November 22, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
On Thursday evening at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, Cardus hosted New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who delivered the first Ian Shugart Lecture. I used this space to eulogize Ian’s passing in 2023. Although hardly a household name, Ian’s 40-year career in political and public service positions culminated in his serving as the 24th clerk of the Privy Council from 2019 to 2021.
Both Cardus and I were privileged to count Ian as a friend, and it seemed appropriate to celebrate our 25th anniversary this week by honouring Ian’s memory. The Globe and Mail’s October 2023 obituary for him noted that “most significant for Ian … was the formation of his deep Christian faith, which explained and motivated his life both personally and professionally.” Tributes spanning the breadth of the political spectrum highlighted Ian’s rootedness, integrity, and core beliefs.
Ian frequently referenced the biblical story of Daniel in our conversations, and we had discussed the possibility of developing a curriculum for leaders inspired by Daniel. Shortly after his death, his family shared with me an outline found in his personal Bible.
I think Ian got it right. Skill, engagement, excellence/integrity—these are familiar categories in discussions of leadership. Some may be surprised to see excellence and integrity connected in Ian's notes. It’s no surprise. He understood shoddiness not just as something that led to less-than-ideal results, but as a reflection of core values and beliefs. Ian had high standards both for himself and for what he expected from others.
Commitment to his ideals didn’t stop Ian from being firmly rooted in the real world. His notes emphasize the need to maintain integrity amid pluralism and ambiguity. He even acknowledges the irony of patronage in political systems. Ian did not view discussions of leadership as removed from the day-to-day messiness of life. Humility, integrity, courage, and motivation are both religiously shaped virtues and secular categories. Ian found them all in the biblical text and sought to apply them to his calling.
A year or so before his passing, Ian and I had a conversation prompted by the tagline "faith in public life." He was eloquent in his observations that understanding faith, both as a noun and a verb, was essential to our public witness.
As a noun, faith refers to the wisdom of 2,000 years of Christian social thought. It is part of the heritage of those who founded Canada, as well as other Western countries, which they sought to translate into practice. This heritage includes a belief in a transcendent God, which is one reason the Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with an acknowledgement that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and rule of law.” That, in turn, anchors the Canadian polity in justice, freedom, and the dignity of every person.
But faith in public life is also a verb, which means it is active and must be lived. Ian believed in public life as more than just a place where he could steward the considerable gifts and abilities that God had given to him in service of his neighbours and fellow citizens. His belief also meant that the public square mattered in and of itself.
The institutions that serve us are not merely incidental features or practical necessities for living together. They reflect the diversity of human needs and our fundamentally social nature. We are all image-bearers of a triune God whose three persons are in relationship with each other. Humans are social beings, called to live our lives together, faithful in the society where we have been placed. But as Ross Douthat noted in Thursday’s discussion, our faith commitments ultimately require something more than blind loyalty to the political institutions we are part of. Asked about the temptations that come when religion and politics combine, Ross contended that history has shown the danger of using political power to force religion onto others. That danger is real, but Ross also argued that in contemporary North America, it isn’t the most likely temptation believers will face—not least of all because the chances of success are very slim.
The greater temptation, Ross suggested, is that political expedience overtakes our essential religious commitments. So, Ross offered a test that religious people could apply to themselves. It involves identifying where their own political tribe has gone wrong and then considering what they are doing to challenge that error. The failure to identify any error within our own political tribe might be a hint that our politics is overtaking our religious beliefs. In Ross’s view the political takeover of religion is more likely than the religious takeover of politics, at least in our present context.
So, it was an honour this week to pay tribute to Ian, even though I know he would not have wanted the accolades. As I noted to the 600 or so people who joined us, “In a culture where faith is often misunderstood as something personal and private, the next generation needs to see exemplars whose careers demonstrate that faith can remain an anchoring influence for public service. We need to tell and remember stories like Ian’s to inspire future service and open our imagination to what all might be possible.”
That’s not to negate the importance of humility in our public life and a recognition that what we do impacts our credibility and is a prerequisite to making what we say plausible. It also does not leave room for publicly brandishing our faith as part of a religious brand enhancement strategy. (As a side note, those who attempt this end up doing a disservice to both their religious and public service brands.) However, there is also something about being very public about faith. Vibrant faith is like a plant that has its blooms but never forgets the roots that are essential if we are to contribute to the beauty of the public square.
Ross’s talk built on the arguments he advanced in his book We Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious. He challenged the assumption that secularism should be society’s default, using examples such as the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the mystery of consciousness, and widespread reports of supernatural or mystical experiences to argue that belief in a transcendent order is more plausible than outright atheism. The wide-ranging conversation that followed his lecture teased out the implications of belief for those who want to build a healthy public life. The robust conversation, both from the stage and at the reception that followed, has us looking forward to next year with Ayaan Hirsi Ali confirmed to deliver the second Shugart Lecture. Her personal journey—from atheism to Christianity, shaped by global political experience and deep reflection on culture, freedom, and meaning—gives her a unique authority to address why belief still matters in the modern world.
