By Daniel Béland

March 22, 2026

We live in an increasingly uncertain world. Amid trade wars, hot wars, geopolitical conflicts, and rising oil prices, the disruption-and-destruction rap sheet of the second Trump administration grows longer by the day.

As Prime Minister Mark Carney said during his now-famous Davos Speech on January 20, as a middle power, Canada must adapt to this challenging new context.

Yet, despite this turbulent environment, with the help of Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), our fellow citizens are asked to answer a divisive question related to our beloved national sport: does controversial former hockey player, coach, and television celebrity Don Cherry deserve the Order of Canada?

The Cherry-picking debate began early in March, several weeks after Cherry, who is nicknamed “Grapes,” (as in “sour grapes”, bestowed early in his career) received the Order of Ontario.

On March 5th, Conservative MP Andrew Lawton publicly supported his induction to the Order of Canada, which is depicted on the Governor General’s website as “the cornerstone of the Canadian Honours System (…) [that] recognizes outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation.”

Lawton announced his support for Cherry’s nomination on X, where he stated that “For decades, Don Cherry has celebrated hockey, honoured veterans, and said what millions think — without apology.” His post featured a link to a petition to “Appoint Don Cherry to the Order of Canada” posted on the website of the CPC.

Later that day, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre approvingly shared Lawton’s post on social media while stating that “Don Cherry embodies what it means to be a proud Canadian.” In other words, the CPC clearly endorsed this pro-Cherry campaign, not only by posting the online petition but also through its leader’s own words, conveyed on social media.

This apparent consensus within Conservative ranks did not last long for a reason alluded to in the very Conservative petition meant to promote Cherrey’s nomination to the Order of Canada: “Whereas Don Cherry’s candid and unapologetic style reflects a spirit of authenticity and independence that resonated with millions of Canadians.”

Although powerful voices across Canada, especially on the left, have denounced the ongoing CPC petition, opposition to it has proved especially strong in Quebec, including among members of Pierre Poilivere’s Quebec caucus.

Here, the words “candid” and “unapologetic” point to the fact that Cherry is a blunt and controversial figure whose words triggered strong public backlashes during his long career.

Over the years, Cherry, who turned 92 last month, alienated many viewers through his provocative statements about several groups, including women, francophones, and immigrants.

In fact, in November 2019, his long career as a TV personality ended as he was fired after he had used his “Coach’s Corner” segment on “Hockey Night In Canada” to call into question the patriotism of people who fail to wear poppy pins ahead of Remembrance Day.

A strong supporter of the armed forces and veterans, he said the following: “You people that come here, whatever it is — you love our way of life. You love our milk and honey. At least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that. These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada. These guys paid the biggest price for that”.

By suggesting that new Canadians lacked patriotism, Cherry generated such an uproar that Sportsnet fired him. Sportsnet’s decision angered members of Cherry’s fanbase, who denounced the apparent excesses of the “cancel culture” but, as the Montreal Gazette pointed out at the time, the reaction in francophone Quebec was very positive due to his long track record of anti-francophone statements.

In this context, it is not surprising that many people in Quebec reacted very negatively to the idea of inducting Cherry to the Order of Canada. Although powerful voices across Canada, especially on the left, have denounced the ongoing CPC petition, opposition to it has proved especially strong in Quebec, including among members of Pierre Poilivere’s Quebec caucus.

For instance, Conservative MP Éric Lefebvre said that he opposed the idea of allocating the Order of Canada to Cherry because his “repeated remarks have often given the impression that some Canadians are less legitimate than others.” Several of his Quebec Conservative colleagues echoed that sentiment, which is widespread in Quebec, regardless of partisan affiliation.

From this perspective, Poilievre’s decision to support Cherry’s nomination to the Order of Canada created tensions within the Conservative caucus while further alienating Quebec voters who, in general, are already not keen to support the party.

Yet, beyond Quebec, Poilievre’s endorsement is also problematic because, when you have long sought to distance yourself from Trump and you clearly need to improve your standing among female voters, embracing a polarizing, hypermasculine figure like Cherry, who has much in common stylistically with the U.S. president, is problematic to say the least.

As Lucas Aykroyd pointed out nearly a decade ago, like Trump, Cherry was “adept at riling up his core audience — blue-collar, beer-drinking white males — with simple, gut-level rhetoric.” Consequently, embracing Cherry is very unlikely to help Poilievre expand his base, including and especially among both women and more centrist voters. Quite the opposite.

Considering all of this, it is not surprising that Prime Minister Carney has refused to comment on the most recent Cherry controversy. This is a smart move politically, unlike Poilievre’s decision to embrace a divisive public personality who resembles President Trump in so many ways.

Daniel Béland is professor of political science and director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University.