FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 7

Would Trump Really Enact the Insurrection Act?

by bcurry

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to use active-duty military personnel to perform law-enforcement duties inside the U.S.  Unfortunately, the Insurrection Act was written in fairly broad terms, with little specific guidance on how and when the powers can be used.  It apparently gives presidents wide latitude in deciding when to mobilise military personnel for domestic operations.  Presidents can invoke the law if they determine that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the government make it “impracticable to enforce” U.S. law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”.  To date, President Trump has chosen not to invoke this Act.  One important reason is that if he chooses to invoke the Act, it remains unclear what further legal challenges he might face.  Since the start of his second term, he has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 American cities.

Already, the Trump administration is facing numerous challenges to his use of federalizing the National Guard in cases involving Los Angeles and Chicago.  Most recently, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Portland, Oregon, including the California National Guard.  U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, issued the order pending further arguments in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.  She said the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.  California and Oregon also sought the temporary restraining order after U.S. President Donald Trump sent guard members from California to Oregon.  The same judge temporarily blocked his administration from deploying Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.  This upset Trump who then talked about invoking the Insurrection Act.

The use of the Insurrection Act has normally been under very exceptional circumstances since its first use by Abraham Lincoln when the southern states rebelled during the US Civil War, and by former President Ulysses S Grant against a wave of racist violence by the Ku Klux Klan after the war.  It was last used by President George Bush in 1992 when massive riots broke out in Los Angeles over the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a black man.  The American government has traditionally worked to limit the use of military force on American soil, especially against its own citizens.  Its use would be an extreme option in order to allow the Trump administration to circumvent legal hurdles.  It was reported that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller in creditably declared that the government was facing a “legal insurrection”, and that court rulings against its law enforcement efforts were tantamount to “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States”. 

Suggesting that the use of the military to assist local police forces, as was the case in Washington, D.C., in fighting urban criminal activities would appear to be an extreme measure and one which does not inspire confidence in local and state police forces.  There has to date been no real evidence of any form of organized insurrection in American cities.  Suggesting that the police cannot deal with civil protests against such policies as the Trump administration’s approach to the potential arrests of illegal undocumented persons has been greatly exaggerated.  In effect, the appearance of military personnel on the streets only makes the potential angry reaction of peaceful protesting groups even more likely, especially when they are exposed to the use of tear gas and other riot control measures.

Invoking the Insurrection Act under the current circumstances would be a serious political and policy mistake on the part of the President.  It would certainly strengthen the perception that this administration has become increasingly authoritarian in its use of presidential powers, very often attempting to circumvent the judicial system.  I strongly believe that given its very definition, there is no existing insurrection in the U.S., armed or otherwise.  The very use of this term has been severely abused by the Trump administration, and can only lead to much more unrest by the citizenry in the affected cities of this great nation. 

Civil Rights Donald Trump Judicial System Urban Issues US

Leave a comment »
Sep 25

Can Canada Return to a Former Foreign Policy Partly Based on Non-Alignment?

by bcurry

In the early 1970s while in college, I wrote a paper which concluded that Canada’s foreign policy in the post-colonial era was largely influenced by the non-alignment movement that had emerged globally at the time.  This position was particularly true given that the majority of Canada’s foreign aid was directed at newly established states such as Bangladesh and Cambodia, and several developing countries such as India and Mexico.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged as one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives of the 20th century, offering newly independent nations a third path during the height of the so-called Cold War.  Founded on principles of independence, peace, and solidarity, NAM represented an alternative to the rigid bipolar world order dominated by the U.S. and Soviet Union. This movement, which began with just 25 countries in 1961, grew to encompass over 120 nations, fundamentally reshaping global diplomatic dynamics and giving voice to the developing world’s aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.  Canada however was not a formal member of the movement.  The movement’s advocacy for the new international economic order in the 1970s, though ultimately unsuccessful, raised important questions about global economic inequality and the need for fairer trade arrangements.  In particular, the member countries used their collective strength to democratize United Nations (UN) procedures and decision-making, something that Canada strongly endorsed.

