Josh Freed: Celebrate Canada and Quebec by swatting bugs and jumping in a lake
The two days are barometers of our political times, so here's my post-holiday review of Canada Day and St-Jean.
Canada Day has never been an overly patriotic or nationalistic day, one of many advantages of being Canadian.
Most Canadians traditionally celebrate by going to the country for the long weekend to smack bugs and jump in a lake.
But this year Canada Day was on steroids in much of the country as people belted out the anthem, unfurled supersized U.S.-style Canadian flags and wore T-shirts saying 'Canada is not for sale' and 'Never 51!'
Here in Montreal, the Canada Day parade was cancelled at the last minute, as usual. But a small informal 'march' happened in Old Montreal that attracted so many sympathetic American and European tourists, they probably outnumbered us locals, who don't always attend these things.
Canada's new nationalism has also infected Quebec, where recent polls show most Quebecers are very proud to be Canadian, even more so than people in some other provinces.
Many francophones are suddenly feeling sappy about maple syrup, Mounties and moose, while humming the national anthem in the shower.
The secret glue that's cementing our country is U.S. President Donald Trump, who's made us all appreciate what he's threatened to take away. From coast-to-coast we're taking pride in boycotting U.S. goods and discussing where in the States we aren't going.
'So where are you NOT going this summer?'
'Oh, we're not going to Vermont or Old Orchard, like we usually do. We'll be staycationing in Snowdon instead. And where WON'T you be going?'
Meanwhile, in Ottawa, our new PM, Mark Carney, gave a brief speech on July 1 about Canada being a kind, caring nation, and it rang true given that our southern neighbour has officially abandoned those virtues. Instead, the U.S. has embraced a new motto: 'Nice guys and countries finish last.'
As much of the world turns crueller and more selfish, Canada is managing to look good, by just not changing much.
Our PM was elected as a Liberal, but he's a former banker who's pushing his party to the centre, talking pipelines, business, and 'Build baby, build,' while still sounding liberal about social policy.
So he's kind of a Liberal Conservative.
Until a few decades ago, we had a party like that called the Progressive Conservatives, under leaders like Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. But then Western 'reformers' turned it into the more radical and shrill Conservative party that Pierre Poilievre now incarnates.
Lately, with Trump threatening, many Canadians were ready to move to the political centre, so the Liberals did, stealing economic policies from the Tories but staying socially liberal.
Thus we elected Carney, an old-fashioned Progressive Conservative.
Our new Liberal PM is actually a Red Tory.
St-Jean: Canada Day's new patriotism may have stolen some thunder from Quebec's Fête nationale this June 24, though nationalism has been on the decline here for years.
There was a big Rachel Ave. parade and hundreds of low-key block parties and concerts, but most Quebecers celebrated the day like other Canadians — by going to the country to swat bugs and jump in a lake.
Much of the francophone media's June 24 coverage was about remembering a famous St-Jean night 50 years ago, in 1975, when more than a million people celebrated atop Mount Royal in a great wave of nationalism.
One of them was me, curious to see a remarkable event that symbolized the times.
I still remember the scene: There were vast mobs of people swathed head-to-toe in fleur-de-lis, and giant bonfires being lit everywhere you looked, occasionally barbecuing Canadian flags.
Gilles Vigneault had just written 'Gens du Pays' for the occasion, which quickly became Quebec's unofficial national anthem, and also its Happy Birthday song, even for many anglos. The crowds sang it again and again along with 'le Québec aux Québécois' until dawn, when the police broke up the party.
But as usual in Quebec, as an anglo I felt totally welcomed as part of the gang by nationalists delighted I was there to celebrate.
The intensity of the nationalism was awesome and remained so for several years. Compare that with more recent St-Jean activities: genteel neighbourhood block parties attended by all ethnicities and outdoor concerts that are dwarfed by the jazz festival, which is practically Quebec's modern national holiday.
Like Canada Day, June 24 has become more of a national day off. This St-Jean I didn't even see many fleur-de-lis flying on homes in my Plateau neighbourhood, which was once festooned with them.
These days people are proud to be Quebecers, but proud to be Canadians, too.
Quebecers aren't heading to Mount Royal in millions, but we are all thrumming proudly, pleased our province and our country feel like a refuge against a threatening world.
Quebecers are still fighting for sovereignty, but like most Canadians, that's now sovereignty from the U.S.
So let's thank Donald Trump for making our national holidays great again.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Sun
22 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
HANSON: The decline and fall of our so-called degreed experts
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump is reflected in the bullet proof glass as he finishes speaking at a campaign rally in Lititz, Pa., Nov. 3, 2024. Photo by Matt Rourke / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The first six months of the Trump administration have not been kind to the experts and the degree-holding classes. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Almost daily during the tariff hysterias of March, we were told by university economists and most of the PhDs employed in investment and finance that the U.S. was headed toward a downward, if not recessionary, spiral. Most economists lectured that trade deficits did not really matter. Or they insisted that the cures to reduce them were worse than the $1.1-trillion deficit itself. They reminded us that free, rather than fair, trade alone ensured prosperity. So, the result of Donald Trump's foolhardy tariff talk would be an impending recession. America would soon suffer rising joblessness, inflation — or rather a return to stagflation — and likely little, if any, increase in tariff revenue as trade volume declined. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Instead, recent data show increases in tariff revenue. Personal real income and savings were up. Job creation exceeded prognoses. There was no surge in inflation. The supposedly 'crashed' stock market reached historic highs. Common-sense Americans might not have been surprised. The prior stock market frenzy was predicated on what was, in theory, supposed to have happened rather than what was likely to occur. After all, if tariffs were so toxic and surpluses irrelevant, why did our affluent European and Asian trading rivals insist on both surpluses and protective tariffs? Most Americans recalled that the mere threat of tariffs and Trump's jawboning had led to several trillion dollars in promised foreign investment and at least some plans to relocate manufacturing and assembly back to the United States. Would that change in direction not lead to business optimism and eventually more jobs? Would countries purposely running up huge surpluses through asymmetrical trade practices not have far more to lose in negotiations than those suffering gargantuan deficits? Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Were Trump's art-of-the-deal threats of prohibitive tariffs not mere starting points in negotiations that would eventually lead to likely agreements more favorable to the U.S. than in the past and moderate rather than punitive tariffs? Would not the value of the huge American consumer market mean that our trade partners, who were racking up substantial surpluses, would agree they could afford modest tariffs and trim their substantial profit margins rather than suicidally price themselves out of a lucrative market entirely? U.S. Border Patrol and protesters clash after a raid was conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement near a Home Depot store in Paramount, Calif., Saturday, June 7, 2025. Photo by Apu Gomes / Getty Images GOT IT WRONG Economists and bureaucrats were equally wrong on the border. We were told for four years that only 'comprehensive immigration reform' would stop illegal immigration. In fact, most Americans differed. They knew firsthand that we had more than enough immigration laws, but had elected as President Joe Biden, who deliberately destroyed borders and had no intention of enforcing existing laws. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. When Trump promised that he would ensure that, instead of 10,000 foreign nationals entering illegally each day, within a month, no one would, our experts scoffed. But if the border patrol went from ignoring or even aiding illegal immigrants to stopping them right at the border, why would such a prediction be wrong? Those favoring a reduction in illegal immigration and deportations also argued that crime would fall, and citizen job opportunities would increase, given an estimated 500,000 aliens with criminal records had entered illegally during the Biden administration, while millions of other illegal aliens were working off the books, for cash, and often at reduced wages. Indeed, once the border was closed tightly, hundreds of thousands were returned to their country, and employers began turning to U.S. citizens. Job opportunities did increase. Crime did go down. Legal-only immigration regained its preferred status over illegal entry. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump talked of trying voluntary deportation — again to wide ridicule from immigration 'experts.' But why would not a million illegal aliens wish to return home 'voluntarily' — if they were given free flights, a $1,000 bonus, and, most importantly, a chance later to reapply for legal entry once they arrived home? Many of our national security experts warned that taking out Iran's nuclear sites was a fool's errand. It would supposedly unleash a Middle East tsunami of instability. It would cause a wave of terrorism. It would send oil prices skyrocketing. It would not work, ensuring Iran would soon reply with nuclear weapons. OIL PRICES DECREASED In fact, oil prices decreased after the American bombing. A 25-minute entrance into Iranian airspace and bombing led to a ceasefire, not a conflagration. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. As for a big power standoff, World War III, and 30,000 dead, common sense asked why China would wish the Strait of Hormuz to close, given that it imports half of all Middle Eastern oil produced? Why would Russia — bogged down in Ukraine and suffering nearly a million casualties — wish to mix it up in Iran, after ignominiously fleeing Syria and the fall of its Assad clients? Russia usually thinks of Russia, period. It does not lament when tensions elsewhere are expected to spike oil prices. Why would Russia resupply Iran's destroyed Russian-made anti-aircraft systems, when it was desperate to ward off Ukrainian air attacks on its homeland, and Iran would likely again lose any imported replacements? As for waves of terror, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis have suffered enormous losses from Israel. Their leadership has been decapitated; their streams of Iranian money have been mostly truncated. Why would they rush to Iran's side to war with Israel, when Iran did not come to their aid when they were battling and losing to the Israelis? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Has a theater-wide war really ever started when one side entered and left enemy territory in 25 minutes, suffering no casualties and likely killing few of the enemy? As far as the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure, why should we believe our expert pundit class? Prior to the American and Israeli bombing, many of them warned that Iran was not on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, and therefore, there was little need for any such preemptive action. Then, post facto, the same experts flipped. Now they claimed, after the bombing that severely damaged most Iranian nuclear sites, that there was an increased threat, given that some enriched uranium (which they had previously discounted) surely had survived and thus marked a new existential danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Was Trump really going to 'blow up,' 'destroy' or 'cripple' NATO, as our diplomatic experts insisted, when his first-term jawboning led from six to twenty-three nations meeting their two per cent of GDP defence spending promises? Given two ongoing theater-wide wars, given Trump's past correct predictions about the dangers of the Nord Stream II pipeline, given the vulnerability of an anemic NATO to Russian expansionism, and given that Russian leader Vladimir Putin did not invade during Trump's first term, unlike the three presidencies before and after his own, why wouldn't NATO agree to rearm to five per cent, and appreciate Trump's efforts both to bolster the capability of the alliance and the need to end the Ukraine war? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Why were our 'scientific' pollsters so wrong in the last three presidential elections, and so at odds with the clearly discernible electoral shifts in the general electorate? Where were crackpot ideas like defund the police, transgender males competing in women's sports, and open borders first born and nurtured? Answer: the university, and higher education in general. The list of wrongheaded, groupthink, and degreed expertise could be vastly expanded. We remember the '51 intelligence authorities' who swore the Hunter Biden laptop was 'likely' cooked up by the Russians. Our best and brightest economists signed letters insisting that Biden's multitrillion-dollar wasteful spending would not result in inflation spikes. Our global warming professors' past predictions should have ensured that Americans were now boiling, with tidal waves destroying beachfront communities, including Barack Obama's two beachfront multimillion-dollar estates. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Our legal eagles, after learning nothing from the bogus Mueller investigation and adolescent Steele dossier, but with impressive Ivy League degrees, pontificated for years that, by now, Trump would be in jail for life, given 91 'walls are closing in' and 'bombshell' indictments. WHY DO THEY NEVER LEARN? So why are the degreed classes so wrong and yet so arrogantly never learn anything from their past flawed predictions? One, our experts usually receive degrees from our supposedly marquee universities. But as we are now learning from long overdue autopsies of institutionalized campus racial bias, neo-racial segregation, 50-percent-plus price-gauging surcharges on federal grants, and rabid antisemitism, higher education in America has become anti-Enlightenment. Universities now wage war against free-thinkers, free speech, free expression, and anything that freely questions the deductive groupthink of the diversity/equity/inclusion commissariat, and global warming orthodoxies. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The degreed expert classes emerge from universities whose faculties are 90-95 percent left-wing and whose administrations are overstaffed and terrified of their radical students. The wonder is not that the experts are incompetent and biased, but that there are a brave few who are not. Two, Trump drove the degreed class insane to the degree it could no longer, even if it were willing and able (and it was not), offer empirical assessments of his policies. From his crude speech to his orange skin to his Queens accent to his MAGA base to his remarkable counterintuitive successes and to his disdain for the bicoastal elite, our embarrassing experts would rather be dead wrong and anti-Trump than correct in their assessments — if they in any small way helped Trump. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Three, universities are not just biased, but increasingly mediocre and ever more isolated from working Americans and their commonsense approaches to problem solving. PhD programs in general are not as rigorous as they were even two decades ago. Grading, assessments, and evaluations in professional schools must increasingly weigh non-meritocratic criteria, given their admissions and hiring protocols are not based on disinterested evaluation of past work and expertise. Read More The vast endowments of elite campuses, the huge profit-making foreign enrollments, and the assured, steady stream of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid created a sense of fiscal unreality, moral smugness, unearned superiority, and ultimately, blindness to just how isolated and disliked the professoriate had become. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But the public has caught on that too many Ivy-League presidents were increasingly a mediocre, if not incompetent, bunch. Most university economists could not run a small business. The military academies did not always turn out the best generals and admirals. The most engaging biographers were not professors. And plumbers and electricians were usually more skilled in their trades than most journalist graduates were in their reporting. Add it all up, and the reputation of our predictors, prognosticators, and experts has been radically devalued to the point of utter worthlessness. – Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of 'The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won,' from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@ RECOMMENDED VIDEO Crime Other Sports Editorials Canada World


Toronto Sun
2 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
GOLDSTEIN: Canada's retaliatory tariffs having little impact on U.S.
