FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

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 »
Jul 28

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

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
Jul 13

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

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
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 »
Mar 8

As a Canadian, How Are We Supposed to React to Donald Trump?

by bcurry

The border treaty Donald Trump recently referred to was established in 1908 and finalized the international boundary between Canada, then a British dominion, and the U.S.  Trump also mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations, which is regulated by a number of treaties.  For years, both Canada and the U.S. have shared responsibility and resources in managing border security and environmental concerns surrounding the Great Lakes in particular.  For example, the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1991 to address transboundary air pollution leading to acid rain.  Both countries agreed to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the primary precursors to acid rain, and to work together on acid rain-related scientific and technical cooperation.  The Ozone Annex was added to the Agreement in 2000 to address transboundary air pollution leading to high ambient levels of ground-level ozone, a major component of smog.  One result was that, as of 2020, emissions of sulphur dioxide in Canada and the U.S. decreased by 78% and 92%, respectively, from 1990 emission levels.  This preserved our water quality and in turn the health of our fish stocks in shared waters and in general.

As far as border security is concerned, this is a red herring put out there by Donald Trump.  As it stands, for sometime now, only less than one percent of the fentanyl comes across the border from Canada, as per the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Under the other hand, the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) estimates that over 80% of all guns used in violent crimes in Canada originate in the U.S.

According to the New York Times (March 7, 2025), Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that Trump wants to abandon our treaties and he wants to:

  • eject Canada out of an intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand,
  • tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario, and
  • review and reconsider military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

We already know that Trump is interested in having access to Canada’s abundance of critical mineral rights as noted in my previous blog of February 17, 2005: Trump’s Trade Policy Appears to be Directed at Securing Critical Mineral Rights | FROLITICKS. 

With his recent flip flopping on the proposed 25 percent tariffs against all Canadian exports to the U.S., it’s hard to get a reading on where Trump’s next move will go.  All that his administration is doing is creating a hell of a lot of global and economic uncertainty.  His expectation that Canadians would be cow towing to his wishes is way off.  If anything, he has generated an immense amount of Canadian pride across this country.  Canadians see these attacks on our sovereignty as an insult, especially from a nation that was a trusted friend and ally.  All in all, it’s difficult to know exactly what Trump’s expectations are!  Just how are Canadians supposed to react differently?  Your guess is as good as mine!

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations War on Drugs

Leave a comment »
Feb 25

Trump Administration Halts Research Spending in the Health Field

by bcurry

As a recent article in the New York Times1 points out, by some measures, the U.S. produces more influential health-sciences research than the next 10 leading countries combined.  At risk are not only the tens of thousands of grants the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H) awards each year, but also American dominance of biomedical research.  The world’s leading medical labs can be found in the United States, and they rely heavily on grants from the N.I.H.  Billions of dollars are spent on research for diseases and health conditions such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, brain injuries, child health, diabetes, H.I.V. infections and numerous other ailments.  The N.I.H notes that every dollar the agency spends on research generates more than two dollars in economic activity.  Why?  The results of medical research in the past have often led to the pharmaceutical industry developing drugs and vaccines for the treatment and prevention of diseases and health conditions, thereby fueling pharmaceutical advancements.  The result is also the fact that American companies will export many of the resulting drugs and vaccines to other countries, helping to grow the U.S. economy and positively lead to an American trade surplus.

Canadians and Americans have benefited from the medical research leading to pharmaceutical advancements.  Often, Canadian researchers will contribute to health-sciences research as was the case in the discovery of insulin years ago.  Today, there is on-going biomedical research at a number of Canada’s top universities.  Hopefully, researchers in both countries will continue to share in their findings.  The current U.S. administration’s handcuffing of its own scientists and holding back their important research will no doubt lead to serious consequences for advancements in the health field. 

The above mentioned New York Times article goes on to stipulate: “In response to all the uncertainty, universities are retrenching. The University of Pittsburgh froze Ph.D. admissions. Columbia University’s medical school paused hiring and spending. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology froze the hiring of non-faculty employees.”  In addition, some lab leaders indicated that they were making contingency plans to fire scientists, and that graduate students are being forced to search for new sources of funding.  I personally know of one young Canadian graduating from the University of Ottawa’s science faculty who a few years ago ended up in New York to participate in cancer research as part of a post-graduate program.

Much of biomedical research deals with not only areas related to treatments, but also areas related to the prevention of diseases, including those which particularly affect our aging population in both countries.  To hamper the work of such an important American institution as the National Institutes of Health is a major disservice to Americans and Canadians alike, and will have longer-term consequences.

1 “Paying for Science”: Benjamin Mueller, New York Times, February 25, 2025

Budget Canada Donald Trump Scientific Research US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Feb 17

Trump’s Trade Policy Appears to be Directed at Securing Critical Mineral Rights

by bcurry

After three years of war that forged a new unity within NATO, the Trump administration has made clear it is planning to focus its attention elsewhere: in Asia, Latin America, the Arctic and anywhere President Trump believes the U.S. can obtain critical mineral rights.  Moreover, this is why Trump to a large extent has his eye on annexing Canada and Greenland, both of which have an abundance of critical minerals such as uranium, graphite and lithium.  Critical minerals are currently used in over 230 sectors of the U.S. economy, from energy infrastructure to advanced technology manufacturing, and from aerospace engineering, including satellites, to medical equipment.  Critical minerals are the building blocks for the green and digital economy and demand for them will only grow throughout the global energy transition. Disruption potential is related to how much of a commodity’s global production is concentrated in countries that are relatively unwilling or unable (due to political or economic instability, workforce or infrastructure inadequacies, regulations, etc…) to supply the U.S. with critical minerals.  Some critical minerals are produced primarily in countries that are economically or politically unstable, or do not have a reliable trade relationship with the U.S. —  thereby representing a higher supply risk.  This however does not apply to Canada which is a stable supplier of minerals in general, including copper, zinc, phosphorus, silicon metal, cobalt, high-purity iron ore, and rare earth elements.

