FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 12

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

by bcurry

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.

Canada Charter of Quebec Values Donald Trump Economy Extremism Quebec Politics Trade with U.S.

Leave a comment »
Sep 29

Canada Looks To The Arctic As Its Next Frontier

by bcurry

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.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Defence Economy Foreign Policy National Security Russia

Leave a comment »
Aug 27

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

by bcurry

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.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Economy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US US Politics US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Aug 19

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

by bcurry

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.



Canada Donald Trump Economy Energy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy NAFTA Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Aug 2

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

by bcurry

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. 

Canada Donald Trump Economy Energy Global Economy Iran Iran Israel Oil and Gas Oil and Gas The Middle East Transport of Oil US

Leave a comment »
Jul 14

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

by bcurry

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.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump Energy Scientific Research Trump US

Leave a comment »
Jun 18

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

by bcurry

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.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Economy Federal Government Federal Government Global Economy Trump US

Leave a comment »
Jun 10

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

by bcurry

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.

Canada Donald Trump Labor Force Labour Force Protectionism Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
May 24

American Questions About Albertan Referendum on Separation From Canada

by bcurry

Just this past weak, Premier Danielle Smith of the province of Alberta announced that she would ask citizens next October to vote on whether they want to stay in Canada, or hold a referendum to secede.  Although, the Premier knows that the vast majority of Albertans would vote to stay in Canada, she argues that in a democracy people should have the right to indicate their preferences.  This is despite the fact that a small minority of Albertans actually belong to separatist groups, and secession would result in serious political and economic consequences for the province.

Alberta is an energy rich province, and as such had to deal with past federal governments over issues related to environmental, other provincial and indigenous concerns when it comes to the construction of pipelines to the west coast to transport oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries in Southeast Asia, including China.  The dispute with Ottawa over energy development in Alberta goes as far back to the Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s National Energy Program (NEP) enacted in the early 1980s.  Following the two oil crises of the 1970s, the NEP had three main objectives: increase ownership of the oil industry by Canadians; price energy fairly for Canadian consumers; and provide Canadian energy self-sufficiency.  However, the NEP proved to be a highly controversial policy initiative and sparked intense opposition and anger in Western Canada, particularly in Alberta. The then Albertan Premier Peter Lougheed was a very vocal opponent of the NEP on the grounds that it interfered with provincial jurisdiction and unfairly deprived Alberta of oil revenue.  Although the federal government had reached a revenue-sharing agreement with the province, Albertan’s still blamed the program for economic hardships they faced in subsequent years.  Indeed, the term “Western alienation” was coined as a result of the NEP.  However, provincial revenue losses were primarily affected by the early 1980s recession and a crash in oil prices.  Although the NEP was repealed by successive Conservative governments, including the newly formed Reform Party based in the West, the past actions by the federal government still left a bad taste in the mouths of Albertans.  This resulted in a lot of frustration on the part of some Albertans who viewed the federal government, especially those under the Liberals, as mistreating Westerners and particularly obstructing the expansion of major energy related projects in Alberta.

Since then, a number of separatist movements have sprung up in Alberta, intriguing U.S. conservatives who believe that they have a lot in common with Albertan values.  From time to time, Albertan separation advocates have even reached out to American conservatives to plead their cases for an independent country.  For example, separatist leaders reportedly met on three occasions last year with Trump administration officials in Washington, although the State Department and the White House have dismissed those meetings as routine engagements with interest groups.  However, it appears that some supporters of President Trump and MAGA activists, most notably Stephen Bannon, have spoken publicly in favour of Alberta separating from Canada.  Although a small minority within the independence movement would like Alberta to become part of the U.S., separatist leaders have chosen to walk away from that position as it’s not popular with the majority of the movement. 

Currently, the two top federal parties — the Liberals under Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, and the Conservatives under the opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre — are firmly against secession.  Carney has sought to reverse the impression that his party wants to stifle Alberta’s growth and has worked with Premier Smith to propose a new pipeline to take more oil from the province to the British Columbia coast so as to ship to Asian markets.  Smith has said she hopes the federal government’s change in attitude toward oil will show Albertans that Canada and federalism can work for the province.  Americans would do well to avoid promoting Alberta’s secession, as such actions would simply introduce more negativity into already strained U.S.-Canada relations under the Trump administration, and would clearly result in charges of foreign political interference into the domestic affairs of another country.

Canada Federal Government Foreign Policy Trade with U.S. US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Apr 14

Crossing the Floor in Canada’s Parliament to Join Another Party

by bcurry

In the span of just the last five months in Parliament – November 2025 through April 2026 – five opposition Members (MP) of House of Commons have joined the ruling Liberals.  Their additions to the minority government of Prime Minister Mark Carney provided the Liberals with a majority government following the winning of three more seats in yesterday’s by-elections.  In light of the current geopolitical situation and the tariff policies of the Trump administration, most Canadians appear to agree that a majority government would give Canada more leverage in negotiating a new trade agreement with the U.S.  Crossing of the floor in the U.S. Congress among the two political parties basically never happens.  This is a political phenomenon found mainly in parliamentary governments such as in the U.K., Canada and Australia.

Since four of the five opposition MPs who joined Carney’s caucus since November 2025 were Conservatives, the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, has complained that the Liberals have approached and tried to convince some MPs to cross the floor.  He naturally takes exception with this political move by asserting that members of the Conservative caucus were elected by their constituents as representatives of his party in Parliament.  Some Conservatives have actually suggested that a by-election should be called when an MP joins another party.  Sorry, but Poilievre is crying into spilled milk!  As an old parable goes: “If a shepherd cannot control his flock, then he shouldn’t be a shepherd.”  There are indications that some Conservatives are beginning to question Poilievre’s ability to effectively lead the party into the next federal election in three years time.

Moreover, history shows that floor crossing is one of Canada’s most dramatic political traditions.  Since Confederation in1867, 132 MPs have crossed the floor, with varying degrees of success.  In addition, past floor crossings have occurred involving different parties at the time.  The motivations behind such dramatic political decisions can vary from policy disagreements to personal ambition, such as being appointed to a Cabinet position.  Certain past high profile crossings had even sparked national rage. Today, the media has paid particularly attention given that this most recent wave of Carney-era crossings pushed the Liberal net all time figure to its highest point ever in the history of floor crossings.  It would appear that those MPs deciding to do so did so because of their belief that the current PM is best suited to represent Canada and push forward policies aimed at making the Canadian economy more diverse and less dependent on the U.S.  Polls have also shown that Carney’s popularity is at an all time high, well above that of Poilievre who is his closest rival.

However, when an MP walks across the House of Commons to join a different party, it represents both political calculation and personal conviction, often triggering controversy about democratic representation and voter trust.  Furthermore, statistically the harsh reality of crossing the floor for most MPs who switch parties is that they struggle to win reelection in their new partisan colours.  In addition, as for conservative or other party views on social issues, the PM has made it quite clear that those views will not find their way into any legislation his Liberal government will propose.  Some analysts would even argue that the addition of MPs from other political stripes could be a healthy thing.  In this case, the ruling Liberals will have access in caucus to different perspectives which could influence their decision making.

Now that the Carney-led government has a majority and has the votes, there will be greater expectations with respect to the speedier passage of legislation through Parliament.  Already, there is growing pressure on the government to deal with the most immediate domestic issues such as affordability, economic development and employment, as well as those surrounding trade and national defence.  What’s interesting is that rumours continue to surface as to the possibility of even more Conservative floor crossings, which would indeed be unprecedented!

Canada Economy Federal Election Federal Government Trade with U.S.

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