October 18, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
Nobel Prize announcements in the last week were hard to miss. Questions about whether US President Donald Trump would win this year’s Nobel Peace Prize attracted more than the usual attention—especially considering his own campaign to win the prestigious award. Of course, we know now that he didn’t win. But focusing solely on who receives these prizes overlooks a crucial question:
Should an award like a Nobel Prize celebrate past accomplishment, or should it draw our attention to the ingredients that make accomplishment possible?
To attempt an answer to that, we need to know what the Nobel Prizes are about. I was many years old before I learned that they were named after a famous (and wealthy) nineteenth-century Swedish inventor. ‘Til then, I had assumed that a Nobel Prize was an annual acknowledgment for the virtue and nobility of pursuing peace. Winners, I thought, were worthy of respect as exemplars with the nobilis of excellence, virtue, and moral stature that should be celebrated.
I’ve since understood the details of the six annual awarded prizes: medicine, physics, chemistry, literature, peace, and economics. Alfred Nobel (1833-1896) was a Swedish inventor best known for inventing dynamite. Troubled by the destructive potential of his research, he sought to leave a legacy celebrating moral purpose and left most of his estate to fund prizes to those who “conferred the greatest benefit on humankind.” The six recipients of the 2025 awards announced last week will be honoured for their contributions with a medal, a diploma, and 11 million Swedish kronor (worth approximately $1.6 million in Canadian currency) at a ceremony on December 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s death. The prizes have certainly become one of the world’s most prestigious honours.
This year, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Venezuela’s Maria Corina Machado, a courageous woman who lives in hiding while working to transition Venezuela “from dictatorship to democracy.” I am sure there were also other worthy nominees, and comparing the contributions of those on the front lines of seeking peace will always be a difficult comparison.
The timing of the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, just days after US President Trump’s 20-point Israel-Gaza peace plan was formally announced, amplified the discussion. Regardless of what the Nobel Committee decided, it is significant that this settlement saw the return of 20 surviving Israelis held hostage by Hamas, imposed a ceasefire, and charted a potential way forward, including the return of Palestinians to their homes. Mr. Trump is rightly receiving accolades from supporters and opponents alike for his role in brokering this deal.
Given that nominations for the prize had already closed back in January and that the committee’s decision was almost certainly made before this peace deal was announced, arguments that the award was somehow a snub of Mr. Trump’s role in this process seem a bit disingenuous. While the 2026 Peace Prize is still a year away, this agreement certainly would seem to make him a worthy recipient of it.
Lost in the coverage of the higher-profile Nobel Peace Prize are the other five prizes that were also announced. Canadian coverage understandably focused on Canadian Dr. Peter Howitt, who, together with colleagues, was awarded this year’s Nobel Prize for Economics. Dr. Howitt’s work has focused on creating models that measure the impact of “creative destruction.” I’m no expert on the details, but the essence seems to be a way of understanding the impact of new technologies and innovations as they displace previous technologies. With artificial intelligence poised to significantly change the composition of the workforce, accurately measuring and predicting the economic growth it generates, while accounting for the losses it replaces, seems both relevant and timely.
Columnist Colby Cosh highlighted the question of what makes the accomplishment of a Nobel Prize possible in a National Post newsletter article “How to Raise a Nobel-winning Child?” Cosh highlighted Dr. Howitt’s rural roots and notes that he shared “hinterland roots” with all five Canadians who have previously won the Nobel economics prize. Cosh speculates that “this is not a coincidence—that people who grow up outside great metropolises probably have an advantage in economic intuition. The complexity of a great city makes it impossible for anyone to comprehend as an economic unit, and city dwellers are end-users of many things produced in the outskirts and the remote countryside.”
Economics is often viewed as a science that more readily deals in hard numbers. “The numbers don’t lie,” we are frequently told, and to be sure, balance sheets, income statements, employment statistics, and GDP measures do tell important stories. But there is more to success than measuring inputs and outputs. I’ve used a five-part template in my own mind when assessing any enterprise, whether a for-profit business or a not-for-profit organization. You need intellectual capital (knowing how to meet a need better than others); physical capital (having enough money to buy the resources or to pay the people required to produce what you need); social capital (having relationships with those who can connect you to suppliers, customers, and stakeholders); human capital (having the people with the necessary skills for a given project); and cultural/spiritual capital (cultivating the environment that makes it possible to work together productively and efficiently to accomplish a common goal.)
Cosh suggests that growing up in the hinterland provides a natural headstart in terms of intellectual capital. He may be right. But social capital and cultural/spiritual capital might be part of the story too. A quick survey of entrepreneurship data, with some AI help, suggests that on a per capita basis, immigrants and rural Canadians have a clear entrepreneurship advantage. The immigrant numbers are stark: 2.9 percent of immigrants are entrepreneurs in Canada compared to two percent of those born here, a remarkable difference of almost 50 percent. The rural data is much messier, but the challenges and opportunities both immigrants and rural Canadians face might explain the similarity in these trends. Both are likely to grow up with thicker social networks, a greater risk tolerance, and an opportunity for mentorship/personal investment to help set up a business, offsetting the advantages of a larger market and access to capital that a larger urban centre would offer.
As a child of post-World War II immigrants who grew up in a rural community, in the midst of a very thick community network, I am very conscious of the advantages that such an upbringing provides—something I see replicated in many immigrant and rural communities. Dr. Howitt’s work focused on gauging the difficult-to-measure stuff and sorting through the complex mix of the five needed categories of capital for success.
