FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Oct 12

What Does Québec’s Minority Government Led by a Separatist Party Mean to Canadian Unity?

by bcurry

First, a little history lesson.  After the British defeated the French in Québec and the colony became part of British North America, the Crown ensured that the rights of the French inhabitants and their language were safeguarded.  Once established as a nation in 1867, Canada went on to ensure that the French language and culture were protected under its constitution.  The federal Official Languages Act was first enacted in 1969.  Substantially revised and more recently modernized, the act gives English and French equal status, rights, and privileges in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada.  In 2006, the House of Commons of Canada adopted a motion recognizing that “Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.

However, support for sovereignist movements fluctuated through subsequent decades under shifting provincial governments.  Québec’s governments under various parties have always pushed to ensure that French language and culture were promoted under the province’s policies and laws.  Formed in 1968 by René Lévesque, the first truly Québec separatist party is the Parti Québecois (PQ).  At the time the PQ combined multiple sovereignty groups into a major provincial party. They won power in 1976 and made French the sole official language in Québec via the province’s Charter of the French Language (Bill 101) in 1977.

The PQ held Québec’s first referendum in 1980 on “sovereignty-association.”  Voters rejected the proposal by a margin of 60% to 40%.  In 1995, a second more successful referendum on full independence was held under PQ Premier Jacques Parizeau.  The “No” side won by a razor-thin margin of 50.58% to 49.42%.  The federal government had waited to the last minute to finally enter the debate, not wanting to overly interfere in the provincial fray at that time.

Consequently, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that a province cannot secede unilaterally.  Moreover, only a clear majority vote on a clear question would legally oblige the federal and provincial governments to enter into constitutional negotiations.  Parliament then followed in 2000 with the federal Clarity Act which provides that the results of any referendum had to be ‘significant’ with respect to allowing for separation and not basically won by a simple majority.

Québec has always played a very important part within Canada, allowing Canadians to appreciate and support its role throughout the 159 years of the country’s existence as a nation state.  Indeed, since its founding Canada has had four explicit French-Canadian prime ministers.  Other more recent prime ministers such as Brian Mulroney and Justin Trudeau grew up bilingual or had very significant French-Canadian heritage/ties.  However, despite guaranteed Québec representation in the Canadian parliament and other institutions such as the Supreme Court, Québecers have continued to express concerns over the province’s ability to oversee its political, social and economic development.  At times, clearly being a very emotive issue, the question of independence still surfaces.

In early October of this year, following the provincial government’s Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) political and economic struggles, the separatist PQ, led by Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, won a mandate to govern.  Of course, this put future independence discussions back into the spotlight.  However, his is a minority government having gotten only 28% of the total popular vote.  There is little doubt that the spectre of Donald Trump hovered over the election, leading to major gains by the two pro-federalist Québec parties, the Liberal and Conservative parties, who together with almost 45% surpassed the PQ’s popular vote.  Interestingly, the CAQ party won no seats after having previously governed as majority governments, once again illustrating Québec’s often quite volatile political environment.

As for the future minority PQ government, St-Pierre Plamondon has stated that a referendum would only take place after the Trump administration is no longer in power.  This is despite the fact that, in recent polling, over 70 percent of Québecers indicated that they don’t want another referendum.  Indications are that, unlike in the 80s and 90s, support for independence has rapidly diminished.  Today, economic and social issues affecting ordinary Québecers have taken on much more urgency.  Any provincial government will have to immediately concern itself with the impact in particular of American tariffs on Québec enterprises which have been negatively affected by the trade war.  For this reason and the apparent lack of enthusiasm for separation among Québec’s younger generation, the initial threat to Canadian unity should prove to be somewhat minimal as compared to past separatist movements.

Canada Charter of Quebec Values Donald Trump Economy Extremism Quebec Politics Trade with U.S.

