FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

What Does Québec’s Minority Government Led by a Separatist Party Mean to Canadian Unity?

First, a little history lesson.  After the British defeated the French in Québec and the colony became part of British North America, the Crown ensured that the rights of the French inhabitants and their language were safeguarded.  Once established as a nation in 1867, Canada went on to ensure that the French language and culture were protected under its constitution.  The federal Official Languages Act was first enacted in 1969.  Substantially revised and more recently modernized, the act gives English and French equal status, rights, and privileges in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.  In 2006, the House of Commons of Canada adopted a motion recognizing that “Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.

However, support for sovereignist movements fluctuated through subsequent decades under shifting provincial governments.  Québec’s governments under various parties have always pushed to ensure that French language and culture were promoted under the province’s policies and laws.  Formed in 1968 by René Lévesque, the first truly Québec separatist party is the Parti Québecois (PQ).  At the time the PQ combined multiple sovereignty groups into a major provincial party. They won power in 1976 and made French the sole official language in Québec via the province’s Charter of the French Language (Bill 101) in 1977.

The PQ held Québec’s first referendum in 1980 on “sovereignty-association.”  Voters rejected the proposal by a margin of 60% to 40%.  In 1995, a second more successful referendum on full independence was held under PQ Premier Jacques Parizeau.  The “No” side won by a razor-thin margin of 50.58% to 49.42%.  The federal government had waited to the last minute to finally enter the debate, not wanting to overly interfere in the provincial fray at that time.

Consequently, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that a province cannot secede unilaterally.  Moreover, only a clear majority vote on a clear question would legally oblige the federal and provincial governments to enter into constitutional negotiations.  Parliament then followed in 2000 with the federal Clarity Act which provides that the results of any referendum had to be ‘significant’ with respect to allowing for separation and not basically won by a simple majority.

Québec has always played a very important part within Canada, allowing Canadians to appreciate and support its role throughout the 159 years of the country’s existence as a nation state.  Indeed, since its founding Canada has had four explicit French-Canadian prime ministers.  Other more recent prime ministers such as Brian Mulroney and Justin Trudeau grew up bilingual or had very significant French-Canadian heritage/ties.  However, despite guaranteed Québec representation in the Canadian parliament and other institutions such as the Supreme Court, Québecers have continued to express concerns over the province’s ability to oversee its political, social and economic development.  At times, clearly being a very emotive issue, the question of independence still surfaces.

In early October of this year, following the provincial government’s Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) political and economic struggles, the separatist PQ, led by Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, won a mandate to govern.  Of course, this put future independence discussions back into the spotlight.  However, his is a minority government having gotten only 28% of the total popular vote.  There is little doubt that the spectre of Donald Trump hovered over the election, leading to major gains by the two pro-federalist Québec parties, the Liberal and Conservative parties, who together with almost 45% surpassed the PQ’s popular vote.  Interestingly, the CAQ party won no seats after having previously governed as majority governments, once again illustrating Québec’s often quite volatile political environment.

As for the future minority PQ government, St-Pierre Plamondon has stated that a referendum would only take place after the Trump administration is no longer in power.  This is despite the fact that, in recent polling, over 70 percent of Québecers indicated that they don’t want another referendum.  Indications are that, unlike in the 80s and 90s, support for independence has rapidly diminished.  Today, economic and social issues affecting ordinary Québecers have taken on much more urgency.  Any provincial government will have to immediately concern itself with the impact in particular of American tariffs on Québec enterprises which have been negatively affected by the trade war.  For this reason and the apparent lack of enthusiasm for separation among Québec’s younger generation, the initial threat to Canadian unity should prove to be somewhat minimal as compared to past separatist movements.

Leave a comment »

Canada Looks To The Arctic As Its Next Frontier

In March 2026 while visiting Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, declared that: “After decades of limited and piecemeal investments in the North, Canada’s new government is acting with a scale of ambition worthy of this vast region and its peoples. We are securing every corner of this terrain, unlocking its vast resources, and delivering the strong, connected network of communities that Northerners deserve. In this new era, we cannot rely on other nations for our security and prosperity. We are defending and building together, the true North, strong and free.”

Indeed, the PM disclosed planned government investments in defence, infrastructure, and Northern development to strengthen and secure Canada’s presence in the Arctic and unleash the North’s economic potential.  The announcement is very important and noteworthy as the federal government has been accused in the past of ignoring its Arctic territories and waters.  However, with climate change, all that has changed with the longer season for open Arctic waters in the current shipping lanes.  The defence of Canada’s north has also now been given a much higher priority.  The proposed investments will include:

  • Investing $6.5 billion in a new Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar system, in partnership with Australia, to enhance early warning and surveillance across Arctic approaches.
  • Investing over $1.3 billion across multiple Northern infrastructure programs – supporting trade corridors, airports, marine safety, and community harbours. 
  • Leveraging more than $1.6 billion from partners to strengthen transportation and marine infrastructure in Arctic and Northern communities.
  • Investing $1 billion through the Arctic Infrastructure Fund for strategic transportation infrastructure for both civilian and military use – to strengthen Canada’s Arctic security and year-round defence readiness.
  • Dedicating approximately $420 million to strengthen the year-round presence and operational capability and capacity of Canadian Armed Forces in the Arctic and the North.

Canada selected German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) in July 2026, as the preferred supplier to build up to 12 new submarines capable of operating in Artic waters.  This represented the largest military procurement deal in Canadian history.  In addition, new Arctic and offshore patrol ships have been ordered under Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy.  Already, the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) officially welcomed the CCGS Judy LaMarsh as its newest large vessel into active service in September 2026.  With two more ice-capable ships on the horizon, the CCG is set to enhance safety, sovereignty, and ocean research across our waters. 

At this time, the privately owned port of Churchill, located on the shores of Hudson Bay in Northern Manitoba, is Canada’s only deep-water Arctic seaport connected to a surface rail network.  Seen as a possible major project, the government is looking to obtain investment in order to enlarge the port’s capabilities given the increasing shipping of bulk resources during the open-water season from late July to early November.  This would include bulk grain, general cargo, and critical minerals (such as zinc and potash) destined for international markets.  Included in the proposal would be larger exploratory concepts involving potential offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, notably of great interest to the Europeans.

Canada also recognized the increasing interest in the Arctic passage, referred to as the Northwest Passage, as a new sea lane connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the icy channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.  The U.S., Russia and China have especially tested these waters, often without Canada’s blessing.  For this reason, Canada and Norway continue to work together to bolster deterrence and defence in the Arctic.  Obviously, Arctic security is a national security issue for both countries.  In March 2026, Canada and Norway established a bilateral Arctic Dialogue to strengthen cooperation across key areas, including strategic surveillance, situational awareness, interoperability, and research & development. Practical cooperation is also underway through a partnership agreement signed in June 2026 between the Canadian and Norwegian Coast Guards.  Both services have already undertaken joint training exercises in Canadian and Norwegian Arctic waters.

Leave a comment »

Should One Be Questioning Donald Trump’s Current State of Mental Health?

Recently, a number of American medical specialists, including several well known psychiatrists, have expressed concerns over the mental health of President Trump.  We are aware that Trump has fallen asleep in a crowded Oval Office as well as at cabinet meetings with people talking directly to him.  At times, he gives confusing and often contradictory statements.  He’s also has had several mysterious scans and cognitive tests administered, for which no specific reasons were given.  Just yesterday in an address about the 25th anniversary of 9/11, Trump made reference to an incident that happened to him on that horrible day in New York.  He stated that he was rescued by two firemen who carried him to safety from his office building because of a danger of collapse.  However, none of this actually happened and was proven by a journalist who actually talked to him while he resided that day in Trump Tower, located several blocks from the twin towers.  He was never in any real danger.  Why would he lie about something like that?

In May of this year it was disclosed in an article in The BMJ that some thirty American psychiatrists and other doctors specialising in mental health had signed a statement declaring President Trump mentally unfit to serve, warning that his ability to launch nuclear weapons is a “danger” to the world. The signatories say that Trump’s behaviour over the past year has shown “objectively observable signs of serious medical concern.”  Examples related to his behaviour were given regarding their conclusion that Trump may be suffering from a “marked deterioration in cognitive functioning.” Dr. Jonathan Reiner, who served as the late vice president Dick Cheney’s cardiologist for years, was among the many observers alarmed by what he saw from Trump’s behaviour, most notably during his last “incoherent” State of the Union address.

Now, it is widely known that a president’s physicians are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality and cannot publicly disclose any pertinent medical information, unless given permission by the patient.  Interestingly, in Trump’s case, his physicians have simply expressed fairly vague comments about his overall health, claiming the President is in relatively good health for his age.  However, this would not be the first time that presidential physicians have failed to disclose any real health concerns.  One only has to go back to President Ronald Reagan who served up until 1989.  Just five years later in November 1994, Reagan revealed in a handwritten letter to the American people that he had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.  Prior to that, there were indications of possible on-set dementia during the latter part of his presidency.  Included was the fact that when speaking at some occasions he would relate to a personal story about himself.  However, it became clear that at times he was actually confusing the past with one of his previous roles played as an actor in a movie.  It was also well known that he required briefing notes on issues to be outlined in no more than one page, something which clearly was difficult for his staff when dealing with complex issues.

Next, one has the most recent case of former President Joe Biden during the final year of his first term in 2025.  Everyone remembers the now infamous and disastrous debate with Trump in June 2024 when Biden stumbled and appeared to lose his train of thought as he discussed such important issues as healthcare.  Subsequently, Biden was forced to withdraw from his candidacy due to what were obvious health issues of concern.  Accusations were subsequently made about the evident cover-up by the Democratic Party and his administration as to his underlying health issues at the time.

Today, numerous observers are increasingly questioning Trump’s current state of mental and physical health.  At times, his erratic behaviour, social media outputs and false or fictional statements have led to serious concerns as those evidenced by numerous medical professionals and analysts.  With several years left in Trump’s second term, there is little doubt that any visible and verbal tendencies would lead to even more concerns.  What Americans don’t need now is another cover-up!

Leave a comment »

U.S. and Canada: Will the Elephant Crush the Sleeping Mouse Next to It?

Years ago when I was in college studying economics and political science, I read a book which compared the relationship of the U.S. and Canada to that of an elephant and a mouse quietly sleeping next to each other.  Fortunately, history has shown that for hundreds of years and the longest border between two nations in the world, these two countries have peacefully and beneficially thrived together.  They have been allies in two world wars, Korea, and more recently in Afghanistan.  Economically, both countries for several decades have supported each other by integrating much of the North American market, including those sectors such as energy and manufacturing.  Despite what the Trump administration expounds, Canadian and American consumers alike have benefited from free trade and tourism between both countries.  They also share a common labour force, with Canadians working in the U.S. and Americans working in Canada.  Indeed, several of my university profs were American and greatly welcomed for their expertise and studies in various fields.  Importantly, since World War II and the advent of the Cold War involving the then Soviet Union, both countries have devoted military resources to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) founded in 1955.

Now, we are in a trade war with ultimatums by the Trump administration continuously been thrown at Canadian negotiators.  The problem is that a number of U.S. issues raised are direct attacks on the sovereignty of Canada as a nation.  It now unfortunately appears that the position of both governments has become a test of will, with neither side willing to budge at this time.  Certain issues raised touch directly on elements of Canadian culture, and in particular the country’s second official language, French.  Moreover, there is little need to discuss the nature of tariff reciprocity as it is aptly covered by both U.S. and Canadian media.  Indeed, unlike the negotiations in the past dealing with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the more recent Canada, Mexico and U.S. Agreement (CUSMA), there is much more American coverage of the current trade negotiations then ever before.  If anything, Trump’s heated assertions and accusations have raised the temperature quite a bit.

What now is interesting is that there are some who believe that Prime Minister Mark Carney may be testing whether defiance is a viable strategy against Trump.  This is why a number of other countries are closely paying attention to this trade dispute.  Indeed, as the New York Times recently noted: World leaders and domestic institutions are, in some cases at least, showing less willingness to submit to Mr. Trump’s will. European leaders have refused to join his war with Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel flatly rejected his Gaza plan. Gulf Arab states forced him to abandon plans to charge a shipping toll in the Strait of Hormuz.  The Times goes on to suggest that while the president remains the most dominant figure in the world, other leaders and institutions are pushing back more vigorously than at the beginning of his second term.  Most notably, Spain, Italy, the U.K.
and Denmark have pushed back against a number of U.S. foreign policy initiatives.

Although the U.S. is obviously the elephant in the room, it might not want to escalate the trade war in light of becoming another inflation-related ingredient for both Americans and Canadians.  It would appear that the president no longer has a problem with the reduction in affordability for Americans and the harm to American businesses that export to Canada.  After all, Canada is still America’s biggest trade partner bar any others.  Insulting Canadians and questioning Canada’s sovereignty is a non-starter!  As shown in the past, Canada has been known to be the mouse that roared, especially when its back is to the wall.  Canadians and Americans have always gotten along despite the rare disagreement, such as over the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.  Travel between the two countries has always been important, given that we have so much in common and a great deal of respect for each other.  Why an American president would want to deal so much hurt on his best neighbour is hard to explain?  Time will tell whether the elephant will still want to choose to crush the mouse.

Leave a comment »

How the U.S. Cannot Afford to Not Have Free Trade With Canada

While all the attention being paid in the media to the current trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S., and the ongoing Trump ultimatums proclaiming possible new tariffs on Canadian exports to the States, the real issue is that the U.S. needs access to Canadian goods and services.  It’s not simply because there has been major integration in each country’s markets in numerous sectors, but also is due to the vast amounts of Canadian resources currently and in the future available to the U.S.  These include those in the energy sector such as oil and gas and electricity, in the mining sector with respect to rare minerals, uranium and key minerals such as copper and iron ore, and in the vast availability of potash deposits.

One only has to look at electricity produced as a result of the massive James Bay and Churchill Falls projects completed decades ago.  For the past two decades, Hydro‑Québec has been selling clean, reliable and competitively priced electricity into wholesale markets in northeastern North America.  For example, Hydro-Québec has been selling electricity into New England since the 1980s. This U.S. region accounts for about half the company’s exports.  In addition, Québec has a long history of supplying clean, renewable energy to the State of New York, beginning as far back as 1914.  In the case of New York State, Hydro-Québec can contribute in the future to the long-term clean energy vision for New York which includes:

  • 70% of the state’s electricity use to be met by renewables by 2030,
  • 100% of New York City operations to be powered from renewable sources,
  • retired nuclear plants replaced by other non-emitting generating facilities, and
  • construction of a 1,000-MW interconnection between Québec and New York City and efforts to expand existing interconnections importing clean energy.

Just this week, an agreement was signed by Québec, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Federal Government to increase up to 14,000 megawatts of new and existing hydroelectric developments in Labrador and along the Churchill River.  This mega project will represent the largest clean energy undertaking to date in North America.  Once finalized later this year, the proposal would realize a long-sought goal in Newfoundland and Labrador to transmit power from Labrador — up to 985 megawatts — through Québec to markets in the U.S.

The U.S. also imports oil from the vast reserves in Alberta’s Tar Sands, representing about 30% of total American oil imports.  Interestingly, the Trump administration has apparently linked the current possible looming trade agreement to the Keystone XL, a major pipeline project that would have transported oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. There is speculation that a new project, closely mirroring Keystone XL, could return this year as a U.S. company filed an application in Montana to build a pipeline bringing in Canadian oil.  Again, Canada had previously supported the proposed pipeline, only to have had the Biden administration scrap the project in 2021 due to environmental concerns.  Obviously and notably, Trump wants to resurrect the project in light of the current problems with the supply of oil in the Middle East due to the war with Iran, resulting in higher gas prices for Americans.

When it comes to rare minerals, Canada’s rare earth companies span every stage of development — from Vital Metals’ operational Nechalacho mine in the Northwest Territories to early-stage ionic clay and projects across British Columbia, Québec, Saskatchewan, and Labrador. Canada ranks among the most important non-Chinese jurisdictions for “rare earth element” supply development, with federal and provincial governments actively co-funding projects through the Critical Minerals Strategy.  Canada holds some of the largest known resources of rare earths globally, estimated in 2024 at over 15.2 million tonnes of rare earth oxide.  Such resources would provide a stable and secure supply of critical minerals for not only U.S. industries, but also for NATO countries for use in crucial defence-related initiatives.

Given everything, it’s easy to see why Canadians were upset when Trump declared that the U.S.does not need anything from Canada.  I’d like to strongly suggest that his assertion is totally wrong given all of the evidence.  Without encumbering and unnecessary tariffs, Canada as a major trading partner ensures that the U.S. is that much stronger both economically and geopolitically.



Leave a comment »

Domestic Consequences of Middle East War on Both the U.S. and Canada

It is now over six months since the U.S. and Israel first bombed Iran and began a war which led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, stopping the transport of oil and other important products.  Anyone who drives knows one of the primary consequences has been the significant rise in the cost of gas, diesel and petrochemical products in both countries.  Indeed, the continuing high fuel costs has now begun to show up in recent inflation figures.  After all, we all know these additional costs are simply passed on to consumers, be they related to manufacturing, transportation or agriculture.  Indeed, the “affordability” issue is now number one in a long line of economic issues affecting the Trump administration as Republicans ride into the upcoming mid-terms.