However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the global scene rapidly changed.  The NAM countries initially supported the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which in turn Canada greatly supported.  However, member states such as India and Pakistan, went on to develop nuclear capabilities, greatly angering Canada who had earlier provided nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to each country.  In addition, Canada’s ties to American foreign policy had increased during the Cold War and after.  As a result, Canada has unfortunately failed to secure a seat on the UN’s Security Council by not receiving sufficient votes from NAM countries.  It is worth noting that over the years Canada played a major role in UN peacekeeping initiatives along with other nations directed at resolving several conflicts among NAM countries themselves.

In the aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as a military alliance between 32 member states, including Canada, the U.S. and 30 European states.  Canada’s contribution to NATO forces has increased over time, making it almost impossible to have a non-aligned defence or security policy.  Canada’s defence spending is expected to increase even more in the coming years.

Moreover, the NAM movement’s effectiveness in the post-Cold War era soon became limited. The rise of a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. created new challenges, while economic globalization exposed the limitations of traditional non-alignment approaches.  Many NAM countries found themselves forced to choose between economic integration and political independence.  In addition, China and India emerged as the second and third respective economic powers, challenging the U.S.   While Canada still supports the dominance of global trading mechanisms, the recent American move to greater bilateral trading arrangements and the use of tariffs has forced Canada to seek out and strengthen trading relationships in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.  U.S. isolationist policies have forced Canada to further diversity its domestic economy and its offshore trading partners. 

In today’s world, Canada is more or less portrayed as a middle power seeking to maximize its autonomy while engaging with competing global powers.  This approach is no longer in line with that of the pre-Cold War era and any move to non-alignment as a foreign policy.  However, this does not mean that Canada cannot take an independent stance when it comes to formulating and implementing its foreign policy.  There is certainly a need to be not too closely aligned with the current American administration’s isolationist approach to foreign matters.

Canada China's Influence Foreign Policy Foreign Policy India NATO Protectionism Trade with EU Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Sep 18

Free Speech is on the Decline in America

by bcurry

Political satire has long been considered one of the gems reflecting the strength of free speech in America.  However, recently, freedom of expression has taken a hit in the entertainment industry, as exemplified by the cancellation by networks of two popular late-night talk shows.  I am of course referring to The Late Show With Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel Live.  Both shows have been signalled out by the Donald Trump and his administration.

Let’s first begin by pointing out that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a political appointee.  Trump nominated Brendan Carr for FCC chairman in November 2025, obviously someone trusted by the president.  The FCC is supposed to be an independent body overseeing licensed media sources in the U.S., primarily regulating the industry and ensuring certain prescribed activities are followed under its purview.  The FCC also oversees the rules governing how much of a sector a private company can obtain in order to prevent any one company from monopolizing the output of a media source — be it television or radio for example.  For this reason, the FCC wields power over the broadcast licenses that are granted to local TV stations by the federal government and the merger of companies running specific media sources.

Paramount Global’s pending sale to Skydance Media needed the Trump administration’s approval (i.e. FCC).  It just so happened that Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, settled a recent lawsuit with Trump over a 60 Minutes interview involving Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.  In Stephen Colbert’s subsequent monologue, he said he was “offended” by the $16-million U.S. settlement.  In addition, Colbert has targeted Trump for years.  From 2005 to 2014, The Colbert Report aired a satirical riff on right-wing news talk shows, especially Trump’s favourite Fox News.  Paramount and CBS executives claimed in a statement that the cancellation was purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night television, noting that it was not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.  Something difficult to believe given that Colbert’s award winning show was ranked in the most recent ratings from Nielsen as the best late-night show and the only one to gain viewers so far this year.

Shortly after Carr’s criticism on Fox News of Kimmel’s remarks in a podcast about MAGA and the assassination of Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Nexstar, an owner of ABC affiliate stations around the country, pre-empted Mr. Kimmel’s program for the foreseeable future.  Of note, Nexstar recently announced that it planned to acquire a rival company in a $6.2 billion deal, which has to be scrutinized by the F.C.C.  According to the New York Times, Chuck Schumer, opposition Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, denounced on CNN the pressure on ABC from the Trump administration as “despicable, disgusting, and against democratic values.”  He compared it to the playbook of autocratic Chinese and Russian leaders, noting that Trump and his allies seem to want to shut down speech that they don’t like to hear.  It certainly would appear, given Carr’s public outbursts, that the FCC is being used to do just that.

