We want to see hope, we want to see unity, we want to see a future. This is what we want to see from a leader.”