FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Dec 5

The Impact of Acculturation and Secularization in the Province of Québec

by bcurry

The roots of the secularism movement in Québec date back to the 1940s and ’50s, when the Catholic Church wielded tremendous social and political influence.  For example, the province’s healthcare and education, had been extensively under the purview of the Catholic Church.  In the 1960s, the Quiet Revolution (Révolution tranquille) was a period of major socio-political and socio-cultural transformation in Québec.  In particular, this period was marked by the secularization of the government, the separation of the state and the church, notably from the Catholic Church.  A primary change was an effort by the provincial government to assume greater control over public health care and education. To achieve this, the government established ministries of Health and Education, expanded the public service and made substantial investments in the public education system.

As part of Canada, Québec’s French language and Catholic religion are guaranteed under the Canadian constitution.  However, Québec has since also been formally recognized by the federal government as a “unique” nation within the Canadian confederation.  Indeed, the issue of maintaining the French language and culture in Québec has always been great concern, which was particularly heightened during the independence movements within the province surfacing during the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s.  The election of the political party, the Parti Québecois (PQ) in 1976 brought the issue of potential Québec separation from Canada to the forefront.  As a result, the issue of secularism temporarily receded into the background.  That all changed on Sept. 11, 2001 as a result of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York triggered a backlash against Islam, and in Québec in particular.  In the years following 9/11, media outlets in Québec began spotlighting – often with sensational headlines – what became known as the “reasonable accommodation crisis,” focusing on concessions made for religious groups.  In 2013, a minority PQ government proposed the notorious “charter of Québec values,” aiming to ban religious symbols for public servants, but it went nowhere after the PQ lost the 2014 election.

The reigning Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government, which was elected before there was a final decision on that bill, took its own stab at legislating “secularism”, reviving a watered-down version of the charter of values which eventually became Bill 21.  In 2019,  as Québec’s current secularism law, Bill 21 prevents some public servants, including judges, police officers, prosecutors and teachers, from wearing religious symbols while on the job.  Learning from previous projects, the CAQ tried to make Bill 21 legally bullet-proof by preemptively using Canada’s constitutional “notwithstanding clause” to override certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Last May, the Québec legislature also passed a bill requiring immigrants to embrace the common culture of the province.  The law can be used to withhold funding for groups, events that don’t promote Québec’s common culture.  The law appears to be Québec’s answer to the Canadian model of multiculturalism that promotes cultural diversity.

In November of this year, Bill 9, titled An Act Respecting the Reinforcement of Secularism in Québec, sets out to build on two previous secularism laws passed under Premier François Légault.  Indeed, this bill goes much further than the previous laws.  For example, it would ban subsidized daycare and private school workers from wearing religious symbols, such as a hijab or kippa; phase out public subsidies for religious private schools that select students or staff based on religious affiliation, or that teach religious content; and ban prayer spaces in public institutions including universities, as well as group prayers in public spaces such as parks without municipal authorization.

While one can understand the concept of secularism whereby the state is deemed separate from the church as a democratic principle, the Québec government’s initiatives and policies have taken extreme measures which are seen as targeting the rights of minorities.  In particular, they appear to be directed primarily at Québec’s Muslim population.  This targeting is especially interesting since Muslim Québecers, who mostly come from francophone countries, could be an important ally in a province that wants to preserve the French language and culture.

The government refers to this initiative as laicité which takes secularism one step further and is really about separating religion from the public sphere.  I would instead deem these broad initiatives to be a form of “acculturation.” Acculturation is where the state assimilates or causes to assimilate people to a different culture, normally the predominant one.  One thing that could either help settle the debate over these contentious policies — or perhaps exacerbate them even further — is the Supreme Court ruling on Bill 21 expected sometime next year.  Some see the current CAQ government’s initiative as more of a political distraction given Premier Légault’s unpopularity in recent polls and the upcoming provincial election next fall.  Even if the CAQ is defeated, the next government most probably led by the Parti Québecois will very likely continue the contentious policy of acculturation no matter what.

Canada Extremism Quebec Politics Quebec's Bill 21 Race Relations Racism Religion

Leave a comment »
Nov 21

Economic Impact of Current Decline of Canadian Tourists to U.S.

by bcurry

Few people really understand the importance of tourism on their economy, in particular with respect to employment, revenue and taxes.  The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contribution of tourism to the U.S. economy went from $2.36 trillion in 2023 to $2.5 trillion in 2024.  In 2024, this represented about 9% of the U.S. economy.  By 2034, the industry estimates that tourism will continue to grow to represent almost a 10th of the country’s total GDP.  Total direct and indirect U.S. employment related to tourism is estimated at more than 20 million people, close to 10% of the labour force.  Many work in the accommodation, food services and travel sectors.  This compares with the manufacturing proportion of the labour force at 7.5% in 2024, representing about 13 million workers.

However, 2025 has so far seen a serious decline in the number of Canadian tourists visiting the U.S., largely due to the political and economic policies of the Trump administration which placed tariffs on a number of Canadian exports.  Let’s also not forget Trump’s assertions that Canada should become the 51RST state which angered a large number of Canadians.  In addition, tourism to the U.S. is already stressed by the continuing high exchange rate versus other currencies, including the Canadian dollar.  This decline is particularly pronounced in specific segments, with Canadian overnight land trips falling by 26%, indicating regional tensions affecting traditional travel corridors.  As a result of bordering with the U.S., there has always been a significant amount of travel between the two countries, most notably within the northern U.S. states which rely most heavily on Canadian tourists.

The World Travel & Tourism Council’s projection of a $12.5 billion loss in international visitor spending represents the most significant challenge facing the sector.  This decline affects not only major metropolitan areas but also rural communities that depend on tourism revenue for economic sustainability.  The most significant drop has been in Canadian visitation which has seen a 20.2 % decline so far this year.  In 2024, Canada had maintained its position as the leading source market with over 20 million visitors.  However, Canadian visitors returning from the U.S. by land plunged 31.9% year-over-year in March 2025, while air arrivals fell 13.5%.  In general, the tourism landscape in America during 2025 presents a complex narrative of recovery and decline. The projected annual loss of $12.5 billion in overall international visitor spending represents more than just statistical data — it reflects a fundamental shift in global travel patterns that directly impacts communities, businesses, and employment across the nation.

In both the U.S. and Canada, tourism is an important expanding sector, representing more employment potential than even in the manufacturing sector.  This fact appears to be something loss on members of the Trump administration, who fail to see the negative impact of their trade relations on this sector.  It’s difficult to say when a turnaround might occur with respect to Canadian tourists, particularly since governments and businesses in Canada are greatly promoting the idea that Canadians should travel and vacation in Canada.  In addition, Canada is currently promoting international visits by persons from other countries to Canada in lieu of visiting the U.S.  Since Canadians were number one in terms of visitors to the U.S. in the past, unfortunately there is little doubt that American tourism businesses are now feeling the direct impact of this decline.  Again and again, our southern neighbours, particularly in border states, have expressed their disappointment.  They have also expressed their understanding as to why more Canadians are holding off on visiting their country, given the current policies of the Trump administration.  All in all, the whole situation is truly regretful given the traditional, friendly and close relationship between the two countries and its peoples.

Canada Tourism Tourism Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships Trump US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Nov 11

When Will We Stop Young Men From Going To War?

by bcurry

Years ago, I read somewhere that old men begin wars and send young men to fight them.  This was certainly true of the multitude of wars fought during the Twentieth Century.  Today, it would appear that nothing has really changed.  Look around the world, and you cannot help to witness the continuing atrocities caused by wars and the loss of not only young soldiers, but also, and most importantly, the loss of civilian lives.  There is no need to once again recount the statistical losses of war, for what matters most is the real human suffering that one sees among the individuals and families affected by war.

I had family members who fought in both World Wars, and gratefully had survived to return.  Born shortly after WWII, I lived through the Cold War period and the West’s battles with the then Soviet Union.  I lived through the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent struggles of East European countries for independence.  I lived through the Vietnam conflict, which one must remember like the earlier Korean conflict, was never officially declared a war by Congress. Then came the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 toppling the long time dictator Saddam Hussein and leading to the subsequent decade occupation of Iraq.  Fortunately, the then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to send Canadian troops to fight in Iraq.  However, Canada did join the NATO mission in Afghanistan where in over ten years of fighting, Canadian combatants loss their lives and several were seriously injured.  With the war in Afghanistan going poorly and in light of the gains being made by the Taliban, the U.S. couldn’t wait to get out of that country, much in the same way the Vietnam conflict ended.  And for what?

Now, we have the Ukrainian-Russian war being initiated by 73 year old Vladimir Putin, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years and de facto dictator of Russia since 2000.  To date, while supplying Ukraine with weapons and financial support, no NATO country has boots on the ground in Ukraine.  However, there is little doubt that NATO’s European countries are deeply concerned about Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and potential future threat.  The result is that they have begun to build up their military forces and to expend a larger proportion of their budgets on defence.  Canada, as a NATO member, has also agreed to significantly increase its military spending to meet its continuing commitments to the alliance.

In the Middle East, Israel’s conflicts with Hamas in Gaza, its attacks on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, and its most recent attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar, represents a long period of wars and deaths and destruction on both sides.  Indeed, there have been multiple wars with Israel, including those in 2008-09, 2012, 2014, 2021 and an ongoing one since 2023, which began with the infamous October 7 attacks.  According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the U.S. spent almost $18 billion on military aid to Israel from October 2023 to October 2024.  While the U.S. continues to provide this massive support, do date President Trump has not indicated that American troops could become directly involved in Gaza.  Time will tell!

People in the Trump administration like to describe the president as a president for peace — this despite the recent change whereby his Secretary of Defense is now the Secretary of War.  In addition, the Trump administration is building up its military presence in the Caribbean, especially off the coast of Venezuela.  Drone attacks have been carried out on boats in international waters, with the administration declaring that these are drug smugglers originating out of Venezuela and supported by the country’s president Nicolás Maduro.  However, some current and former U.S. officials contend that the unspoken goal is the goal is to force Maduro from power.  In other words, regime change.  As of November 6th, the U.S. Senate has twice failed to pass resolutions that would limit Trump’s authority to continue military action against Venezuela or airstrikes against alleged drug vessels.  After long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the combination of the words America and regime change raises alarm bells, both inside and outside the U.S.  Let’s hope that this aging American president isn’t once again ready to sacrifice American young lives in another worthless war.

Afghanistan Canada Defence Defence Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Today Russia Trump Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Oct 31

When Will the High Tech Stock Market Surge Slow Down?

by bcurry

Here are a couple of interesting stats about American high tech companies.  Market concentration has never been greater than in past decades, as the one created by Artificial Intelligence (A.I.).  According to senior index analysts for S&P Dow Jones Indices, Nvidia alone, which makes A.I. chips, makes up more than 8 percent of the S&P 500.  Nvidia is now worth $5 trillion as it continues to consolidate power in A.I. boom.  Apple and Microsoft now top $4 trillion. Those companies combined with Meta, Amazon, Alphabet and Tesla make up more than a third of the entire index.  According to Harvard’s economic faculty, spending on data centers, which are filled with the Nvidia chips, accounted for 92 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (G.D.P.) growth in the first half of 2025.  Chip technology is a powerful technology that can be used to develop advanced weaponry and drive economic opportunity.  Companies like Microsoft and the software company Oracle are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into building data centers for A.I.

Now the question becomes: “What is the high tech impact on main street versus wall street?”  Most analysts are concerned particularly about the impact of current and future A.I. investments on the labour market for example.  While the current situation continues to produce more millionaires and billionaires, there is already evidence that companies are looking at ways of reducing labour costs through A.I. and A.I. assisted robotics.  For example, it concerns me that Amazon has been aggressively looking to do more with less.  It also concerns me that Amazon recently announced that it was laying off 14,000 corporate employees partly due to its use of A.I.  It is further reported that Amazon spent more than $34 billion on capital expenditures in the third quarter of this year, in large part to set up data centers that power cloud computing and A.I.  It should be noted that the company’s sales totalled $180.2 billion from July through September of 2025, up 13 percent from the same time in 2024.  Profit was $21.2 billion, up a whopping 38 percent.  Furthermore, as an obvious future cost cutting initiative, the New York Times reported that Amazon’s automation team has ambitious goals to use robotics to avoid hiring more than half a million workers by 2033.

Apple’s iPhones are fuelling record sales and profit so far this year, despite raising prices on its latest iPhone and having largely avoided the A.I. arms race.  However, the company still accounts for about 6 percent of the S&P 500 index.  While Apple is not pouring billions of dollars into data centers, developing expensive A.I. systems or building its own chatbot, the company continues to collect payments from Google.  Apple also charges A.I. companies to reach iPhone customers.  Most importantly, instead of bringing its manufacturing home to the U.S., Apple shifted some production from China to India, Vietnam and Thailand.  Almost nothing is made in America, and an estimated 80 percent of iPhones are still made in China.

All said and done, some investors have questioned whether A.I. will actually increase productivity and sales.  This is the trillion dollar question given that the short-term returns have not been all that great in light of the billions of dollars of current investment capital.  Nevertheless, it’s clear that the stock markets are apparently very optimistic.  Only time will tell. 

In addition, there is still the expected negative impact on the labour market as evidenced by recently announced employee cutbacks by several high tech firms using A.I.  A.I., complemented by enhanced robotics, is seen as a tool that could replace people in many jobs, including those in white collar occupations. The jury is still out on this one.  Today, youth unemployment in North American is at its highest rate and recent college graduates in several fields, including in the computer sciences, are experiencing a great deal of difficulty in obtaining employment in their field of study.  Higher unemployment may be one of those areas on main street that would be the result of the potential direct impact of what’s happening on wall street.  Of course, the billionaires would argue otherwise.

Artificial Intelligence Artificial Intelligence Economy Labour Force US

Leave a comment »
Sep 25

Can Canada Return to a Former Foreign Policy Partly Based on Non-Alignment?

by bcurry

In the early 1970s while in college, I wrote a paper which concluded that Canada’s foreign policy in the post-colonial era was largely influenced by the non-alignment movement that had emerged globally at the time.  This position was particularly true given that the majority of Canada’s foreign aid was directed at newly established states such as Bangladesh and Cambodia, and several developing countries such as India and Mexico.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged as one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives of the 20th century, offering newly independent nations a third path during the height of the so-called Cold War.  Founded on principles of independence, peace, and solidarity, NAM represented an alternative to the rigid bipolar world order dominated by the U.S. and Soviet Union. This movement, which began with just 25 countries in 1961, grew to encompass over 120 nations, fundamentally reshaping global diplomatic dynamics and giving voice to the developing world’s aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.  Canada however was not a formal member of the movement.  The movement’s advocacy for the new international economic order in the 1970s, though ultimately unsuccessful, raised important questions about global economic inequality and the need for fairer trade arrangements.  In particular, the member countries used their collective strength to democratize United Nations (UN) procedures and decision-making, something that Canada strongly endorsed.

However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the global scene rapidly changed.  The NAM countries initially supported the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which in turn Canada greatly supported.  However, member states such as India and Pakistan, went on to develop nuclear capabilities, greatly angering Canada who had earlier provided nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to each country.  In addition, Canada’s ties to American foreign policy had increased during the Cold War and after.  As a result, Canada has unfortunately failed to secure a seat on the UN’s Security Council by not receiving sufficient votes from NAM countries.  It is worth noting that over the years Canada played a major role in UN peacekeeping initiatives along with other nations directed at resolving several conflicts among NAM countries themselves.

In the aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as a military alliance between 32 member states, including Canada, the U.S. and 30 European states.  Canada’s contribution to NATO forces has increased over time, making it almost impossible to have a non-aligned defence or security policy.  Canada’s defence spending is expected to increase even more in the coming years.

Moreover, the NAM movement’s effectiveness in the post-Cold War era soon became limited. The rise of a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. created new challenges, while economic globalization exposed the limitations of traditional non-alignment approaches.  Many NAM countries found themselves forced to choose between economic integration and political independence.  In addition, China and India emerged as the second and third respective economic powers, challenging the U.S.   While Canada still supports the dominance of global trading mechanisms, the recent American move to greater bilateral trading arrangements and the use of tariffs has forced Canada to seek out and strengthen trading relationships in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.  U.S. isolationist policies have forced Canada to further diversity its domestic economy and its offshore trading partners. 

In today’s world, Canada is more or less portrayed as a middle power seeking to maximize its autonomy while engaging with competing global powers.  This approach is no longer in line with that of the pre-Cold War era and any move to non-alignment as a foreign policy.  However, this does not mean that Canada cannot take an independent stance when it comes to formulating and implementing its foreign policy.  There is certainly a need to be not too closely aligned with the current American administration’s isolationist approach to foreign matters.

Canada China's Influence Foreign Policy Foreign Policy India NATO Protectionism Trade with EU Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Aug 12

Trump’s Use of Military for Domestic Policing Represents a New and Dangerous Trend

by bcurry

Let me take you back to the province of Quebec in the fall of 1970, and what became known as the October Crisis in Canada. The crisis was the culmination of a long series of terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), a militant Quebec independence movement, between 1963 and 1970.  On 5 October 1970, the FLQ kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross in Montreal.  Within the next two weeks, FLQ members also kidnapped and killed Quebec Minister of Immigration and Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte. Quebec’s premier Robert Bourassa and Montreal’s mayor Jean Drapeau called for federal help to deal with the perceived crisis.  In response, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, by invoking the War Measures Act, deployed the Armed Forces across Quebec and in Ottawa — the only time it had been applied during peacetime in Canadian history.  Seen as inappropriate and overkill at the time by legislators, the federal government subsequently substituted it with the Emergencies Act in 1988 as the modern-day replacement to the previous War Measures Act which had not been designed to deal with domestic security issues.  At the time of the October Crisis and the related deployment of Canadian troops, the American media quickly decried the move as something that could never happen in the U.S. under its constitution!

Well, all that has now changed with the Trump administration’s recent deployment of 4,700 National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles, without the California governor’s request,  to help quell protests that had erupted over immigration raids and to protect the federal agents conducting them.  Just this week, that move has been followed up by the contentious announcement that at least 800 National Guard troops are to be deployed into the streets of Washington, D.C., to supposedly fight a growing crime wave.  What is concerning is that officials have stated that the soldiers in Washington will probably be able to detain people temporarily in certain circumstances until federal agents arrive.  It is also reported that Military leaders are trying to keep the rules of engagement for the D.C. mission as narrow as possible. One Defense Department official reportedly stated that soldiers carrying M-16s, who have been trained to kill adversaries, are not to be put in policing roles.  However, if threatened they can use force in response, whatever that means.  In the case of L.A., some National Guard soldiers were accused of having used overly aggressive tactics against protesters. Trump has also hinted that similar deployments could be done in other urban centres, mentioning Chicago and New York City.

Local citizen protests have already begun in Washington, and are expected no doubt to continue.  The city’s mayor expressed similar disbelief, noting that the last two year’s statistics have shown an actual decline in violent crime ranging from 20 to 25 percent.  The outrage is understandable, since the Canadian 1970 experience led to hundreds of unwarranted arrests of innocent people by the authorities, who in several cases where simply political opponents of the Quebec government at the time.  This created a subsequent backlash among political parties and Canadians, resulting in the legislative changes as noted above. 

In interviews with The New York Times, members of the California National Guard said the deployment to Los Angeles had eroded the morale of the force.  Guard officials also expressed concerns that the L.A. deployment would hurt re-enlistment.  For the military as a whole, the cost could come in recruiting and retention, something critics are warning could also happen in Washington.

In a democracy, deploying troops domestically during peacetime without justification and on a whim can be very damaging from an institutional and political standpoint.  In this case, the president is overstepping his power and needs to be challenged by Congress and in the courts.  Let’s face it, there is no immediate threat to national security and this militarized process undermines the credibility and integrity of local and state police forces.  While the domestic deployment of armed forces to assist communities facing local natural disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes and floods can be justified, their deployment under the above circumstances is unwarranted and represents a dangerous precedent.  

Civil Liberties Defence Donald Trump Federal Government Immigration Police Services Quebec Politics Terrorism Urban Issues US

Leave a comment »
Aug 7

When It Comes toTackling Climate Change, Trump is Nowhere to be Found

by bcurry

In the latest move, the Trump administration has decided to no longer fund in fiscal year 2026 the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, which can precisely show where carbon dioxide is being emitted and absorbed and how well crops are growing.  A free-flying satellite launched in 2014, the mission has become an important source of greenhouse gas data for scientists, policymakers and farmers.  Experts said the administration’s move is just another one designed to eliminate funding aligned with other actions aimed at cutting or burying climate science.  NASA employees are currently making plans to end the missions.

This move is no surprise given that you have a president and a governing party that believes climate change is a hoax.  You have a president who has greatly weakened the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to use science to understand the impacts associated with climate change and those that support counter measures.  There are also policies aimed at stimulating the coal industry, oil and gas exploration, mining and lumbering in national parks, and attacking regulated greenhouse gas emissions in the automotive industry.

Back in a January 2025, reports noted that President Trump was stocking the EPA with officials who have served as lawyers and lobbyists for the oil and chemical industries, many of whom worked in his first administration to weaken climate and pollution protections.  Lee Zeldin, Mr. Trump’s choice to lead the E.P.A., has little experience with environmental policy. He was expected to fulfill Mr. Trump’s fire hose of orders directing the agency to cut regulations.

This year, the world has seen a greater number of extreme weather events than ever before.  The U.S. and Canada alone have had to cope with drought caused by heat waves and a lack of normal precipitation, resulting in some of the worst wildfires and potential crop failures in our time.  Flooding, tornadoes and major hurricane activity have become more prevalent, causing enormous property damage and multiple deaths.

The sad fact is that one could see this coming, especially after Trump’s first term in office.  The U.S. emits around 40% of the world’s greenhouse gases.  Without a sustained and committed support by the U.S. to tackle the issue of climate change and its consequences for our planet, the situation will simply get worst.  Maybe, this is exactly what climate change deniers want?

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump US

Leave a comment »
Jul 28

U.S. Is Trying to Milk the Canadian Dairy Industry

by bcurry

As part of the Trump administration’s trade talks with Canada, Trump has once again unfairly attacked Canada’s supply management system in the dairy industry.  The problem is that this continuous American attack doesn’t really make much sense!  Here’s why.

First and foremost, Canada, with a population of about 40 million, is a small market to begin with.  Secondly, while the American dairy and poultry markets are dominated by large industrial farms, the Canadian scene is primarily one of smaller farms, often family managed.  Thirdly, U.S. dairy producers reportedly insist they’re not looking for Canada to dismantle its crucial supply management system.  Fourthly, Canada’s imports of U.S. dairy products have risen significantly since the quotas imposed under the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) took effect in 2020.  Those imports totalled $897 million in 2024, according to Statistics Canada data, more than four times the value of imports in any year before 2020.  In 2024, American dairy exports to Canada had increased by 67% since 2021. This made Canada America’s second-largest dairy customer and its largest customer per capita.  Moreover, Canada presently has a $520 million dairy trade deficit with the U.S.  Fifthly, Trump’s claims of a 390 or 400 per cent tariff are false, particularly given the way the quotas on American dairy products actually work under the CUSMA.  Indeed, it is reported that to date, no U.S. dairy products imported by Canada have been subjected to those higher tariffs under the current agreement.  Under CUSMA, the U.S. can send 49 million litres of milk to Canada every year, before a single drop would have a tariff imposed.  In addition, that tariff-free amount is set to continue to grow gradually over the next 13 years.  The U.S. uses the same system of tariff-free imports of certain Canadian products up to a set quantity before imposing its tariffs. Finally, Canada’s maximum allowable dairy exports to the U.S. are lower than those for other countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s harmonized tariff schedule.  So, let’s not talk about unfairness when it comes to dairy exports between the two countries.

Furthermore, the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, David Wiens, notes that countries such as the United States heavily subsidize their dairy industry for production, forcing taxpayers to pay twice for their milk (once at the store and again through their taxes). In contrast, Canadian dairy farmers do not receive similar production subsidies.

Importantly, supply management has delivered food security and sovereignty to Canada for more than six decades by producing dairy here for Canadians.  It aligns production with demand to deliver high-quality, diverse products at stable prices for Canadian consumers and a fair return for its farmers.  It also strengthens the economy, with about 340,000 Canadian jobs fuelled by the supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg sectors, and over $30 billion contributed to Canada’s gross domestic product.  Simply put, Canada’s rationale for the approach taken under CUSMA is to ensure that the domestic dairy industry thrives by effectively capping how much the U.S. can export each year, preventing cheaper American products from dominating the smaller market.

There are also benefits to having few industrial farms as demonstrated by the recent and ongoing costly toll of the bird flu outbreak on U.S. dairy farms, which in particular drove up the price of eggs in the states, affected dairy cows, decreased milk production and financially decimated many affected farms.  None of this happened to the same extent in Canada.

One chief complaint from the U.S. focuses on Canada’s cheap exports of milk proteins, also described as milk solids, such as skim milk powder.  The Americans argue that because Canada’s supply management system keeps domestic prices artificially high, Canada can sell its excess production of milk proteins internationally at artificially low prices, undercutting the competition.  Such issues can certainly be reasonably discussed as part of any renegotiation of the CUSMA scheduled to be undertaken in 2026.  Remember that Trump actually signed that agreement during his first term as president.  The key point is that one has to do away with sources of misinformation and continue to deal with this particular trade issue in a way that both countries can benefit, thereby profiting farmers on both sides of the border.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Economy NAFTA Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Jul 13

Unlike the American DOGE Initiative, Canada Can Better Tackle Government Cuts

by bcurry

The initiative led by Elon Musk in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has turned out to be a major disaster with not much impact on the federal government’s overall debt.  It certainly is an example of what not to do for a planned Canadian government initiative to curt federal government spending and reduce its current debt.  Prime Minister Mark Carney has embarked on one of the most ambitious public spending reviews since former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his finance minister Paul Martin balanced the budget in the 1990s.  Carney’s government wants to cut operational spending by 7.5 per cent for the 2026-27 fiscal year, 10 per cent the following year and 15 per cent in 2028-29.  According to the CBC, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa estimates that, when those areas are carved out, the government is targeting a pot of money that is about $180 to $200 billion of the $570 billion it will spend this fiscal year.  Some former senior government officials believe that this is doable, but with some caveats. 

First, rather than an arbitrary across-the-board cut, a realistic program review will look at whether the existing program continues to serve a real need, especially when it comes to public services.  Secondly, it’s mostly important to first determine where you cut — rather than by how much.  Thirdly, there may be means to cut operating expenses by looking for ways to employ new technologies, including those involving artificial intelligence and automation.  Fourthly, there is also room to cut the use of consultants and outside contractors, but doing so could cut off access to valuable expertise.  In addition, extra replacement training of public servants could occur, but would be an added cost factor.

Interestingly, Carney has said that there will be no cuts to transfers to the provinces for things like health and social programs, nor would he cut individual benefits such as pensions and Old Age Security payments.  Key programs rolled out by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government such as child care, pharmacare and dental care are also spared.  These of course are high cost, almost untouchable programs, with a great deal of the electorate’s support.

Unlike in the DOGE exercise, federal public servants in Canada have strong union representation across the public service and will require consultation with union officials during the review process.  The unions have already expressed concerns about potential cuts to the workforce, but recognize that the review must address this issue as it will be difficult for the government to avoid cutting staff because wages, benefits and pensions are such a large part of the operating budget.  As in past initiatives, some cuts can be made through attrition.  However, serious cuts would involve the removal of some positions, moving staff to other programs or retraining for other government jobs.  The unions will argue that any program cuts should not be at the expense of certain key services to the public.

Previous program reviews have been undertaken given a government’s mandate to respond to a national crisis, such as the servicing of a growing government debt.  Given that the most fundamental issue of the last Canadian election was Donald Trump’s attack on the current U.S.-Canada trade relations and our sovereignty, Canadians are much more open to suffering through cuts then they were five to 10 years ago.  Due to the DOGE methodology of arbitrary cuts to departments and agencies, the ramification of those cuts to important public services is just now being felt by Americans.  Canada does not want to incur the same public wrath that the Trump administration is and will continue to experience as a result of program and service cuts.  As well, serious errors were made in the DOGE accounting process, often overestimating the actual cost savings as a result of government cuts.  Canada does not want to repeat such mistakes and must offer an open and accountable process during any program review.

The one most important factor in my view from past experience in federal program reviews is that imposing across-the-board cuts can quickly paralyse the effective delivery of certain important programs, especially those which are regulatory in nature.  While a ten percent cut to a program’s budget may not seem to be much, for some agencies this may be enough to hinder or negate its effective program delivery.  Agencies and departments which enforce regulatory requirements, such as those in occupational health and safety, transportation, and the environment most likely would be greatly compromised.  In some cases, program delivery becomes so ineffective that one could argue that the program is better off simply not existing.  This becomes the conundrum that any program must entertain and could endanger public safety.

Canada DOGE Donald Trump Federal Government Federal Government Public Service Public Service US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Jul 3

Trump’s Current Energy Policies Just Don’t Make Sense

by bcurry

There is no more clean and renewable federal energy support in the U.S.as a result of Donald Trump’s most recent policy actions.  In his first term as president, he imposed tariffs on imported solar panels, whereby American companies opened or announced plans for new U.S. solar panel factories, thereby reviving a manufacturing business that had largely withered away.  Now, those same companies, particularly in solar manufacturing, are concerned that the attack on clean energy, especially solar and wind, and increasing support for fossil fuels will mean a potential disaster for the continued growth of the industry.  Indeed, it has been reported that Mike Carr, the executive director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, concluded that the administration’s policies would give the entire solar manufacturing industry over to China starting in 2027.  The shift has been particularly jarring in Texas and other Sun Belt states.  For example, renewable energy companies had announced plans for $64 billion in new investments in Texas, mostly for solar and battery storage projects, when Washington passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. 

On the other hand, the oil and gas industry is counting on the administration’s help to keep oil and gas prices higher in order to increase exploration and lower fracking costs, and subsequently their profits.  With a strong desire not to offend the president, one has to remember that the oil and gas industry apparently spent more than $75 million to elect Trump.  Interestingly, the U.S. also relies heavily on Canadian oil in particular, which American refineries combine with domestic crude to make gasoline and diesel fuel.  For this reason, there is much industry anxiety around the tariffs on Canadian oil currently set at 10 percent.  This and cross border pipeline discussions will certainly dominate trade talks between the two countries.

Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency — paired with other executive orders — amounts to a promise to test the limits of presidential power to ensure demand for fossil fuels, including coal, remains robust.  It’s a sharp reversal from his predecessor’s agenda, which aimed to push the nation away from fuels that are primarily responsible for climate change.  In addition, Trump’s efforts to support coal during his first term were no match for cheap natural gas that ultimately out competed coal in the market.  U.S. coal consumption reportedly declined more than a third during Trump’s first term.  Coal extraction is clearly no longer economically viable.

Studies have also shown that any restrictions on renewable development would increase electricity prices over the next decade in both Canada and the U.S., and potentially leave thousands of homes without electricity during extreme weather events.  For this reason, Canada is continuing to promote the expansion of clean energy, including that produced by nuclear and wind and solar.  On the other hand, the demand for electricity continues to increase due to new high tech needs, including those related to transportation and artificial intelligence.  Canada, unlike the U.S. under President Trump, is still committed to tackling the adverse effects of climate change by attempting to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels and by reducing our green house emissions.

Solar energy and wind power are much more capable of having electricity provided in a more decentralized and efficient way by being located closer to the sources of need, without the requirement for costly long-distance transmission infrastructure.  This more mobile asset can reduce the initial costs of electricity production and in turn the costs of delivery to consumers.  Not surprisingly, the current shift has been particularly jarring in Texas, a Republican state and the nation’s top wind power producer, second only to California in solar energy and industrial battery storage.  Moreover, the Trump administration’s energy policies just don’t make sense, adding to the inflationary cost of electricity for consumers and to the costs associated with the evident extreme consequences of climate change.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump Economy Energy New Technologies Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Technological Change Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.