Now, the life of television and radio shows normally rely on the free enterprise market as it relates to corporate sponsors and their marketing through ads on popular shows.  This is fine given that there is a good deal of healthy competition within varying media.  People’s interest in and following of media outlets is what rightfully determines a show’s success.  However, as in the print news media, we see today increasing interference by leaders in trying to influence the programming and content of shows, especially those involving political satire and editorial opinion.  The power of the FCC to regulate the industry is obviously being abused by the current administration.  Once again, this is clearly another attack on the right to free speech as provided for under the U.S. constitution. 

Civil Liberties Donald Trump Free Speech Republican Party Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 29

Just Who Are These American People Supporting Trump Administration’s Policies?

by bcurry

I keep reading and hearing about the American public whom the Trump administration appears to listen to and who in turn supposedly lend their support.  Some have speculated that they are those who claim to be part of the so-called Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.  However, the MAGA supporters still only represent a fraction of the Republican Party.  Based on recent polls in the U.S., which put Trump’s approval ratings at an all time low, it certainly doesn’t appear to include the vast majority of independent voters.  As for the “big, beautiful bill” recently passed by the Republicans, at the town halls held by Republican Congressional representatives the negative and furious reactions by their constituents don’t appear to be very favourable.  The majority of Americans are now also beginning to question the administration’s tariffs and immigration policies.  It would appear the emphasis on dealing with inflation, remembering Trump’s references to the high cost of “groceries”, has now taken a back seat to his other priorities.  This at a time when the real impact of high tariffs on imports from India and China have yet to be fully felt by American consumers.  Many Americans, particularly those in states bordering with Canada, are not happy with how the Trump administration is dealing with its northern neighbour and long time friend, ally and trading partner.

Prior and during the last election, there is little doubt that some Americans were concerned about numerous federal agencies, especially with respect to their credibility and trust wariness.  Instead of restoring their trust in agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Justice Department to name a few, we now see the administration attempting to dismantle and weaponize these independent bodies.  Trump is replacing their heads with politically loyal hacks with little or no expertise in leading or running such institutions.  By doing this, the administration argues that the ability of the President to exercise his hiring and firing policies ensures political accountability for them to the American people.  Again, who just are these American people?  While there are always ways to improve their operations, attacking independent bodies in this manner tends to undermine their important mandates which are intended to be apolitical and based on expertise and research-based objectivity.  No other administration in U.S. history has ever assailed these institutions in the way that the Trump administration is proceeding to try to bring them into line with his political thinking.  Furthermore, there is no clear evidence of any form of so-called “deep state” existing among independent bodies.

Of course, within the federal government, there are senior positions that each new administration will fill with its own politically motivated appointments, normally leaving the remainder of each department’s operations under the capable hands of career civil servants.  One can only hope that confirmed appointees are credible and experienced administrators in what ever mandate they will represent.  Unlike in Canada, the appointment of hundreds of senior administrators is left up to the President, resulting in a major turnover at the top with each new administration.  Generally, in Canada the bulk of senior federal officials are career bureaucrats with the applicable administrative capabilities, frequently serving under governments of varying political stripes.  For this reason, the Canadian public service is somewhat admired among democratic countries and often put forward as a good administrative example for governments.

There is little doubt that Trump was attempting to appease his base, in particular MAGA, by instituting his policies via many executive actions in his first hundred days in office.  Meanwhile, the Republican dominated Congress sat on the sidelines watching it all happening and has failed to address some of the more controversial executive orders, some of which most likely are unconstitutional.  So just who are these members serving at this time?  It certainly doesn’t appear to be their own constituents based on the resulting outrage being witnessed throughout the country, even in red states!

Conservative Political Groups Donald Trump Federal Government Immigration Protectionist Trade Policies Public Service Trading Relationships US US Politics

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