Prime Minister Mark Carney greets U.S. President Donald Trump during an arrival ceremony at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on June 16, 2025. Photo by STEFAN ROUSSEAU/POOL / AFP via Getty Images The practical problem Prime Minister Mark Carney faces in negotiating a new trade and security deal with President Donald Trump is that Canada is firing blanks with its retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The issue, as Carney noted in explaining why 'dollar-for-dollar' tariffs against the U.S. won't work — after he initially supported them while running for the Liberal leadership — is that the U.S. economy is 10 times the size of Canada's. That means that Canadian counter tariffs on $95.4 billion worth of U.S. goods to date, along with the 'buy Canadian' campaign urged by the federal government, are having little real-world impact on the U.S. economy. Writing in The Hub last month, University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe, said that in April — the latest data available — the total economic decline in the U.S. due to Canada's retaliatory measures, 'represents about $3.8 billion in missed Canadian purchases from U.S. firms. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'While that sounds substantial, the scale of the U.S. economy puts it into perspective: with a nominal GDP of nearly $30 trillion in U.S. dollars — or about $41 trillion in Canadian dollars — this loss amounts to just 0.1% of monthly economic activity' meaning, 'these early signs suggest the impact on the U.S. economy is minimal.' Regarding the voluntary consumer boycotts of American-made products, and buying Canadian ones instead, Tombe wrote: 'While individual choices may have shifted behaviour at the margins, the data reveal no consistent or large-scale changes in imports outside of tariffed goods. 'More data in the months ahead may tell us more. But for now, the conclusion is clear: while retaliatory tariffs had measurable effects on Canadian trade flows, and consumer boycotts — however well-intentioned — reflected genuine public anger with the U.S., neither has yet produced any meaningful economic impact south of the border', which was the Carney government's stated aim. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Similarly, Carleton University economics professor Vivek Dehejia told iPolitics in February that politicians urging Canadians to buy Canadian-made products over U.S. ones was 'tokenism'. 'It's a nice idea and it's nice there's been an uptick in patriotism and nationalism, but I don't think it's realistic. 'We simply can't replace everything that we import from the U.S. because we're a much smaller economy. 'I don't think it's going to cause much damage to the U.S. economy … it's not going to fix our problem.' That's why Carney, criticized by former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy for taking a 'bootlicking' approach to Trump's demands — easy for him to say since he's not on the hot seat — has already made numerous concessions to the U.S. president in order to avoid an all-out economic war which Canada would lose. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The latest was Carney scrapping Canada's digital services tax last Sunday, after Trump threatened to end trade and security negotiations with Canada over the DST last Friday. Carney has also delayed retaliation against Trump doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50% last month, pending the outcome of the now-resumed negotiations for a trade and security deal between Canada and the U.S. by July 21. In other measures to appease Trump: Carney introduced the 'Strong Borders Act' to 'keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl, and crack down on money laundering' in deference to Trump's demands about border security. He announced Canada would meet its long-neglected NATO target of spending 2% of annual GDP on defence by March 31, 2026, another Trump demand, and said Canada would also comply with Trump's demand to increase spending on defence to 5% of GDP by 2035. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. He suspended counter-tariffs on some U.S. goods for six months on the grounds Canadian industries needed time to adjust. None of this is surprising given that Canada is the smaller economic partner in negotiations with the U.S. It appears to have succeeded — at least temporarily — in avoiding the full range of tariffs that Trump could launch against Canada, which Carney hopes to avoid by reaching a deal with him by July 21. Read More This prior to the launch of negotiations on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade scheduled for next year. To be fair, Trump launched this trade war against Canada and many other countries, not the reverse, and he thinks nothing of violating existing trade agreements. That said, Carney's actions on this issue since becoming prime minister are fundamentally different from the 'elbows up' rhetoric he campaigned on during the federal election. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Crime Toronto Blue Jays Canada Other Sports Editorials


Canada News.Net
3 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
CHINA-HAINAN-BOAO-MEDICAL TOURISM (CN)
(250705) -- BOAO, July 5, 2025 (Xinhua) -- Canadian figure skating coach Mark Batka (C) experiences Chinese calligraphy at the Boao Yiling Life Care Center in Boao, a coastal town of south China's Hainan Province, June 12, 2025. TO GO WITH "Across China: Hainan emerges as China's premier international medical tourism destination" (Xinhua)