In addition, the Iran war has now been expanded throughout the Middle East region, further exasperating the problem of global fossil fuel shortages.  The war is also being carried out by Iran’s proxies, including the Houthis in Yemen and Shiite militias in Iraq.  Very recently, another far longer route to Asia through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean came under threat as drones hit tankers in Egypt — opening up a whole new front.  Reportedly, Revolutionary Guards commanders have also been deployed by Iran to serve directly on Hezbollah’s leadership council in Lebanon.  As a result of Iran’s proxy attacks throughout the region, many Middle East states have been directly affected including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Jordon, and even Egypt.  Iran’s bombing of Gulf energy facilities has caused oil prices to spike to their highest level since the war began, making it clear that increased escalation would lead to further economic costs for both the U.S. and Canada.

Most recently there have been cyberattacks on U.S. water systems, initially in Michigan and Minnesota.  Officials and experts have warned that there is evidence the attacks have grown to include at least seven states and may be far wider in scope.  As American authorities race to safeguard the nation’s water supply against such assaults, it is reported that the attacks increasingly appear to be the work of Iranian hackers.  To date, Canada has been spared such attacks on its critical infrastructure.  The use of cyber warfare is extremely alarming given the extent to which critical infrastructure depends on computers and internet connections.  Indeed, in a recent advisory, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said the hackers were “targeting water entities of all sizes” and recommended facilities unplug vulnerable controllers from the internet.  The agency has for months been warning the public that Iran may seek to compromise water and wastewater utilities and other critical infrastructure, including government services and facilities and energy sectors.  Such hacking ability means that potentially any facility using vulnerable internet-connected operational systems is at risk.  In addition, such potential attacks means that increased security and remedial measures taken to secure operational systems will prove to be very costly for many public and private organizations.

While both the U.S and Canada are not dependent on oil and gas from the Gulf states, the global nature of the industry means that the higher prices will remain in North America as long as the war continues and the Strait of Hormuz is closed.  Indeed, the consequences of the war will continue to be felt for months ahead and possibly years.  In light of Iran’s attacks on the Gulf states’ energy infrastructures, one cannot just flip a switch and expect pre-war amounts of oil to flow overnight.  For this reason, both Canada and the U.S. will be faced with higher fuel costs for some time to come, especially since domestic oil and gas production is already at their maximum levels.  Despite the fact that both countries are energy independent, global oil and gas production and its markets will continue to directly influence domestic prices and contribute to inflationary pressures. 

Leave a comment »

Finally, One Can No Longer Ignore the Impact of Climate Change

Where I live in Ottawa, Ontario, one has seen an increase in severe storms like never before, causing much damage ranging from flooding to large trees, structures and electrical poles being toppled by wind gusts.  Indeed, the Weather Network has recently reported that Ontarians are feeling the hottest temperatures recorded in the last 90 years.  Temperatures felt like the low 40s across Ontario as the heat and humidity continued to ramp up.  As was the case not that long ago, what could compound the heat issues was once again wildfire smoke that reached parts of the province from neighbouring Quebec, lowering localized air quality and causing respiratory problems.

While tornadoes and flash floods are eye-catching disasters, extreme heat silently claims more lives than most other severe weather events combined.  One glaring example of this was the historic Chicago heat wave of 1995, where feels-like values rose into the 40s for days on end.  The heat claimed more than 500 lives, affecting most residents who lived in neighbourhoods lacking reliable access to air conditioning.  Another event was British Columbia ’s heat dome in June 2021 which claimed a similarly high toll, with nearly 600 people dying in the province as a result of the historic streak of high temperatures.  Most recently, data shows that Europe recorded over 10,000 excess deaths during a late-June heat wave.  Scientists have concluded that this heat wave would have been “virtually impossible” without ‌human-caused climate change, making heat waves more frequent and intense.

However, despite the fact that the U.S. produces around 40% of global greenhouse emissions, the current federal administration is cutting programs aimed at reducing man-made emissions, including initiatives promoting the development of green energy in favour of fossil fuels.  President Trump announced in February 2026 that he was erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment, ending the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet.  The action is considered a key step in removing limits on carbon dioxide, methane and four other greenhouse gases that scientists say are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather.

In Canada, Prime Minister Carney is also pushing for more large energy projects involving the production and transportation of fossil fuels, particularly out of Alberta.  However, the federal and provincial governments are at least continuing to develop more electricity production sources involving green energy, such as in the nuclear sector.  However, previous Canadian targets for greenhouse emissions reduction have been put off until much later dates due to economic considerations.

There is little doubt that extreme heat events will become more common in the years to come.  It’s more important than ever to recognize the dire and silent toll that extreme heat can exact upon vulnerable populations, and work to mitigate the dangers posed by prolonged hot temperatures in communities that don’t have adequate access to ways to cool off.  In addition, communities will have to improve their infrastructure capabilities to better cope with extreme events ranging from flooding, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes.  Currently, it has become increasingly obvious that the existing infrastructure and prevention programs are inadequate to ensure our safety during such events.  Following the aftermath of such events, the monetary costs alone are enormous for victims, insurance companies and governments at all levels.

The time for governments to act is right now.  One must act against those who claim climate change as a “hoax”.  In order to encourage our two countries to transition away from fossil fuels and toward solar, wind and other nonpolluting energy, we must counteract groups of conservative activists as well as oil, gas and coal interests.  Otherwise, as eluded to by the American Environmental Defense Fund, one can expect that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 10 percent over the next 30 years.  Moreover, environmental concerns do not stop at our borders.

Leave a comment »

250 Years of Numerous U.S. Flawed Foreign Policy Excursions

Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century American ideology which held that the U.S. was divinely ordained to expand across the North American continent.  Coined in 1845, the concept justified territorial expansion, the spread of American democracy, and the displacement of Indigenous peoples and foreign powers.  The current president has even alluded to its re-emergence as a U.S.
foreign policy in the southern hemisphere.

One past result was the Spanish–American War of 1898, fought between Spain and the U.S., which  began with the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbour in Cuba. The war resulted in the U.S. acquiring sovereignty over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines and establishing a protectorate over Cuba.  It represented U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and the Philippine Revolution, the latter later leading to the Philippine–American War in 1899. The Spanish–American War brought an end to almost four centuries of Spanish presence in the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific. The U.S. meanwhile not only became a major world power, but also gained several island possessions spanning the globe, which provoked rancorous debate over the wisdom of expansionism.

As for Cuba prior to the Cuban Revolution under Fidel Castro in 1959, the Batista regime was a U.S.-backed dictatorship in Cuba led by Fulgencio Batista.  Batista seized power via a military coup in 1952.  His government was characterized by extreme corruption, human rights violations, and a close alliance with the American Mafia, which controlled lucrative Havana casinos and hotels.  Shortly after Fidel Castro overthrew the much hated Batista regime, the U.S. portrayed Castro as a Soviet-backed Communist, something which was not true at the time.  However, following the failed CIA-supported “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba in 1961 and American sanctions levied on Cuba’s largest export “sugar” to the U.S., the Cubans had no choice but to seek economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union.

Then came the Vietnam War beginning in 1955 which lasted until 1973 when U.S. forces were hastily withdrawn following the downfall of the South Vietnamese dictatorship.  The conflict was the second of the Indochina wars and perceived by the U.S. as a proxy war of the Cold War period between the Soviet Union and U.S.  However, the Vietnam War was actually one of the postcolonial wars of national liberation, and an internal civil war between North and South Vietnam.  According to the National Archives, a total of 58,220 U.S. military personnel were killed or went missing in action during War. This total includes 47,434 who died from hostile action and 10,786 who died from non-hostile (e.g. drugs, suicides) causes.  Within the U.S., the war eventually gave rise to the so-called “Vietnam syndrome”— an aversion to American overseas military involvement, which, with Nixon’s Watergate scandal, contributed to the crisis of confidence that affected the U.S. throughout the 1970s.

Next came the U.S occupation of Iraq which lasted from 2003 to 2011, beginning with the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein and ending with the formal withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. The Coalition, led by the U.S., was the result of false American accusations that Hussein was directly involved in September 11th (9/11).  The occupation was marked by a rapid but contentious regime change in Iraq.  This resulted in the Coalition’s controversial governance, a devastating insurgency, and eventual phased troop draw-downs.  However, today Iraq is still facing economic and political instability, on-going insurgency and government corruption forcing the U.S. to maintain troops within the country.  The situation also resulted in the eventual emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a trans-national militant Islamist and terrorist group.