This brings us back to the Nobel-noble distinction we started with. I’ve paid more attention to the Nobel process this year than any other I recall, not because I wanted to, but because US President Trump gave me little option. On September 30—before he had achieved the Israel-Gaza peace deal—he told American military leaders that “it’ll be a big insult” to the United States if he were not awarded the prize. But, I wonder, isn’t the very raising of the question diminishing the point and potential of this award? I know the relationship between noble and Nobel is simply an accident of language but it is one that does point to linking virtues to the greatest goods and outcomes.
In a TED talk called “Should You Live for Your Résumé … or Your Eulogy?,” David Brooks draws a sharp distinction between what he calls “résumé virtues”—the skills, accolades, and accomplishments we present to the world—and “eulogy virtues”—the deeper qualities such as kindness, integrity, and love that define how we’re remembered. Brooks argues that while society disproportionately rewards résumé virtues, it is the cultivation of eulogy virtues that gives life its true meaning. Might the answer to Cosh’s question about raising a Nobel-winning child be to focus, not on the résumé but on the virtues that produce it?
That sounds piously idealistic, and I’ve been around long enough to know that politics are always involved in the selecting of Nobel winners. But if the Nobel Prize is to have the stature that makes it desirable and admired, should it not be more about highlighting and celebrating the virtues that have contributed to it than focusing on accolades to the winner? I know very little about Maria Corina Machado or the details of Venezuelan politics, but her story reminds me of the courage it takes to protect democracy. Rather than focusing on celebrating the winners for their past accomplishments, an effective prize prompts consideration of the virtues that have contributed to past success, inspiring us to work more effectively in the future to achieve social good.
Being raised in a city offers distinct advantages over being raised in a hinterland, just as being part of a dense social network (immigrant or otherwise) provides different perspectives than those with a more limited network but greater cosmopolitan exposure. Call me “agnostic” on both the question of whether US President Trump would have been a worthy winner of the prize and whether Professor Howitt’s hinterland upbringing gave him a natural head start. What I do know is that my youthful misunderstanding about the Nobel Prize pointing our collective attention to noble characteristics and how they might be gained remains a worthwhile reflection, especially in our present times when public, noble virtue seems to be in very short supply.
WHAT I’M READING
Walking the Talk on Arctic Strategy
The Arctic is significant, of course, for the natural resources it holds, the trade routes that run through it, and strategic advantage it provides for national defence. So, it was interesting to see an article in the Wall Street Journal making the front-line challenges of Arctic operations real and practical. Its firsthand report of a Canadian cargo vessel delivering construction supplies casts light on many practical issues and demonstrates that both Canada and the United States are not giving this area the attention and priority it likely deserves.
Immigrant Success Remains Possible
A C.D. Howe Institute study highlights that new permanent residents to Canada, especially those who already have Canadian education and work experience, are 1.5 times more likely to have a full-time job in Class A occupations, earning almost twice as much as their Canadian-born counterparts. The study argues that the historic economic criteria used in accepting immigrants to Canada continue to work well. However, current immigration targets and growth in the number of temporary foreign workers and international students, the author suggests, are at the core of the problem regarding immigration in Canada and the resulting strains on housing and social services.
Social Mobility
The Hub’s report on a Montreal Economic Institute study regarding social mobility puts some hard numbers to the widespread sense that young people are having difficulty meeting or exceeding the standard of living of their parents. Alberta is the top-ranking province, though its numbers are still low compared to historical standards. Quebec placed last in the rankings.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
As the Alberta teachers' strike drags on, an Angus Reid Institute poll this week shows that public sympathy seems to side with the teachers over the government in a dispute where class sizes and teacher compensation are the highest profile issues. This week, Alberta’s chief electoral officer allowed a citizen initiative to go forward regarding the province’s funding for independent schools, which the teachers’ unions oppose. The initiative could result in a province-wide referendum on ending independent school funding. Interestingly, while approximately one-third of the population agrees with the “no public funding at all” option, more than half continue to support funding, with 15 percent of parents with school-age children wanting even higher for private schools. Advocates for the referendum have until February 11, to gather the required 177,732 signatures to see this petition go to the next step and possibly become a future referendum. Cardus Education Program Director Joanna VanHof made the case in a National Post interview that pitting the dispute in public vs. private education terms represents “a failure of imagination.” Joanna suggests reframing the conversation to ask, “What is education ultimately for? What is its purpose? Why do we do it?” The answers to those questions, Joanna suggests, should point to the formation of the whole person and human flourishing, which would require access to affordable educational options for families.
.
TAKE IT TO-GO
I was in the Cardus lunchroom on Wednesday when I learned about a falling fish smashing a Saskatchewan woman’s windshield. It wasn’t easy to wipe away the story, and filleting a pun or two from it seemed appropriate. By the time I checked the reference on Thursday, the New York Post had turned it into a “holy mackerel” headline. The fishy puns write themselves, and as you know since you are reading this, I took the bait. But truthfully, what I find equally amazing about the media coverage is the assurance in the CBC article that “falling fish are not common” (did anyone actually think they were?) and the fact that New York Post readers are presumed to know that Turtle Lake, Saskatchewan exists. It would seem that neither the writers at the CBC nor at the New York Post were aware of Saskatchewan lore about the Turtle Lake Monster, which, given the context of fish falling from the sky, might seem a relevant angle to pursue. But Insights is a place for commentary, not investigative journalism, so we will leave it to the locals to follow up. I will come out of my shell only long enough to wonder if “gone fishing” may mean something different in Turtle Lake than elsewhere.
Have a good week. Looking forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday.