Liberation Day Spirit

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

“My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day,” US President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday. “April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America prosperous again.”

Mr. Trump has a unique understanding of “liberation,” one that I don’t share. I suspect most Canadians don’t share it either. Still, the concept of “liberation” is especially important to Canadians today.

As a Canadian of Dutch ancestry, I’ve always known May 5 as Liberation Day. In 1945, Canadian LGen Charles Foulkes accepted the formal surrender of the German forces in the Netherlands. Foulkes’s troops had been working to liberate the Netherlands after five years of Nazi occupation. Hearing first-hand stories of the relief and joy from family members who lived through that day has instilled in me a pride for what the country of my birth did to help the country of my parents’ birth. And while I knew that many important leaders made important decisions that led to this happy result, the word “liberation” brings to mind the combination of the courage of ordinary nameless soldiers who implemented those decisions and the collective spirit of a people that led to the outcome. Liberation is a group effort, not a leadership decision.

With that in mind, it becomes difficult to see actual liberation in Mr. Trump’s actions. Three days have passed since he announced the most extensive suite of new tariffs in over a century, hitting almost every country on the globe. While the US president has his supporters, who assert that short-term tariff pain is a modest price to pay for the economic boom it will bring to the United States, many are critical and skeptical. The markets plunged by about 6 percent on their first day of reaction; numerous countries targeted by the United States began to announce their own counter-tariffs. The prestigious Economist magazine represented mainstream economic thinking: “(S)purred on by his delusions, Donald Trump announced the biggest break in America’s trade policy in over a century—and committed the most profound, harmful and unnecessary economic error in the modern era.”

While it was a modest relief that Canada wasn't on the list for additional tariffs (beyond those implemented last month), this was hardly a reason for celebration. As discussed previously, Canada and Mexico have been in Mr. Trump's tariff crosshairs since before his inauguration. The 25 percent tariff on exports outside the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, along with those on steel, aluminum, and the 10 percent on Canadian energy, is hurting our economy badly and is a bad-faith misuse of “security provisions” to break binding agreements. The automotive sector announced thousands of layoffs on Thursday. If there is any relief following Wednesday, it is because Canada and Mexico are no longer alone as Mr. Trump's targets; the whole world is feeling the flex of US economic muscle. But misery having company is still misery.

It's not that no economists are defending Mr. Trump. American Compass economist Oren Cass stands out as one of the more coherent voices, arguing that the last fifty years of free trade have led the United States to prioritize cheap goods over good jobs. He maintains the distinction between trade deficits and subsidies without resorting to the president’s incendiary and dishonest rhetoric, asserting that these steps will “lay the groundwork for a new set of arrangements in the international economy that prioritize the national interest and the flourishing of the nation's working families.”

Respected Canadian economist Roger Martin emphasizes the importance of balance in trading relationships. He compares the Canada-US relationship to a small company that gets a Walmart contract and becomes excited about the growth it offers, only to find itself totally dependent on a single customer with its profit margins squeezed just a few years later. Martin suggests that large countries like the United States—following China's lead—have the leverage to charge a premium for market access. He recommends that Canada seek a customs union with the United States. While a free trade agreement centres on the tariffs two countries will impose on one another to access each other's markets, a customs union (like the European Union) also establishes a common policy regarding external tariffs. This indeed became a much more difficult argument to present politically after Wednesday.

Eventually, economists (and investors) will tally the numbers, and they’ll either prove US President Trump was right or prove him wrong. In the meantime, the consequences extend far beyond economics.

The United States is a sovereign country. President Trump won the election by highlighting his love for "the most beautiful word in the dictionary—tariff,” so no one should be surprised by his agenda. As he noted on Wednesday, “Promises made, promises kept.” However, his approach to implementing these tariffs—breaking the very agreements he signed, using mistruths, seemingly maximizing confusion to enhance his leverage, and violating the historic norms of providing notice, respectful engagement and time for transition—means hurting many more people than would be necessary. Worse yet, it contributes to the increased suffering of ordinary workers. Everyone, including the US president, knows ordinary folk will bear the brunt of this transition. It is one thing to exercise your rights and implement your policies. It is another to do so in a way that inflicts harm on as many people as possible. The former speaks to policy; the latter to character (something Insights has addressed before).