The war in Afghanistan was an armed conflict lasting from 2001 to 2021, the longest war in American history.  It began with an invasion by a U.S.–led coalition in response to 9/11 attacks carried out by the Taliban-allied and Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda. The Taliban were subsequently expelled from major population centers by American-led forces, thus toppling the Taliban-ruled Islamic Emirate.  In 2004, the U.S.-backed Islamic Republic was established.  However, by then, the Taliban had reorganized and begun an insurgency against the Afghan government and coalition forces. The conflict finally ended in 2021 when a Taliban offensive re-established the Islamic Emirate, resulting in the hasty evacuation of U.S. personnel and allied Afghans and leaving the Taliban once again in complete control of the country.

Today, one has an over four month war with Iran by the U.S. and Israel.  NATO allies were not consulted prior to the attacks, resulting in most countries not supporting the military action beyond destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. From the outset, the reasons given for the U.S. attacks on Iran were several, but very unclear as to the primary reason.  At various times, President Trump talked about possible regime change in Iran.  Other times, it was suggested that the main goal was to reduce Iran’s military capabilities in order to dissuade its regime from sponsoring terrorist activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, especially as they pertained to Israel.  Most recently, the reason give is the total elimination of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, something that the U.S. had declared destroyed after earlier targeted bombings of key enrichment sites.  However, in retaliation, no one appears to have seriously and in creditably envisioned Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz by military force.  Iran’s control over the Strait is primarily a “de facto” dominance achieved through geographic advantage and heavy militarization.  Under international law, Iran does not have the legal right to completely close or unilaterally block the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.  However, Iran is using its closure as a means to put pressure on the U.S. to end the war on its own terms.  The Strait’s closure and Iran’s attacks on oil and gas facilities in neighbouring Middle East states has led to a dramatic increase in the price of oil across the globe, including in the U.S.  At this time, there appears to be no sign of a meaningful long-term peace agreement between Iran and the U.S.  Moreover, one has a current American president who had clearly and vigorously campaigned on keeping the U.S. out of foreign wars.

Leave a comment »

Respective Roles and Governance of U.S. Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of Canada

The Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) is the central bank of the United States.  It manages the nation’s money supply and interest rates to achieve maximum employment and stable prices (a “dual mandate”), regulates banks to ensure financial safety, and processes financial transactions for the U.S.government.  The president cannot directly control the Fed, as it operates as an independent central bank designed to be free from short-term political interference.  However, the president does hold several key powers and avenues of influence over the institution.  The president’s formal powers include the ability to nominate the seven members of the Board of Governors, including the Fed’s chair and vice chair.  However, these appointments require Senate confirmation.  The chair and vice chair have only one vote each, as do each of the other governors.  Governors serve 14-year terms, which are intentionally staggered to span across multiple presidential administrations to insulate them from political cycles.  The limitations on the president include the fact that he has no say over the Fed’s interest rate decisions or its monetary policy.  These decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which includes the governors and regional bank presidents.  Also, by law, the president can only remove a Fed governor or the Chair from their position on the board “for cause”.  This generally implies serious misconduct or neglect of duty — not simple disagreements over policy.  Nevertheless, as definitely in the case of Donald Trump, presidents can use public statements, social media, and speeches to critique or pressure the Fed to adjust interest rates, though these actions carry no legal weight. 

Kevin Warsh became the Fed’s current chair, after being confirmed by the narrowest margin in its history.  Nominated by Trump, Warsh was officially sworn in on May 22, 2026, succeeding Jerome Powell.  Warsh has promised “regime change.”  However, under the new chairman, Fed officials voted once again on June 17th to hold interest rates steady for the fourth consecutive meeting, leaving their benchmark lending rate at a range of 3.5% to 3.75%.  This was despite Trump wanting to have interest rates reduced, and the result of another significant monthly increase in inflation.  Instead, according to their latest economic projections, Fed officials hinted at a potential rate hike later this year to combat the latest inflation spike tied to the war with Iran.  Interestingly, during his first post-meeting news conference, Warsh announced task forces in several areas that are central to the broad conduct of monetary policy.

