FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

May 22

The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Foreign Policy Stance

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
May 12

Would Canadian Universities Be Susceptible To Trump-Like Attacks?

by bcurry

Back in April, the New York Times reported that two groups representing Harvard professors sued the Trump administration claiming that its threat to cut billions in federal funding for the university violates free speech and other First Amendment rights.  The group’s lawsuit by the American Association of University Professors and the Harvard faculty chapter follows the Trump administration’s announcement that it was reviewing about $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives.  Earlier in March, the administration admitted that investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), typically focusing on human traffickers and drug smugglers, had begun scouring the internet for social media posts and videos that the administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas.  Subsequently, several students were illegally arrested and detained by ICE.  Numerous American universities are now under the gun.  The result has also been hundreds of protests, including those by students, professors and members of the community at large, against the Trump administration’s threat to further cut funding for universities.

In Canada, the situation is very different.  There have also been protests over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including temporary encampments on campuses.  However, the majority were settled peacefully and without most students being expelled or detained.  Yes, there is no doubt that some anti-semitism and anti-Islamic activities have occurred on campuses.  Moreover, such activities are normally dealt with by the university administrations without needless inference by the authorities.  Canadian universities have long professed the need for academic freedom and freedom of speech as fundamental principles for places of higher learning.  Most have clear guidelines dealing with on-campus hate messaging, harassment or any form of violence.  Should such outcomes occur, it is only then that the authorities would be brought in to determine if any crimes had been committed.  So far, this approach appears to have worked well.

Imagine a government sending a school a list of demands that it must meet if it wants to keep receiving funding support!  As in the case of the Trump administration, such a list would require the university to examine how teaching staff are hired, the background of potential recruits related particularly to certain types of political activity or views, any suspected possible plagiarism regarding previous papers or dissertations, etc., etc.  This would also include current academic staff and administrators.  Such interference by governments in Canada would never be tolerated.  One would certainly have to deal with many cases of unjust dismissals and discriminatory practices.  I very much doubt that any Canadian university would bend to such government pressures, declaring such interference as an attack on academic freedom and their very independence. 

The attacks on American universities and blockage of government funding support for scientific and medical research may actually benefit Canadian universities in the long run.  This has already happened in a reported case whereby three Yale professors have decided to accept positions at the University of Toronto.  One can only speculate that as more R&D projects are halted due to the loss of funding, researchers, including Masters and PHD students, may seek to potentially check out opportunities in Canada and elsewhere.  The current leadership of the U.S. in scientific research is now being greatly threatened by such policies. 

All in all, no matter the results of the above noted litigation, extensive damage has already been done.  The reputations of numerous American universities and their academic freedom have suffered.  Fortunately, to date there is no evidence that Canadian governments would want to go down the same road.  Canada is very fortunate to have a strong and vital education system, most of which is largely publicly funded and readily accessible to both domestic and international students.  Would Canadian universities be susceptible to Trump-like attacks?  I believe that the answer is a clear and emphatic “No”.  

Canada Civil Liberties Donald Trump Education Education in U.S. Extremism Free Speech Scientific Research US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Apr 30

What The Results of The Canadian Election Mean For Canada

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
Apr 15

Canada’s Version of a Mini-Trump

by bcurry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment »
Apr 8

Today, Something Unprecedented Is Happening Among Canadians

by bcurry

In reaction to Donald Trump’s statements about Canada as a 51st state and the imposition of tariffs on Canadian products exported to the U.S., a number of things are happening in the country.  Canadian nationalism is rising to heights not seen since the Second World War, stressing the need for a concerted and unified national reaction to the Trump administration.  There is an evident “Buy Canadian” movement that has grown quickly among Canadian consumers.  In the midst of a federal election, all the parties are in one way or another vowing to stand up to American economic aggression and push for expanding Canadian trade to other countries.  Canadians are also cancelling vacations to the U.S. and looking to vacation either in Canada or other countries.  Cross-border travel to the U.S. by Canadians has tumbled by more than half.  Canadian politicians are carrying their message about the harm to American consumers through visits to the U.S. and via digital billboards, broadcasts, media sources and social media targeting Americans themselves.  In recent basketball and hockey games in Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Montreal, fans booed the American national anthem, something unheard of before.  So-called “polite” Canadians are openly expressing their national pride in increasingly angry ways and through outbursts of disappointment.

