FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Aug 24

How the Trump Administration Has Undermined the Justice System

by bcurry

There isn’t a day that goes by without some new revelation about the Trump administration’s interference in or misuse of the justice system.  The most recent abuse to surface was revealed when a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, a Trump appointee, had been serving as New Jersey’s U.S. attorney without legal authority for more than a month.  The judge ruled that she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of that office in an acting capacity and she has no experience in criminal law.  At the time of her acting appointment, other potential reputable veteran prosecutors were already under consideration in the office of the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.  The thing is that such moves used by the administration to keep Habba in charge of the New Jersey office after her interim tenure ran out have apparently been replicated by the Justice Department in several other U.S. attorney’s offices.  It has also be pointed out that since the legality of the appointment was being challenged, the questions had left the state’s district court system at a standstill for several weeks, delaying hearings, plea agreements, grand jury proceedings and at least one trial.

In the past few months, members of Trump’s Justice Department have repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them.  In the past, Justice Department lawyers long enjoyed a professional benefit when they appear in court. As a general rule, judges tend to take them at their word and assume they are telling the truth.  Now, because of the current inappropriate behaviour of Justice Department lawyers, legal experts say that the actions have resulted in serious doubts among judges about the department and those who represent it.  This doubt could ultimately have a more systemic effect and erode the healthy functioning of the courts.  In addition, this confusion and negative reaction has been further exacerbated by the fact the Trump administration has fired numerous veteran prosecutors at the department, apparently without cause and in some cases simply because they had been involved in past cases involving Trump.  As for the remaining prosecutors, their credibility and integrity is now being more frequently questioned by the courts.  A good recent example is where federal grand juries in Los Angeles have been refusing to indict many defendants whom prosecutors have sought to charge in connection with immigration protests.

Trump hypocritically had accused the Biden administration of “weaponizing” the Justice Department, when he in fact has gone even further do exactly the same thing, but in much more evident and worst ways in real terms.  The most recent example is where Edward R. Martin Jr., appointed by Trump last January as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was tapped by the Justice Department to investigate the New York attorney general, Letitia James.  James of course was the person who successfully prosecuted Trump in the civil fraud case against him and his business, resulting in a finding that he altered his net worth for tax and insurance benefits — a blow to his real estate mogul image.  To date, James has not been formally accused of any wrongdoing.  In May, Trump withdrew Martin’s nomination to take the U.S. Attorney job permanently when it appeared that he would not be confirmed by the Senate.  Subsequently, Martin was quickly reassigned to Justice Department headquarters, where he holds four titles, including United States pardon attorney and director of the so-called Weaponization Working Group — a task force established to seek retribution against Trump’s past perceived political enemies.  Often, referred to as the Weaponization Czar, he is expected to sidestep Justice Dept. norms to expedite investigations.  It has been reported that over the past two months, Martin has been in charge of several investigations all at once and has quietly worked with federal prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia and Maryland.  Again the persons were involved in cases making them Trump’s so-called political enemies.  It is also noted that Martin has virtually no experience overseeing investigations, or in compiling a case that successfully persuades a grand jury to bring an indictment.

All in all, these are just a few recent examples of how the Trump administration has attempted to weaponize the Justice Department, and in turn the justice system as we know it.  These scurrilous attempts will consequently represent a growing decline in the public’s credibility and trust when it comes to the courts and this particular federal institution.

Donald Trump Federal Government Joe Biden Justice Department US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 12

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

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
Aug 7

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

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump US

Leave a comment »
Jul 28

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

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
Jul 17

U.S. Current Involvement In The Middle East Is Just Making Things Worst In The Region

by bcurry

As if the continuing supply of American weaponry to Israel isn’t destabilizing enough with respect to Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran, now the Trump administration has bombed Iranian nuclear facilities and Israel has undertaken further military actions in Syria.  Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition now has received carte blanche from the U.S. to do whatever they believe is in their strategic interests, even if this means further threatening the political and economic stability in the region.  Iran is economically in a mess, and American military actions have simply caused greater consternation and outrage.  Indeed, according to the United Nations’ refugee agency, one of the immediate consequences is the fact that Iran has speeded up its deportation back to Afghanistan of Afghan refugees who number more than 1.4 million in the country.  It’s been reported that the mass expulsions threaten to push Afghanistan further toward the brink of economic collapse with the sudden cut off of vital remittance money to Afghan families from relatives in Iran.  In addition, the sudden influx of returnees piles on Afghanistan’s already grim unemployment, housing and health-care crises.  More than half of Afghanistan’s estimated population of 41 million already relies on humanitarian assistance.

In the case of Syria, Israel recently launched deadly airstrikes on Syria’s capital, damaging a compound housing the defence ministry and hitting an area near the presidential palace, according to the Israeli military and Syrian authorities. The bombardment in central Damascus followed days of bloody clashes involving Syrian government forces in the southern region of Sweida, the heartland of the country’s Druse minority and a strategically important province near Israel and Jordan.  Israeli officials have argued previously that they want to prevent any hostile forces in Syria from entrenching near their borders.  Syria of course has a new interim government following the overthrow of former dictator Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.  Syria’s new president Ahmed al-Shara has tried to stabilize the country since the change of regime and has also attempted to forge closer relations with the U.S.  However, Israeli military actions in Syria could damage these potential improved relations.  The Trump administration so far has been silent on the Israeli initiatives, except to state that they are “very concerned” over the Israeli strikes.

For an administration that claims it is against wars and the killing of civilians in particular, Trump appears to have taken a wait-and-watch position when it comes to Israel’s military actions in the region.  This position has given clear support to Netanyahu’s aggressive military initiatives, whether right or wrong.  This could lead to more awkward and contentious relations between the two administrations.  Even Israel’s apparent attempts to improve relations with other Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia could be in jeopardy with the continuation of Israel’s attacks on its neighbouring states.  It’s becoming harder and harder to justify Israel’s military actions back home in the U.S. and in turn America’s continuing major involvement and military support.  The prospects of a more permanent cease fire with the Palestinians and Iranians is increasingly becoming that much more difficult under the circumstances.

In addition, Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister, said in an interview with the New York Times: “In Israel, Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice everything for his survival and we are closer to a civil war than people realize. In Gaza, we have returned to fighting — and for what?  And overseas, I never remember such hatred, such opposition, to the state of Israel.”  Opposition to the actions of the Netanyahu administration is growing among Western countries, including Great Britain, the European Union and Canada.  All in all, there is little doubt that the Middle East region is today more unstable than ever, and the Trump administration through it actions or lack thereof has greatly contributed the region’s instability.

Afghanistan Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Israel Israel Military Prowess The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Jul 13

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

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
Jul 3

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

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
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 »
Jun 6

What Is Going On With the Circus in Washington?

by bcurry

Never before in all the years that I have been following American political news have I ever seen such a circus as the current one in Washington.  We now have the current break-up of the romance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.  With the use of social media, the barbs are flying everywhere.  Remember that on X, Musk has almost 225 million followers.  Trump on the other hand was reported in August 2022 to have only 3.9 million Truth Social followers.  The number of Trump followers has certainly increased since becoming president, but no where near Musk’s numbers.

Then there are the members of Trump’s cabinet who continue to not impress us with their mistakes and lack of applicable backgrounds and experience.  One has the Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, who recently discussed top secret military missions against the Houthi rebels in Yemen on the non-secure platform “signal”, and included his wife and personal lawyer in one post.  Then you have the Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has initiated a quick study about the causes of “autism” by a number of non-experts with dubious backgrounds.  Kennedy has endorsed a number of health claims that are not backed by scientific evidence, including many on vaccines, which have concerned many medical experts.  Next is Attorney General Pam Bondi who did not know the meaning of “habeas corpus” as defined in the constitution.  Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, likes to dress up and have photo ops at the southern border.  Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, who was a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) co-founder, did not know the difference between AI (artificial intelligence) and the steak sauce A1.  We also hear very little from Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who appears often to take a back seat to Vice-President J.D. Vance.  Vance actually visited Greenland, only to the displeasure of the Prime Minister of Denmark and the vast majority of Greenlanders.  Today, it was announced that Trump Administration has taped a 22-year-old Thomas Fugate, who is one year out of college, to head up the Terrorism Prevention Role at Homeland Security.  He just happened to work on Trump’s campaign and has no experience in this important national security field.

Trump is reportedly fuming about his new nickname “TACO”, standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out”.  The acronym was brought to Trump’s attention at the White House press conference on May 28th by CNBC correspondent Megan Cassella.  The acronym refers to the President’s ongoing tendency to suddenly introduce high tariff rates on countries, only to reduce them shortly after or to defer them to some future date.  The continuous introduction of new fluctuating rates has created a great deal of economic uncertainty and has caused chaos in the markets and affected most business sectors.  It makes no sense at all!

With the Trump-Musk feud, late-night hosts are having a field day.  The heads of foreign countries are wondering what the hell is going on in Washington, including the Prime Minister of Canada.  Hopefully, trade negotiations and foreign policy matters can continue to be carried out rationally behind closed doors in order to avoid all the senseless and needless noise.  If the Trump administration’s gaffs weren’t so serious, they unfortunately would actually be hilarious.

Donald Trump Economy Elon Musk Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Social Media 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 »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.