Similar to the Fed, Canada’s central bank is the Bank of Canada (Bank).  Like other central banks around the world, the Bank promotes economic stability and supports the financial well-being of a country and its citizens.  Unlike the Fed leadership, the Bank’s governor (currently Tiff Macklem) and senior deputy governor are appointed by an independent Board of Directors. The Board provides general oversight of the management and administration of the Bank with respect to strategic planning, financial and accounting matters, risk management, human resources, and other internal policies.  The Board is composed of the governor, the senior deputy governor and 12 independent directors appointed to three-year renewable terms by the Governor in Council (the Cabinet).  The Bank sets policy independently within an agreed-upon monetary policy framework, without any direct interference by the government of the day.  However, the Deputy Minister of Finance can participate in Board discussions, but cannot vote on any Board decisions.  The Bank’s Governing Council reaches decisions by consensus and sets the policy interest rate on eight fixed announcement dates each year.  Given the Bank’s independent mandate and governance, the Prime Minister has little or no control over its mandate and composition, and in particular the determination of monetary policy based on current economic data.

Hopefully, given the legislative and independent authority attributed to each central bank, they will continue to carry out their vital operations utilizing economic data provided by independent and expert resources, including those within each country’s financial community and provided by impartial and objective government sources.

Leave a comment »

Impact on Canadian Small Businesses of U.S. Tariffs on Their Trade with the U.S.

Trade by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with the U.S. ‘is an important part of Canada’s economy.  SMEs are defined as those with 1 to 499 paid employees.  According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as of December 2024 there were 1.10 million employer businesses in Canada.  Of these, 1.08 million (98.2%) were small businesses, 16,953 (1.5%) were medium-sized businesses, and 3,380 (0.3%) were large businesses.  Also, as of 2024, small businesses employed 5.8 million individuals in Canada, or 46.6% of the total private labour force, and medium-sized businesses employed 2.1 million individuals (17.0% of the private labour force).  Moreover, well over half of the Canadian labour force (almost 64%) was employed by SMEs.  In the same year, Canada’s exports of goods totalled $712.8 billion, of which 37.9% was attributable to SMEs.  A total of 48,036 Canadian enterprises exported goods, the vast majority of which were SMEs (73.3%), with the main destination being the U.S.

SMEs are well represented in Canada, as evidenced by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) which represents about 103,000 small businesses and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.  The Chamber is the national voice of business uniting over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade representing more than 200,000 organizations across every region of Canada.  Along with other G7 countries, these organizations stand ready to support the G7 governments in modernizing a much-needed multilateral trading system, for their mutual future prosperity and growth.

The United States’ trade and tariff war with Canadais disrupting decades of cross border cooperation.  On both sides of the border, this trade war has created havoc among SMEs who for years benefited from free trade agreements between the two countries, the latest being the Canada-US-Mexico free trade agreement (CUSMA).  Effective February 24, 2026, among the current tariffs affecting Canadian exports into the U.S., the Trump administration introduced a 10% tariff on non-CUSMA compliant goods.  This has added an additional cost on Canadian SME exports, whereby a number of businesses have simply decided to pay given the paper trail complexities associated with its current application vis-à-vis CUSMA.  In addition, effective August 29, 2025, the administration eliminated the U.S. de minimis treatment for low-value shipments, which affects goods valued at $800 or less.  This especially affects the exports by the smallest Canadian businesses which are now subject to all applicable duties, thereby raising the costs of their products for American consumers.  Without American consumer demand, many of the Canadian boutique class businesses will have not choice but to simply give up on exporting directly to U.S.customers.

Unlike the impact on larger companies (500 or more paid employees), such as those in the steel, aluminum, automotive and forestry sectors, SMEs on both sides of the border find it difficult to discover alternative markets for their products.  This situation implies that both American and Canadian SMEs will find it harder to export their products within the North American market. 

The impact on SMEs unfortunately is often forgotten in light of the majority of attention being given to those larger companies hit more extensively by tariffs.  This is unfortunate because SMEs often represent the best chance for employment growth in both countries.  In the past, SMEs were encouraged to expand their reach into the North American markets, resulting in the emergence of more and more franchises and increased business across our borders.  Now, the lost of open trade relations between the two countries has most definitely affected SMEs, and the potential for labour force growth in both.  This impact should not be discounted and ignored, especially since both Canada and the U.S. fundamentally support free enterprise and capitalism in all its forms.

Leave a comment »