FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

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  Although the NEP was repealed by successive Conservative governments, including the newly formed Reform Party based in the West, the past actions by the federal government still left a bad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 »
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 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 »
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 »
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 »
Jun 17

Canadians Can Be Mad at the U.S., But Maybe We Had a Lot to Do With the Problem

by bcurry

Yes, Canada has every right to be mad at the Trump administration for reneging on the current trade agreement previously signed by then President Trump, imposing new tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S., and promoting the concept of a 51st state.  However, I can’t help thinking that we had a lot to do with creating the current crisis situation.

Actually years ago, I briefly thought that there might be some merit in Canada becoming part of the U.S. After all, with the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), our economy became even more integrated into that of the U.S.  Take the automotive sector for example, it was and still is the most integrated industry under past and current trade agreements between the two countries.  The so-called Auto Pact has had a longstanding history and basically prevented Canada from developing its own automotive manufacturing sector.  Perhaps it made sense given that Canada’s population is one tenth that of the American population and our market also became flooded with Asian and European cars.  Basically, we are non-competitive.  However, no one objected given the workings of the global economy, which no doubt benefited the pocketbooks of Canadians through access to cheaper goods.

Other Canadian sectors such as lumber, steel, aluminum and minerals all grew primarily due to the access to American markets.  Our reliance on these markets may have made us a little lazy and not overly innovative in some areas, especially as it pertains to other trading blocs.  Internally, intraprovincial trade barriers further exacerbated the lack of industrial growth and weaker productivity within Canada itself.  Professionals and trades people could not move easily between and among provinces due to labour mobility restrictions.  One could also have done a lot more to promote tourism within Canada and to build the required infrastructure for a modern tourism industry.

In more recent years, the modern world came to see the ever increasing need for rare minerals to support the growth of computerized technologies.  Both Canada and the U.S. became overly reliant on China which supplies about 80% of the much needed processed rare minerals used in such areas as electronics.  Canada has long been aware of its large sources of rare minerals, but has done next to nothing in developing processing capabilities. 

As for energy, Canada has major oil and gas reserves.  However, previous Canadian governments have stalled numerous potential projects such as the construction of pipelines to transport oil and natural gas to British Columbia ports for export to Asia and the U.S. west coast.  The expansion of pipelines within Canada has also been negatively affected by intraprovincial disputes over economic benefits, indigenous and environmental issues. 

In terms of our cultural sector, Canada has become a major cheap source for the production of American films and television series.  However, except for the support of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and various federally subsidies and tax breaks, the growth of Canadian content has been somewhat limited.  Instead, Canada became very dependent on American content as cable and steaming services steadily grew.  Quebec is the exception primarily because of the need to supply French content within the province through Radio Canada and other Quebec sources.  Moreover, we need to do a lot more to support Canadian culture, particularly through the CBC.

Today, I am a proud Canadian and object to Trump’s assertions about a northern 51st state.  I have seen positive social-economic trends in Canadian society.  With what is happening to the apparent attacks by the Trump administration on all aspects of American democracy, I clearly prefer to remain Canadian.  However, I would argue that much of what is happening economically is partly, if not mostly, our own fault.  As Canadians, there is a lot more that we can do to strengthen our nation.  This might indeed be a significant reversal of fortune.  So, stop complaining and let us demonstrate that Canada has a future of opportunities, with or without past ties to the U.S.


Canada Leadership NAFTA New Technologies Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
May 22

The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Foreign Policy Stance

by bcurry

This week, President Trump sat in a press conference and berated President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, a democratic state, with false claims about a genocide being committed against white Afrikaner farmers.  On the other hand, just a week ago President Trump had traveled to three Middle East countries ruled by repressive and non-democratic regimes and told them he would not lecture them about how they treat their own people.  The above meeting was subsequent to the administration’s fast tracking of the refugee status of dozens of white Afrikaans to the U.S. from South Africa, claiming that they were being persecuted by the government of that country and their lives and livelihood had been threatened.  No proof of the accusations was provided.

In contrast, one of Trump’s first actions on taking office in January 2025 was to issue an executive order suspending the Afghan resettlement program and leaving those eligible in legal limbo.  Approximately 180,000 Afghans had been admitted to the United States after August 2021.  Some were given special immigration visas (SIVs) that provided a path to permanent residency, while others were given humanitarian parole and granted temporary protected status (TPS) that allowed them to stay and to work in the U.S.  On April 11th, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced its decision to end TPS for more than 9,000 Afghans because Afghanistan “no longer continues to meet the statutory requirement for TPS.” Those targeted were given the option to self-deport before May 20, 2025.  Some of these Afghans had served with the American forces as interpreters and in other capacities, and any return to Afghanistan would most likely prove to be fatal to them and their families.

The encounter with President Ramaphosa in some ways echoed the previous February visit to the Oval Office by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.  Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelensky in front of TV cameras, cutting short a visit meant to coordinate a plan for peace.  At one point, Trump even suggested that the Ukraine was responsible for starting the war with Russia which is completely false.  Since then, Trump has subsequently met with Zelensky and had a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin in seeking to begin discussions for a permanent cease fire and resolution of the dispute.  However, most experts believe that Putin is simply stringing Trump along and has no intention of committing to fair and equitable negotiations with Zelensky.  Having failed to get both parties to the table, Trump now appears to have decided to concentrate only on economic talks with Ukraine, including those over that country’s rare minerals, and to forgo his intermediary status in the talks.

On May 6th, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Trump met at the White House and held a brief news event that focused on tariffs, trade and Trump’s repeated assertion that Canada should be the 51st state — a notion that Carney again clearly rejected.  While this meeting was somewhat more cordial in tone, the primary discussion of the existing Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) didn’t really get addressed.  Instead, Trump simply restated that there wasn’t anything Carney could say to convince him to lift the existing tariffs.  However, Carney has called the CUSMA as “the basis for a broader negotiation.”  Remember, that it was under the previous Trump administration that the current trade agreement was signed, which has now been violated with Trump’s recent tariffs on both Canadian and Mexican imports to the U.S.

What we have to date is a weird collage of approaches to foreign policies under the Trump administration.  Where Trump believes there are positive economic returns to the U.S., such as in the Middle East, he is quite willing to enter into bilateral trade arrangements, despite having to deal with non-democratic and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.  His administration has even alluded to possibly reducing or eliminating existing economic sanctions on Russia imposed after Putin’s past invasion of Crimea and the current armed invasion of Eastern Ukraine.  All of this contributes to the evident hypocrisy of Trump’s foreign policy stance.

Afghanistan Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Immigration NAFTA The Middle East Trade with U.S. Ukraine Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Apr 30

What The Results of The Canadian Election Mean For Canada

by bcurry

By now, anyone who keeps informed about Canadian news events, including a few Americans, have come to realize how the final federal election results are more than just significant for Canada and its federal parties.  Federally, there are six federal parties: the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Bloc Quebecois, the Green Party and the Peoples’ Party of Canada (PPC).  Moreover, the election became a two party race to win by either the Liberals, under Mark Carney or the Conservatives, under Pierre Poilievre.  The primary issue of the campaigns became that of Canada’s relationship with the U.S., more precisely with President Trump.  The Green Party has only one seat and the PPC has none.

In the end, the election results proved to be extraordinary with the Liberals winning enough seats in Parliament to form a minority government — its fourth consecutive term!  What is remarkable is the fact that the Liberals a few months before the election were more than 20 points behind the Conservatives in the polls.  Then suddenly, all that changed when Donald Trump got elected, Justin Trudeau stepped down as Prime Minister, and Mark Carney took over leadership of the Liberal Party.  The Liberals increased their position in recent polls to take the lead over Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives.  Then came the election itself, with the Liberals taking 169 seats to form a minority government.  Close behind is the Conservatives with 144 seats.  However, what is even more astonishing is that the Liberals gained most of their new seats at the expense of the NDP, a socialist party, with only 7 seats (a loss of 17 seats from 2021) and the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party, with 22 seats in Quebec (a loss of 13 seats from 2021).  Even more surprising, is the fact that Pierre Poilievre and the NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, both lost their riding seats.  Once an opposition party, the NDP no longer has official party status in parliament, which handicaps its ability to perform or contribute. 

While the popular vote was close, 43.7% for the Liberals and 41.3% for the Conservatives, Canadians favoured Mark Carney as the leader who could confront Trump over his tariffs on Canadian industries.  As a former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England and a former CEO, Carney is seen as someone with fairly qualified experience in finance, business, economics and international trade.  Canadians switched their support to the Liberals to support a strong opposition to the tariffs and political attacks by Trump who has frequently referred to Canada becoming a 51st state.

Now, Carney will have to start negotiations with the Trump administration with respect to an updated or new trade agreement, such as is governed by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) previously signed by all three countries in 2018.  By introducing initial tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel, oil and gas, softwood lumber and automotive sectors, Trump has already broken that trade agreement.  The danger for Canada is that if additional tariffs are introduced by the U.S., the economic impact on Canada would most likely lead to a major recession similar to that in 2008-09.  Canada would have to retaliate with tariffs on American goods, leading to higher prices for Canadians.  Americans would also see similar inflationary pressures due to Trump’s tariffs.

The election also resulted in a clear split between the eastern provinces which largely supported the Liberals and the western provinces, especially Alberta and Saskatchewan, which largely supported the Conservatives.  The western provinces have long argued that the federal government under the Liberals has harmed the growth of their oil and gas industry, particularly because of environmental policies.  Some westerners have already claimed that they might potentially be better off by withdrawing from the Canadian federation in some manner.  The Prime Minister will have to attempt some form of compromise to assuage the western grievances and maintain a sense of unity among all ten provinces.  Canada needs to provide a common, strong and unified front in its planned negotiations with the Trump administration.  After all, we are talking about Canada ’s state of sovereignty as a nation.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Federal Election Federal Government Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Apr 15

Canada’s Version of a Mini-Trump

by bcurry

As the federal election moves forward to its April 28th voting date, there is one leader of a party who is increasingly portraying himself as Canada’s version of a mini-Trump.  That leader is Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  His discourse prior to the election call has on several occasions been similar in content and tone to that of Donald Trump.  He spoke of Canada being broken; of “woke” predominance among the current Liberal government and the New Democratic Party (NDP); of a need to be tougher on crime; of Canada’s need to “drill-baby-drill” when it comes to fossil fuels, most notably in crude heavy oil found in Alberta.

In recent weeks, Poilievre appears to be even more aggressive, primarily due to the recent polls which show that the Liberal leader, Mark Carney, is now leading: including being the preferred candidate for the position of Prime Minister.  This is a major shift from prior to the election and the resignation of Pierre Trudeau as PM, when the Conservatives had a twenty plus lead in the polls.  However, along came Donald Trump and his tariffs against Canada and all that changed.  Carney has a business, economic and international finance background.  This has led Canadians to believe that Carney can better negotiate some sort of new trade deal with the Trump administration.  In addition, many Canadians are now comparing Poilievre to a mini-Trump because of the Conservative policies and the ongoing slogans surfacing in his campaign. 

Most recently, Poilievre has pushed for tougher measures as they pertain to sentences handed out by the courts under Canada’s Criminal Code.  This included the idea of arbitrary “three strikes” vis-à-vis convictions, whereby one’s prison term will be automatic and potentially longer.  However, one only has to study the consequences of this approach in California where its use clogged up the justice system for years and resulted in extreme over crowding in its prisons.  The situation was so bad that many non-violent prisoners had to be released as a result of COVID 19 and the danger of widespread infection in these crowded facilities. Get ready to build new prisons!

Next, is Poilievre’s pledge to use the “notwithstanding clause” in the Canadian constitution (Section 33) to allow longer sentences for multiple murderers, something that the Supreme Court of Canada had in 2022 ruled against as a violation of an offender’s Charter rights.  Politically, this represents a groundbreaking promise and he would become the first prime minister to invoke the clause while in office.  As one expert noted, the extraordinary use of the “notwithstanding clause” would occur not in crisis situations, not judiciously, not after massive public debates and so on, but due to a majority government which for its own political reasons is playing to its base.  Sounds like something that Trump would do.  Both Liberal Leader Mark Carney and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rejected using the notwithstanding clause.  In order to protect established rights, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, more than 50 organizations, human rights advocates and legal experts have openly urged all federal party leaders to commit to a public consultation on the notwithstanding clause within six months of forming a new government.  Without extensive prior-consultation within Canadian society at large, the clause’s federal use would establish a potentially perilous precedent with its first-time usage at the federal level.

Poilievre also appears to want to give carte blanche to the Canadian oil and gas industry to expand its production and exports in order to offset the American tariffs and grow the industry.  This of course would mean rapidly expanding pipeline construction from Alberta to the west coast, speeding up environmental reviews and consultations with indigenous peoples in the territories through which pipelines would go.  However, while this would certainly benefit the oil and gas industry in Canada
, one has to ask whether and by how much Canadians will benefit.  The Conservative base in Alberta
will certainly benefit, but how about the rest of the country?  In addition, many in the Conservative party tend to be “climate change” deniers.  Sounds familiar! 

All in all, Poilievre’s campaign has clearly had elements of Trumpism reflected in its content: something not lost on many Canadians.  Let’s face it, Trump is not too popular in Canada at this moment, and his unpopularity is definitely echoed in this election.

Canada Climate Change Donald Trump Federal Election Federal Government Populism in Canada Trade with U.S.

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