Whatever “liberation” Mr. Trump has in mind for the United States, his presidency and actions have underlined just how attached Canada is to its giant neighbour. The crisis in Canada-US relations in the age of Trump has led to the radical change in the polls. The Liberals, under Mark Carney's leadership, have seen their deficit of around 20 points become a substantial polling lead. I don’t blame the Liberals for trying to make this campaign about Mr. Carney’s resume—Macleans presented him to Canadians in 2011 as “the Canadian hired to save the world.” Any campaign manager who didn’t try to build on that brand should be fired.

Neither do I blame US President Trump for doing what he thinks serves his and his country’s best interests, misguided as I think he is. (I do blame him for the unethical manner in which he is doing it but we’ve already beat that drum.) I can’t tell how much he is consciously framing the timing and tone of his statements to achieve a Canadian election result he desires. Mr. Trump has said Liberals are “easier to deal” with and that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is “stupidly no friend of mine.” But who really knows if he actually prefers Poilievre to Carney? It’s all happening in plain view. Any Canadian concerned about this sort of election interference can vote accordingly. That said, the response to Mr. Trump from Canadian political leaders has certainly become, if not the primary, then a primary election issue, with many perceiving the question of “who can best handle Trump” as the defining ballot question. But that’s on the voters, not the leaders.

Voters make their ballot choices for different reasons. I think it’s misguided, but I fear that many Canadians see this election as the selection of the best negotiator. Hire the right guy to get us the best deal, and we will be liberated. They seem to be overlooking that regardless of the negotiator, the cards in that negotiator’s hand deserve more attention than they’re getting so far.

Isn't a key part of this election ensuring that the negotiator we select also has the best plan to ensure the Canadian economy prospers, not only in our relationship with the United States but also with the rest of the world? In the February 8 edition of Insights, I noted the discussion about US President Trump “doing Canada a big favour” by forcing the country to confront some hard choices it has avoided for too long. It seems that all the parties have committed to increasing our defence spending (which hopefully leads to action). Apart from Nova Scotia’s legislation to remove interprovincial trade barriers and the federal announcement lifting some procurement-related exceptions, there has been little more than talk about taking steps within our control. Our internal barriers are estimated to be equivalent to a 6.9% tariff. The election platforms have not been fully released, so I am still waiting to see bold, nation-building initiatives. So far, the signature Liberal proposal has been for the government to build 500,000 new homes, which the Liberals themselves compare to post-war housing projects. The Conservatives have highlighted building energy infrastructure, focusing on fast-tracking approvals and creating an energy corridor to accommodate approved projects. Additionally, various tax proposals aim to provide working capital for economic stimulus, but amid the focus on Trump and tariffs, policy has struggled for the spotlight.

I grew up thinking of Canada as a country of liberators. Canada had a collective will to stand for what was right and to generously help those in need, including my forebears in the Netherlands. Brave soldiers carried out this task, supported by Canadians ready to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow.

Today, Canadians are participating in an election intended to address our economic challenges. I don’t prefer the metaphor of liberation to describe our times, but the US president does. I’ll admit that framing liberation in stark economic terms without considering the human consequences of his actions devalues the term. This would be true even if his tariff policy proves effective.

However, as a citizen of a country in economic transition, intensified by Trump’s decisions, I remind myself that it is misguided to believe that liberation comes from a leader—whether Carney or Poilievre. We can’t just negotiate our way out of this predicament. We need to strengthen our case, not just hire a good negotiator. The liberation we need to escape the economic roller coaster that US President Trump has created is more a function of our collective willingness to be visionary, to make sacrifices for the right causes, and to build and plan for the long term. It relies as much on our people as it does on our leader.

I don't want to be overly dramatic. Still, since US President Trump raised the spectre of liberation, I am hoping that the spirit of the Canadian people, which has through history been an agent of liberation, will respond to our present challenges by channelling our historic identity and spirit. Here’s hoping that the spirit that has driven liberations in Canada's history will rise up, even if the moment's irony is that it will be part of a liberation from a “Liberation Day” that seems destined to damage rather than build.