The lack of stability in Ukraine is a major reason why Trump apparently ha turned down Ukraine
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s extraordinary offer that the U.S. be granted a 50 percent interest in all of Ukraine’s critical mineral resources as compensation for past and future support of the war with Russia. 

However, Canada recognizes that critical minerals are the foundation on which modern technology is built upon.  They’re used in a wide range of essential products, from mobile phones and solar panels to electric vehicle batteries and medical applications. By building critical minerals value chains, Canada can become a major global supplier of choice for critical minerals and the clean energy and technology sources they enable.  For this reason, Canada is not willing to simply give away control of these precious minerals to the U.S. or any other nation for that matter.  They are also essential to Canada’s economic or national security.

Canada has already partnered with the U.S. when it comes to discovering and mining critical minerals.  In January 2020, the Canada-U.S. Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals was announced to advance bilateral interest in securing supply chains for the critical minerals needed in strategic manufacturing sectors.  Canada has also worked with other countries such as Japan to encourage cooperation on international standard-setting for critical minerals, as well as several multilateral organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the World Bank, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF).  The U.S. is also an active member of these multilateral organizations.

For these reasons, it is difficult to understand why Trump continues to be so aggressive when it comes to the U.S.-Canada trading relationship.  Canada is an exporting nation, which includes most of our natural resources which make up the bulk of exports.  Canada is very interested in exporting critical minerals to its allies through various trade agreements, and is investing more in the extraction of these minerals.  Canada already provides a stable and growing market when it comes to critical minerals.  If Trump wants to ignore the existing cooperation between the two countries, he does so at his own peril and that of those American businesses which rely on a steady and reliable supply chain.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Ukraine US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Feb 6

Canada Should Be Thanking President Trump For His Proclaimed Trade War!

by bcurry

There is no point in analyzing what Donald Trump’s executive orders are doing to shake up the government in Washington, particularly since there are more than enough American observers to undertake this analysis.  Instead, we in Canada can best focus on Trump’s continuing attacks on Canada’s sovereignty and its current trade relations with the U.S.  Trump’s proposed imposition of an across the board (except for oil and natural gas) 25% tariff on Canadian imports to the U.S. is seen as a blatant insult to the vast majority of Canadians.  After decades of free trade arrangements between both countries, such a tariff imposition would seriously alter the current relations both economically and politically.  The threat has created an outrage among Canadians that I have never seen in my lifetime.  In addition, there is little doubt that a trade war would economically hurt both Canadians and Americans alike.  It would certainly lead to greater inflationary pressures in both countries, something that the Trump Republicans had campaigned to control.

President and CEO of the Public Policy Forum, Inez Jabalpurwala, recently stated: “We must seize this moment to take decisive action to shape a stronger, more resilient and innovative energy-secure economy, as well as a united Canada.  It is incumbent upon us to stimulate economic growth, advance clean technology, expand our markets, remove internal trade barriers and get projects built.”  What we are seeing are campaigns across Canada to promote “Buy Canada” efforts by consumers whenever there are Canadian-made alternatives to imported American products.  In addition, the situation has convinced provincial premiers to seriously find ways to reduce or eliminate any inter-provincial trade barriers.  This has been something that the provinces have not really taking up earnestly until now.  By encouraging greater inter-provincial trade, Canadian business associations believe that it could result in billions of additional dollars for provincial economies.  Such an initiative, once implemented, would also lead to greater internal investment and the expansion and growth of Canadian companies throughout the country.  Even Canadian municipalities that purchase American products and contract with American companies for services are now examining local and Canadian alternatives. 

What the Trump administration has done is to galvanize Canadian governments, businesses and consumers to move to being less dependent on our southern neighbour for many products and services.  Past trading arrangements led to greater integration of and prosperity for both of our economies, especially in relation to the automotive industry, mining and the energy sectors.  Canada is a trading nation, particularly given its abundance of natural resources which make up the largest amount of its exports to the U.S. and other countries.  The current situation has again encouraged Canada to look more closely to further opening up its trade with other countries, including those in the European Union and Southeast Asia.  This move is rapidly gathering momentum and will no doubt increase regardless of Trump’s possible change of mind when it comes to the proposed tariffs.  The past trust of Canadians has been severely damaged, and a new reality of the predictable disintegration of our common markets has surfaced.

For this, we must thank Donald Trump!  His impertinent declarations that Canada should become the 51rst state have resulted in an expected backlash among Canadians.  It has unified the country as never witnessed before, even what happened during Quebec’s failed separation initiatives during the 1970s.  Canadians still view ordinary Americans as their friends and allies, but will not stand for Trump’s blatant “bullying” tactics as portrayed by numerous Canadian spokespersons.  Canadians, while normally seen as a polite people, are expressing their disappointment and anger with the U.S. administration and its supporters in multiple ways.  I suspect that they will continue to do so as long as Trump is in power and continues to attack our sovereignty.

Canada Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.