Leave a comment »
Sep 29

Canada Looks To The Arctic As Its Next Frontier

by bcurry

In March 2026 while visiting Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, declared that: “After decades of limited and piecemeal investments in the North, Canada’s new government is acting with a scale of ambition worthy of this vast region and its peoples. We are securing every corner of this terrain, unlocking its vast resources, and delivering the strong, connected network of communities that Northerners deserve. In this new era, we cannot rely on other nations for our security and prosperity. We are defending and building together, the true North, strong and free.”

Indeed, the PM disclosed planned government investments in defence, infrastructure, and Northern development to strengthen and secure Canada’s presence in the Arctic and unleash the North’s economic potential.  The announcement is very important and noteworthy as the federal government has been accused in the past of ignoring its Arctic territories and waters.  However, with climate change, all that has changed with the longer season for open Arctic waters in the current shipping lanes.  The defence of Canada’s north has also now been given a much higher priority.  The proposed investments will include:

  • Investing $6.5 billion in a new Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar system, in partnership with Australia, to enhance early warning and surveillance across Arctic approaches.
  • Investing over $1.3 billion across multiple Northern infrastructure programs – supporting trade corridors, airports, marine safety, and community harbours. 
  • Leveraging more than $1.6 billion from partners to strengthen transportation and marine infrastructure in Arctic and Northern communities.
  • Investing $1 billion through the Arctic Infrastructure Fund for strategic transportation infrastructure for both civilian and military use – to strengthen Canada’s Arctic security and year-round defence readiness.
  • Dedicating approximately $420 million to strengthen the year-round presence and operational capability and capacity of Canadian Armed Forces in the Arctic and the North.

Canada selected German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) in July 2026, as the preferred supplier to build up to 12 new submarines capable of operating in Artic waters.  This represented the largest military procurement deal in Canadian history.  In addition, new Arctic and offshore patrol ships have been ordered under Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy.  Already, the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) officially welcomed the CCGS Judy LaMarsh as its newest large vessel into active service in September 2026.  With two more ice-capable ships on the horizon, the CCG is set to enhance safety, sovereignty, and ocean research across our waters. 

At this time, the privately owned port of Churchill, located on the shores of Hudson Bay in Northern Manitoba, is Canada’s only deep-water Arctic seaport connected to a surface rail network.  Seen as a possible major project, the government is looking to obtain investment in order to enlarge the port’s capabilities given the increasing shipping of bulk resources during the open-water season from late July to early November.  This would include bulk grain, general cargo, and critical minerals (such as zinc and potash) destined for international markets.  Included in the proposal would be larger exploratory concepts involving potential offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, notably of great interest to the Europeans.

Canada also recognized the increasing interest in the Arctic passage, referred to as the Northwest Passage, as a new sea lane connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the icy channels of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.  The U.S., Russia and China have especially tested these waters, often without Canada’s blessing.  For this reason, Canada and Norway continue to work together to bolster deterrence and defence in the Arctic.  Obviously, Arctic security is a national security issue for both countries.  In March 2026, Canada and Norway established a bilateral Arctic Dialogue to strengthen cooperation across key areas, including strategic surveillance, situational awareness, interoperability, and research & development. Practical cooperation is also underway through a partnership agreement signed in June 2026 between the Canadian and Norwegian Coast Guards.  Both services have already undertaken joint training exercises in Canadian and Norwegian Arctic waters.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Defence Economy Foreign Policy National Security Russia

Leave a comment »
Aug 27

U.S. and Canada: Will the Elephant Crush the Sleeping Mouse Next to It?

by bcurry

Years ago when I was in college studying economics and political science, I read a book which compared the relationship of the U.S. and Canada to that of an elephant and a mouse quietly sleeping next to each other.  Fortunately, history has shown that for hundreds of years and the longest border between two nations in the world, these two countries have peacefully and beneficially thrived together.  They have been allies in two world wars, Korea, and more recently in Afghanistan.  Economically, both countries for several decades have supported each other by integrating much of the North American market, including those sectors such as energy and manufacturing.  Despite what the Trump administration expounds, Canadian and American consumers alike have benefited from free trade and tourism between both countries.  They also share a common labour force, with Canadians working in the U.S. and Americans working in Canada.  Indeed, several of my university profs were American and greatly welcomed for their expertise and studies in various fields.  Importantly, since World War II and the advent of the Cold War involving the then Soviet Union, both countries have devoted military resources to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) founded in 1955.

