FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Mar 6

Interaction Between the U.S. and Canada Summed Up in One Word: Confusion

by bcurry

When the Trump administration first introduced tariffs against specific industries in Canada (ex. aluminum, steel and lumber), it created a good deal of confusion and uncertainty because of the integrated market existing between the two countries.  The initial excuse was that Canada had failed to secure the border from the smuggling of fentanyl from Canada into the U.S., which only accounted for less than 1 percent of the total entering the States.  Secondly, Trump argues that Canada has long benefited from a trade surplus with the U.S., not accounting for the import to Canada of American services. Then, suddenly Trump was openly promoting the annexation of Canada, making it the 51st state: something neither the vast majority of Canadians or Americans have supported at any time in the past.

As a result of Trump’s tariff imposition, Canadians decided to elect Mark Carney, a Liberal, as the 24th prime minister of Canada in 2025.  Carney, a former head of Canada’s central bank, has had to take a careful and sensitive route in dealing with Trump on both economic and foreign policy issues.  Take for example, the current war initiated by the U.S.with Iran, which the Canadian government was not apprised of before American pre-emptive strikes.  Canadian support for the U.S. is a touchy and complicated matter, remembering that Canada is part of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) which conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defence of North America.  As is the U.S., Canada is also a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and supports its allies in the defence of their sovereignty.  On the one hand, while Carney believes it is appropriate to support the U.S.; on the other hand, there are questions surrounding the legality of the attacks on Iran under international law and NATO’s non-involvement at the outset.  Also, the Trump administration’s primary motive for the attacks on Iran has been anything but clear from the outset, setting off confusion among NATO and other allies.  While NATO will defend itself against the resulting Iranian attacks on their bases in the region, there has been no indication to date that either Israel or the U.S. have sought the support of NATO military forces.  Once again, confusion reigns among the parties.

If any word can also express the current trade and foreign policy environment created by the Trump administration, it is “uncertainty”.  For Carney and other world leaders, this uncertainty has forced them to look at alternative economic, defence and trade arrangements, given the lack of American support for maintaining the normal global processes.  As a result, Carney has to seek alternative trade relations with other countries and has recently entered into formatting new arrangements with middle-power countries such as India, Japan and Australia — not to forget previous trips to several E.U. counties.  Indeed, just this week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Japan’s Sanae Takaichi inked a new “strategic partnership” that signaled the next step in a recent drive to deepen military and trade co-operation between the two countries.  Just prior to that, Carney and his Indian counterpart announced what they’re calling a “new partnership,” a series of multimillion-dollar deals and a commitment to sign a free trade agreement by year’s end.  On March 4th, Australia and Canada signed new agreements on critical minerals as Carney made a landmark address to the Australian parliament, a sign of the developing bond between the “middle powers”.  The two countries will also deepen cooperation in areas including defence and maritime security, trade and artificial intelligence.

All if this is happening because of the political and economic policies under the Trump administration, which are confusing given that over 70 percent of Canada’s trade has always been with the U.S.  This close relationship with the U.S. has even been highlighted by the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement which Trump had negotiated and endorsed during his first term in office.  Now, it appears that he wants to replace this agreement with separate agreements with Canada and Mexico, which apparently would include new tariffs on their imports to the U.S.on selected products and services.  This has created a good deal of “uncertainty” and “confusion” within North American markets.

Moreover, when it comes to the U.S. policies, once can only foresee more confusion and uncertainty in the near future.  As Trump would no doubt brag, the ball now lies in the American court.

Canada Defence Defence Economy Foreign Policy Iran Iran Israel Military Prowess NATO The Middle East Trade with U.S. Trump U.S. Canada Border 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 »
Nov 30

Where Do Provincial Powers Begin and End in Canada?

by bcurry

To better understand the split between provincial and federal powers, given by Canada’s written constitution, one has to understand a little bit of the history.  When Canada became an independent country from Great Britain, the federal government was given a good deal of governance responsibilities.  Canada was formed as a confederation comprised of ten provinces and several territories.  However, the provinces eventually garnered a fair amount of responsibility for certain matters which were not national in scope.  Federally, the government deals primarily with inter-provincial areas such as transportation, banking, and inter-provincial commerce, as well as such international areas dealing with foreign policy, trade, defence and immigration.  So far so good.  However, during World War II, the federal government took control of areas of taxation in order to make war related payments.  These revenue areas were not returned to the provinces after the war. For this reason, the provinces have complained about their heavy reliance on access to federal funding for areas of primary provincial responsibility such as health, education and housing.  In addition, as the years passed, new areas surfaced of great importance such as telecommunications and nuclear energy, something that the federal government determined was in their jurisdiction as part of its constitutional responsibility for the peace, order and good government of Canada.  Over the course of the 20th century, legal interpretations of peace, order and good government more clearly defined the limits of federal authority over the provinces.  Often disputes over who’s responsible for what and to what extent end up in litigation by provinces and the federal government.  Like the old constitution of 1867, the new one of 1982 will remain vague in many areas until time and circumstance permit its interpretation by the courts.

All in all, the provinces continue to have substantial jurisdiction for areas such as education, health and urban affairs.  One area of contention has been the federal introduction of “equalization payments” to the provinces to help ensure that provincial governments across Canada can provide adequate services.  It was expected that the richer provinces would help to subsidize certain areas in the so-called poorer provinces.  For example, Alberta has its oil and gas industry which brings in large revenues to its coffers.  The federal government gets its share of taxes from Alberta’s energy sector and passes most along to the Maritime and other provinces to help provide some of the services that Canadians have come to rely on.  Quebec has also benefited greatly from the equalization arrangement, while Ontario has not.

Now, the current Alberta government is complaining about federal policies and laws that they feel intrude upon their provincial responsibilities or which Albertans are not in agreement with, such as gun control measures and environmental taxes on oil and gas sectors to name a few.  Recently proposed legislation introduced in Alberta would allow its cabinet to direct “provincial entities” — Crown-controlled organizations, municipalities, school boards, post-secondary schools, municipal police forces, regional health authorities and any social agency receiving provincial money — to not use provincial resources to enforce federal rules deemed harmful to Alberta’s interests.  This is a very disturbing development, suggesting even greater polarization between a province and the federal government.  Fortunately, the Alberta government has not gone as far as — like Quebec in the past — to suggest a potential separation from Canada’s confederation.

However, Alberta’s stance appears to be somewhat similar to Quebec’s political moves in the sixties, seventies and eighties where provincial parties promoting Quebec’s independence from Canada had emerged.  Failing to obtain a majority in two referendums on independence, the Quebec movement slowly disappeared over the last decade.  Instead, Quebec has attempted to secure more provincial control over former federal jurisdiction, such in such areas as immigration and public pensions plans.  Indeed, Quebec recently passed several contentious laws dealing with French language rights and secularism in its public sector.  The courts have already begun to examine appeals to such legislation based on possible violations under human and rights laws.

What all this amounts to is the power to govern.  The federal government has to play a fine line between what powers can be shared and what policies best serve all Canadians equally.  There is little doubt that provincial premiers will continue to gang up on the Prime Minister, particularly when to do so is in their interests.  The PM on the other hand has the difficult and delicate task of maintaining a strong national presence in governance in support of the peace, order and good government of Canada.

Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms Defence Education Fairness in Taxation Federal Government Gun Laws Health Care Systen Immigration Policies

Leave a comment »
Mar 28

What both Canada and the U.S. have in common when it comes to the Artic and Russia

by bcurry

Back in 2016, a report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Defense appeared to call for American ships to challenge Canadian claims in the Arctic.  The U.S. has had three active marine disputes with Canada in the Arctic, including over 21,000 square kilometres in the Beaufort Sea and two smaller areas of the Dixon Passage, between British Columbia and Alaska.  In addition, in the past the U.S. Coast Guard has sent ice breakers through the Northwest Passage without seeking Canadian permission.  Then came issues surrounding access to minerals and fossil fuels located on the Arctic sea floor, especially as climate change and melting sea ice were helping to open up these waters to year round navigation and maritime shipping.  In 2017, this in turn led to President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jointly signing a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing in Arctic waters.

However, now enters Russia who we all know are very active in opening up their Arctic waters.  In the past, Russia has made it clear it intends to control the so-called Northern Sea Route off its northern shore, a route that significantly shortens the shipping distance between China and Northern Europe.  U.S. officials have complained that Russia is illegally demanding that other nations seek permission to pass and threatening to use military force to sink vessels that do not comply.  Two years ago, Moscow brought its own war games barrelling through the Bering Sea, with Russian commanders testing weapons and demanding that American fishing boats operating in U.S. fishing waters get out of the way — an order the U.S. Coast Guard advised them to comply with at the time.  In addition, Russia has repeatedly sent military aircraft to the edge of U.S. and Canadian airspace, leading U.S. and Canadian jets to scramble to intercept them and warn them away.

Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers.  Their nuclear propulsion systems allow them to smash through much thicker ice than conventionally powered vessels giving them a full winter capacity to push through the up to three-metre ice encountered at that certain times of the year. In 2019, the American government began pondering the construction of three heavy icebreakers and three medium-sized vessels.  The Trump Administration ordered an overview of the nation’s icebreaker fleet, with an eye toward fielding a new, rejuvenated fleet by 2029.  The current fleet of Canadian Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, now under construction, will still have limited icebreaking capacity, and to date little progress has been made toward the actual construction of a planned heavy polar icebreaker.  Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, concerns over Russia’s military capability and intentions in our Arctic waters have grown.  All signs indicate that Russia is reinvesting in its military capabilities and presence in the region.

Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand is pledging to modernize the alliance protecting Canada’s North particularly in terms of our Arctic sovereignty.  Hopefully, the Russian threat may actually now lead to Canada and the U.S. to finally reaching agreement on the status of the critical Northwest Passage between the North Atlantic and the Beaufort Sea.  However, some observers will argue that the European Artic waters — comprised of Norway, Denmark and Iceland — are more vulnerable to Russian shipping and military initiatives in the North.  One has to remember that these countries are part of NATO, and we are then, of course, obligated to go to their defence in the event of any military incursion.  Since the Russian threat is also an aerospace one, there is an urgent need to strengthen the current capabilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).  First created during the Cold War to protect against a Soviet attack, NORAD is a joint military command between Canada and the U.S. that provides airspace surveillance.  America’s strategic air command’s bombers fly over Canadian aerospace on a daily basis.  However, the technology of NORAD’s north warning system was only last modernized in 1985, and requires an immediate modernization designed to counter imminent dangers of the day — long range bomber threats from the Soviet Union.

What all this means is that Canada and the U.S. had better get their acts together to protect their Arctic maritime and aerospace regions.  The sooner the better!

Canada Climate Change Defence Defence Foreign Policy US

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.