The primary point I am making may seem obvious to some, but it isn’t necessarily obvious in broader society. Our Cardus25 programming also included a discussion of the recent Cardus/Angus-Reid survey, which shows that 66 percent of Canadians and 44 percent of Americans think that we should keep God entirely out of public life. (See Meaningful Metrics below.) In a day where many understand freedom of religion as primarily a right to private worship—a personal choice to be exercised behind closed doors—we need to make public arguments about the inevitable public character of faith. Vibrant faith is inevitably but also essentially public. That doesn’t come without its challenges. Nevertheless, the public square is composed of the interactions of human beings who are not just brains on sticks but also spiritual beings with beliefs that have implications for all of life. It is essential to a flourishing society that we all recognize the reality that faith matters. Misunderstood and misapplied, it can do significant damage. Properly understood and authentically lived, it is a force for good. But in neither case can it be ignored.
WHAT I’M READING
Warren Buffett’s Thanksgiving Letter
The Globe and Mail calls the 2025 edition of Warren Buffett’s annual Thanksgiving letter to shareholders “a warm hug in a harsh world.” It’s the sort of letter that is worth reading in its entirety, as it combines homespun wisdom and story-telling with investment advice and the stories of friendship that get lost in analyst reports. Yet these things are at the core of success and indicate who you are as a person, why values matter, and the importance of relationships. Buffett calls “luck” what I would call “divine providence,” as he explains the thinking behind the transfer of his business to his successor and his wealth to his children to distribute.
Canadian Comings and Goings
The arrival of record numbers of immigrants to Canada often makes headlines, but there is far less coverage of immigrants leaving. A report this week from the Institute for Canadian Citizenship and the Conference Board of Canada notes that one in five immigrants leaves Canada, many within five years of arriving. It would appear that outward migration rates are highest among occupations where Canada has the greatest need. A Toronto Star summary of the document notes, “Optimism about the future — measured by immigrants’ confidence in their personal and family prospects, plans for long-term life in Canada and belief that friends and family can succeed here — is the strongest driver of immigrant retention, with just a one per cent increase in optimism boosting the likelihood of staying by 28 per cent.”
Moral Dimensions of Conservatism
Anthony Koch’s National Post musings about the right being as culpable as the left for the decline of western civilization by forgetting its moral dimension have provoked extensive online debate. Koch rightly notes that conservatives should have engaged not in a rejection of immigration, but in a “rejection of immigration without expectation, without integration, and without the insistence that newcomers join a common civic nation rather than reside in parallel ones.” His thoughts deserve further treatment than I can give them here. I will note, though, that underappreciated in the commentary I read was the fact that many immigrants to the country perhaps understand the moral dimension of our civilization better than some who were born in Canada, and that the immigration might not be the dividing line for the two sides of the argument that some make it out to be.
Trusting Universities
Maclean’s published a feature this week entitled “The Soul of the University.” On the surface, it’s an account of legal attempts by professors at the University of British Columbia to challenge the university’s adoption of political statements as reflected in land acknowledgments and the tying of diversity goals to hiring practices. The case reflects a deeper crisis across Canadian higher education: declining public trust, financial strain, and a pressing questions over whether universities should act as engines of social justice or platforms for unfettered inquiry.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Significantly more Americans than Canadians agree with this statement: “I’m public about my faith and don’t mind other people knowing I’m a believer.” This is just one of many data points that suggest a very different expression of public faith on either side of the Canada-US border. This week, Cardus released a report that I co-authored with Dr. Lynn Swaner, President, US at Cardus, called "Religion for the Common Good: Canada and the United States in 2025." The report seeks to explain the data from a survey Cardus commissioned with the Angus Reid Institute. It shows that not only is American religiosity twice as big as the Canadian variety (across many measures), but that the character of that religious expression is also quite different. Religiously committed Americans experience a greater cultural affirmation of religion, and they engage more politically. However, religiously committed Canadians are more engaged in their communities—volunteering, donating, and getting to know neighbours who do not share their faith—while experiencing cultural hostility toward their faith, leading them to be less public about it. You can read further details on this in my op-ed on thehub.ca that was published just yesterday.
.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Say “Sweden” and what usually comes to mind is the “Some Assembly Required” furniture store. But this week in Ottawa, it was a state visit by Sweden’s royal couple that put our Nordic neighbours on my noggin. Downtown Ottawa looked quite well put together with blue and yellow Swedish flags waving from every other Wellington Street lamp post—a fitting tradition of hospitality Canada extends for every official visit. Seeing those flags was my first hint that King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia had come to town. With the help of a search engine, I learned that they were here to power Saab, the Swedish aerospace and defence company, to sell a few Gripen fighter jets to the Canadian military.
The dozen or so cars in the Swedish motorcade, which passed the Cardus office on a couple of occasions, were modest compared to the 50+ fleet required to move an American presidential delegation when it comes to town. Someone quipped that by royal motorcade standards, this seemed more like a monarchy in a minivan, flying by faster than a procurement deadline. News reports say the itinerary included a state dinner, which was probably a Gripen-grin affair for the politicians and official photographers, but I can’t confirm that since I didn't receive an invitation. I’m sure there was a smörgåsbord of issues to discuss over dinner. Whatever the case, the visit remained off the radar for most, and the motorcade passed by quickly, as did this week’s edition of Insights. As always, I appreciate your interest and look forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday.