FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Jun 10

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

by bcurry

Trade by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with the U.S. ‘is an important part of Canada’s economy.  SMEs are defined as those with 1 to 499 paid employees.  According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as of December 2024 there were 1.10 million employer businesses in Canada.  Of these, 1.08 million (98.2%) were small businesses, 16,953 (1.5%) were medium-sized businesses, and 3,380 (0.3%) were large businesses.  Also, as of 2024, small businesses employed 5.8 million individuals in Canada, or 46.6% of the total private labour force, and medium-sized businesses employed 2.1 million individuals (17.0% of the private labour force).  Moreover, well over half of the Canadian labour force (almost 64%) was employed by SMEs.  In the same year, Canada’s exports of goods totalled $712.8 billion, of which 37.9% was attributable to SMEs.  A total of 48,036 Canadian enterprises exported goods, the vast majority of which were SMEs (73.3%), with the main destination being the U.S.

SMEs are well represented in Canada, as evidenced by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) which represents about 103,000 small businesses and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.  The Chamber is the national voice of business uniting over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade representing more than 200,000 organizations across every region of Canada.  Along with other G7 countries, these organizations stand ready to support the G7 governments in modernizing a much-needed multilateral trading system, for their mutual future prosperity and growth.

The United States’ trade and tariff war with Canadais disrupting decades of cross border cooperation.  On both sides of the border, this trade war has created havoc among SMEs who for years benefited from free trade agreements between the two countries, the latest being the Canada-US-Mexico free trade agreement (CUSMA).  Effective February 24, 2026, among the current tariffs affecting Canadian exports into the U.S., the Trump administration introduced a 10% tariff on non-CUSMA compliant goods.  This has added an additional cost on Canadian SME exports, whereby a number of businesses have simply decided to pay given the paper trail complexities associated with its current application vis-à-vis CUSMA.  In addition, effective August 29, 2025, the administration eliminated the U.S. de minimis treatment for low-value shipments, which affects goods valued at $800 or less.  This especially affects the exports by the smallest Canadian businesses which are now subject to all applicable duties, thereby raising the costs of their products for American consumers.  Without American consumer demand, many of the Canadian boutique class businesses will have not choice but to simply give up on exporting directly to U.S.customers.

Unlike the impact on larger companies (500 or more paid employees), such as those in the steel, aluminum, automotive and forestry sectors, SMEs on both sides of the border find it difficult to discover alternative markets for their products.  This situation implies that both American and Canadian SMEs will find it harder to export their products within the North American market. 

The impact on SMEs unfortunately is often forgotten in light of the majority of attention being given to those larger companies hit more extensively by tariffs.  This is unfortunate because SMEs often represent the best chance for employment growth in both countries.  In the past, SMEs were encouraged to expand their reach into the North American markets, resulting in the emergence of more and more franchises and increased business across our borders.  Now, the lost of open trade relations between the two countries has most definitely affected SMEs, and the potential for labour force growth in both.  This impact should not be discounted and ignored, especially since both Canada and the U.S. fundamentally support free enterprise and capitalism in all its forms.

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

Leave a comment »
May 24

American Questions About Albertan Referendum on Separation From Canada

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
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 »
Feb 11

Canada’s Major Concern is Less to do with Fentanyl Importation than with Guns

by bcurry

Ontario being Canada’s most populous province, according to its provincial government, 91 percent of handguns recovered from crimes in 2024 came in illegally from the United States.  It should be noted that the actual figures are almost certainly higher because many recovered guns have been tampered with to make them untraceable.  According to the Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian authorities have also been confiscating more firearms at the border with the U.S.: 827 in 2024, up from 459 in 2020. The same situation can be said for Mexico where since October 2024, the Mexican authorities had seized 18,000 firearms, of which nearly 80 percent came from the U.S.

In addition, there is the accompanying illegal importation of ammunition to both countries, much again originating in the U.S.  Just recently, it was reported by Mexico’s Defense Secretary, Gen. Ricardo Trevilla Trejo, that about 137,000 .50-caliber rounds had been seized since 2012.  Of those, 47 percent came from the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, which is the largest manufacturer of rifle rounds used by the American military — some which were sold commercially in gun shops in the southern states.  According to documents obtained by reporters, many of these rounds ended up in the hands of Mexican cartel members, who have used them to terrorize civilians and security forces alike.  Armed with .50-caliber firearms, cartel gunmen have downed helicopters, assassinated government officials, shot at police and military forces, and killed civilians.

Demand for illegal firearms in Canada is driving the smuggling from the U.S., especially for handguns used in most violent crimes.  In 2023, Canada further tightened control over handguns, making them virtually impossible to buy or transfer legally.  Despite the stricter gun control measures in Canada, the easy legal access to guns in the U.S. remains an issue.  Once obtained by gun smugglers, the profits to be made are high given that a handgun for example can be obtained illegally in Canada for three to four times the original purchase.  Gun violence has also gone up significantly across Canada.  According to government data, the homicide rate increased 33 percent from 2013 to 2023, largely because of firearm killings which jumped 89 percent.  While firearms and stabbings alternated as the leading cause of homicides in the past, firearms have been the primary method of killing in Canada every year since 2016.

When compared to use by Canadians of fentanyl, the difference is the fact that the vast majority of fentanyl is manufactured within Canada for sale in the Canadian market.  As a result, although still serious, the export or import of the illicit drug is less of an issue for Canadian authorities.  However, fentanyl and other illegal drugs are being provided by drug gangs within the country, many of whom obtain firearms for protection and threats vis-à-vis other rival gangs.  Quite often, when Canadian authorities arrest members of such gangs, the firearms seized are guns smuggled in from the U.S, with some altered to fire automatically.

In conclusion, when it comes to U.S.-Canada-Mexico security discussions, the continuing concern over related gun and ammunition smuggling out of the U.S. has to be on the table.  One recognizes that the American authorities have attempted to coordinate initiatives to deal with this issue, but much more needs to be done.  Perhaps, President Trump could give some real thought to this serious matter, as Canadian and Mexican lives are at stake.


 

Arms Trade Canada Gun Control Gun Control Gun Laws 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 »
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 »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.