It is remarkable that the current interim Canadian Prime Minister, Marc Carney, has flatly stated that the trust between the two countries has been broken, and that the relationship will never be the same.  As a result, his parliamentary website states that he leads a government that will take action to unite Canadians, defend Canada’s sovereignty, and build the strongest economy in the G7.  Do not be fooled, the candidates for P.M. all recognize that the damage of tariffs to the Canadian economy will be significant, possibly causing a recession and high rates of inflation and unemployment in the not-so-near future.  Trump’s economic policy and political statements have created an environment of uncertainty and distrust.  Canada will and has already reacted with the imposition of its own tariffs on selective American goods while waiting to see what Trump’s next moves will be.

Whoever becomes the next P.M. on April 28th knows that he will have to present a strong defence of Canada’s economic and political concerns vis-à-vis the U.S. The election has turned into primarily a one issue campaign, that being about how Canada will deal with Trump.  This situation is unprecedented in itself, and is a major reason why many Canadians believe that Marc Carney, a former Governor of the Bank of Canada, head of the Bank of England and businessman, would be a good match to confront Trump.  Since becoming leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in March of this year, he has turned around support for his party following a previous major lead of the Conservative Party of Canada in polls.  His main opponent, Conservative Pierre Poilievre, is a full-time politician with little international or business experience.  As P.M., Carney has said he’ll keep Canada’s counter-tariffs in place until “the Americans show us respect and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade.”  Being P.M. at this time also gives Carney a clear advantage as he can make prime-ministerial like statements which naturally are covered daily by the mainstream media.  This contributes directly in his positive polling results.

No matter who wins the election, average Canadians will look to a strong leadership when it comes to defending Canadian interests against Trump’s attacks.  Canadians do not blame Americans for the current situation, instead focusing on the economic and political attacks by the Trump administration.  However, there is little doubt that a future Canadian administration will have to focus on reducing Canada’s dependence on U.S. trade relations and defence policies.  Having lived together for decades within an integrated North American market and coordinated defence and security regime, this will not be an easy transition for both countries.  Let’s hope that the damage that’s been done can be mitigated down the road.  Like Americans, Canadians are a proud people and have a shared history of cooperation and trust, thus hopefully leaving the door open to re-establishing our mutual relationships.

Canada Federal Government Foreign Policy Foreign Policy National Security Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
Mar 30

U.S. Increasingly Moving Towards Police State

by bcurry

President Trump is obviously clamping down broadly on dissent using the tools of the federal government.  Now, the administration has put the pressure on universities themselves to crack down on student protesters.  Increasingly, for example, one is seeing that colleges are using surveillance videos and search warrants to investigate students involved in pro-Palestinian protests.  Some experts believe that it’s this new frontier in campus security that could threaten civil liberties.

In addition, it has been pointed out in the media that some colleges, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, George Mason University, University of California, Indiana University Bloomington, and University of North Carolina to name a few, have had the university police obtain warrants to search personal property such as a student’s car, laptop or cellphone.  In most cases, no actual crime has been committed by the affected student.

Zach Greenberg, a First Amendment lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group, reportedly notes that university police have sometimes even cited social media posts to justify warrant requests.  But as he states, such posts are constitutionally protected speech, and he goes on further to stipulate that such campus police tactics could very likely chill free expression.  Furthermore, lawyers representing affected students argue that a college seeking a search warrant against one of its own students is not because that student committed a crime, but purely because in many cases a student attended a protest and was filmed at the protest.  In most cases so far, few students end up not even being charged.  In some cases, the university may simply threaten them with possible suspensions should they continue to participate in protests, including those that are peaceful.

In addition, for months now, President Trump has been threatening to deport foreign students who took part in last year’s campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.  Apparently, investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have begun scouring the internet for social media posts and videos that the Trump administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas.  Curious indeed since ICE typically focuses on human traffickers and drug smugglers for possible deportation.  As in the recent arrest by ICE of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student with a green card living in New York, the government is using an old provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to argue that his actions during protests at Columbia University harmed U.S. foreign policy interests by fomenting anti-Semitism.  As of yet he has not been charged with an actual crime.  The Act was passed in the context of Cold War-era fears and suspicions of infiltrating Soviet and communist spies and sympathizers within American institutions and federal government.  Anticommunist sentiment was associated at the time with McCarthyism in the U.S., led by an administration aiming to push for selective immigration to preserve national security.  Since then, there have been very few cases where similar powers were cited in deportation proceedings under the Act.  Its current use would certainly be difficult to defend in the courts.

While some search warrants may be related to an ongoing campus vandalism investigation, few of the campus police seizures have actually resulted in charges being laid.  Indeed, without just cause I would argue that such search and seizure practices by campus police endanger free speech and the civil liberties of those affected university students.  As was the case in the 1930s Nazi Germany, today it’s students, but tomorrow it could be anyone; including those living, studying and working legally in the U.S.  This new reality certainly meets the definition of a police state.

Civil Liberties Donald Trump Education in U.S. Federal Government Judicial System Social Media US

Leave a comment »
Mar 17

Donald Trump’s Administration Is Clearly Showing Signs Of Becoming Despotic

by bcurry

The Oxford English Dictionary states that a despot is “a ruler who exercises absolute power especially in a cruel and oppressive way.”  Anyone who has studied American governance under the constitution understands that it provides for “checks and balances.”  In order to do this, there are three basic pillars: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.  However, today we are seeing an evident weakening of two of these principle pillars under the Trump administration.  There is little doubt that attacks are being made against the justice system and the rule of law.  The President has entered into a new process never before witnessed in the U.S., other than during times of wars.  The President is abusing his powers while contesting the roles of the courts and of Congress.  He is undermining the very constitutional rights of many people, whether citizens, legally living or refugees in the U.S.

The latest example is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a young U. of Columbia graduate student who is married to an American citizen, living in New York, and recently obtained a green card giving him permanent residency in the U.S. Mr. Khalil has never been charged with a criminal offence.  On March 8th, Mr. Khalil was arrested by ICE officers and flown to LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.  On March 10th, District Judge Jesse Furman ordered that the Trump administration not deport Khalil pending judicial review of his arrest.  Mr. Khalil was a student activist and negotiator in the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupations.  After student protests on numerous American campuses, President Trump issued an executive order promising to combat anti-semitism and prosecute or “remove” perpetrators of such views.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited a little-used 1952 Cold-War era statute as the rationale for Mr. Khalil’s detention. The law says that the government can initiate deportation proceedings against anyone whose presence in the country is deemed adversarial to the U.S. foreign policy interests.  Rubio subsequently posted a threat to deport Hamas supporters. No one has yet provided any proof that Mr. Khalil has a direct or indirect connection Hamas.  If anything, he was actively exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech in a peaceful manner.  Needless-to-say, there were those, including Trump who would deny this right because they simply did not agree with his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including some Columbia administrators.  For this reason, he was targeted from the outset.

Just this past weak, Trump signed an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to rapidly arrest and deport those the administration identifies as gang members without many of the legal processes common in immigration cases. The enemies law allows for summary deportations of people from countries at war with the United States.  One result is the deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, some of whom are claimed by the administration to be gang members.  Subsequently, Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from deporting any immigrants under the law after Trump’s order invoking it.  In a hastily scheduled hearing sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judge said he did not believe that federal law allowed the President’s action.  Now there is serious contention over whether the Trump administration had ignored an explicit court order, given that the deportees are currently in the El Salvador prison.

Moreover, there appears to be an apparent use of unproven assertions pertaining to ensuring matters related to “national security”, without undergoing the normal “due process” in providing proof or clear evidence before the courts.  In addition, it is obvious that Trump is blatantly “weaponizing” the Department of Justice to do his bidding, something that he falsely claimed had be done to him in the past.  In my opinion, Trump’s actions are increasingly becoming those of a despot.  Whether you agree with me or not, these are certainly dangerous times for American governance!

Civil Rights Donald Trump Free Speech Immigration Judicial System US

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 »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.