WHAT I’M READING

UN Concerned About MAID in Canada

A United Nations report raised red flags this week about Canada’s expanding euthanasia regime. According to the Globe and Mail, “The report, released last month, says MAID is offered as state-sanctioned relief from suffering to people who are failed by governments that don’t properly fund access to health care or accessible housing. The report also points to shortcomings in the prevention of homelessness and gender-based violence, and failures to provide adequate welfare support and at-home mental health care.” 

Biological Clocks

Social media was all abuzz this week in response to Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s framing of his housing proposal as providing hope to young couples who want to buy affordable homes before “their biological clocks” run out. The controversy has piqued interest in a 2023 Cardus report that surveyed Canadian women, finding that on average, they had 0.5 fewer children than desired (the current fertility rate in Canada being 1.4 children per woman). As Melanie Paradis noted, it is a telling commentary on our culture when political issues cannot be candidly discussed with reference to the economic and biological realities that shape them. While family and fertility issues involve considerations well beyond the reach of public policy, the importance of babies for our national future is too crucial a matter for us to be too precious or squeamish to publicly discuss it.

Bad Candidates or Foreign Interference?

At least six nominated candidates for the federal election (the latest as of writing, a Liberal in Edmonton) were removed from the ballot this week following revelations of inappropriate or politically problematic elements from their past. This is usual for every campaign. I fully expect that after the deadline on Monday (after which parties can no longer replace candidates on the ballot, meaning any subsequent removal of a candidate results in the party sitting out that riding), there will be more news on this front as the parties seek to embarrass their opponents with the secrets they have found in their opposition research. By my count, the Conservatives have dropped four candidates, the Liberals two. However, the Liberal defense of Paul Chiang, who joked about having a Conservative rival delivered to the Chinese consulate to appease a dictatorial regime in order to receive a cash bounty, falls into a different category. I do expect that Mr. Carney will continue to have to defend why he stood by his candidate (who later resigned on his own accord), deeming a simple apology an acceptable response and calling it a “teachable moment.” It also puts foreign interference in Canadian elections into the spotlight as a reality that affects some members of diaspora communities whose speech in Canada might have harmful security implications for themselves or their extended families.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Priorities and Competence Perceptions

The poll swings have political enthusiasts checking the popularity horse race and the underlying numbers daily as the federal election campaign unfolds. I found this Angus Reid Institute graph from the past week quite revealing. It notes that both Mr. Carney and Mr. Poilievre have specific issues on which they are perceived to be best equipped to handle. However, the issues where Mr. Carney leads are also the ones that respondents say are most important right now. This data coincides with a rather public debate among Conservative strategists over the issues their campaign has highlighted. For those who appreciate a behind-the-scenes look at the internal politicking within the campaigns and parties, this week’s Maclean’s feature on the Conservative campaign manager offers some intriguing insights.

TAKE IT TO-GO

April Fools Measurements

Some April 1 pranks last much longer than lunch. This year, in fact, marks the golden anniversary of the formal introduction of the metric system (at least as it relates to official weather measurements) in Canada. It doesn’t take 32 degrees to realize that zero is a more intuitive way of describing freezing than “temperatures that are in the twenties.” But to be fair-in-height measurements, the imperial system is more intuitive. I wasn’t even in my teens yet when the change took place but I still can only describe my height and weight with feet and inches, and the fuel efficiency of my vehicle is most meaningful to me when expressed in miles per gallon.

I’m going to sidestep the debate about which system is ten, a hundred, or even a thousand times better than another; it’s a foolish discussion that should have ended at lunch on April 1st. But it didn’t. There was a metric schism that followed the implementation, and even today, the topic provokes charges of tyranny and constitutional violations. Adding to the mix the current sensitivity regarding any cross-border issues, let’s just leave the matter as something to discuss over a pint and skip the formal debate. Whether you measure the hot air that might flow from that discussion in cubic feet per minute or cubic meters per hour, perhaps it’s best to just take note of the time (which is measured by the same weeks, days, and hours in either system) and recognize that in another 168 hours, the next edition of Insights should be in your inbox.

Till then.