Now, we are in a trade war with ultimatums by the Trump administration continuously been thrown at Canadian negotiators.  The problem is that a number of U.S. issues raised are direct attacks on the sovereignty of Canada as a nation.  It now unfortunately appears that the position of both governments has become a test of will, with neither side willing to budge at this time.  Certain issues raised touch directly on elements of Canadian culture, and in particular the country’s second official language, French.  Moreover, there is little need to discuss the nature of tariff reciprocity as it is aptly covered by both U.S. and Canadian media.  Indeed, unlike the negotiations in the past dealing with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the more recent Canada, Mexico and U.S. Agreement (CUSMA), there is much more American coverage of the current trade negotiations then ever before.  If anything, Trump’s heated assertions and accusations have raised the temperature quite a bit.

What now is interesting is that there are some who believe that Prime Minister Mark Carney may be testing whether defiance is a viable strategy against Trump.  This is why a number of other countries are closely paying attention to this trade dispute.  Indeed, as the New York Times recently noted: World leaders and domestic institutions are, in some cases at least, showing less willingness to submit to Mr. Trump’s will. European leaders have refused to join his war with Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel flatly rejected his Gaza plan. Gulf Arab states forced him to abandon plans to charge a shipping toll in the Strait of Hormuz.  The Times goes on to suggest that while the president remains the most dominant figure in the world, other leaders and institutions are pushing back more vigorously than at the beginning of his second term.  Most notably, Spain, Italy, the U.K.
and Denmark have pushed back against a number of U.S. foreign policy initiatives.

Although the U.S. is obviously the elephant in the room, it might not want to escalate the trade war in light of becoming another inflation-related ingredient for both Americans and Canadians.  It would appear that the president no longer has a problem with the reduction in affordability for Americans and the harm to American businesses that export to Canada.  After all, Canada is still America’s biggest trade partner bar any others.  Insulting Canadians and questioning Canada’s sovereignty is a non-starter!  As shown in the past, Canada has been known to be the mouse that roared, especially when its back is to the wall.  Canadians and Americans have always gotten along despite the rare disagreement, such as over the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.  Travel between the two countries has always been important, given that we have so much in common and a great deal of respect for each other.  Why an American president would want to deal so much hurt on his best neighbour is hard to explain?  Time will tell whether the elephant will still want to choose to crush the mouse.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Economy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US US Politics US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
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 »
Apr 14

Crossing the Floor in Canada’s Parliament to Join Another Party

by bcurry

In the span of just the last five months in Parliament – November 2025 through April 2026 – five opposition Members (MP) of House of Commons have joined the ruling Liberals.  Their additions to the minority government of Prime Minister Mark Carney provided the Liberals with a majority government following the winning of three more seats in yesterday’s by-elections.  In light of the current geopolitical situation and the tariff policies of the Trump administration, most Canadians appear to agree that a majority government would give Canada more leverage in negotiating a new trade agreement with the U.S.  Crossing of the floor in the U.S. Congress among the two political parties basically never happens.  This is a political phenomenon found mainly in parliamentary governments such as in the U.K., Canada and Australia.

Since four of the five opposition MPs who joined Carney’s caucus since November 2025 were Conservatives, the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, has complained that the Liberals have approached and tried to convince some MPs to cross the floor.  He naturally takes exception with this political move by asserting that members of the Conservative caucus were elected by their constituents as representatives of his party in Parliament.  Some Conservatives have actually suggested that a by-election should be called when an MP joins another party.  Sorry, but Poilievre is crying into spilled milk!  As an old parable goes: “If a shepherd cannot control his flock, then he shouldn’t be a shepherd.”  There are indications that some Conservatives are beginning to question Poilievre’s ability to effectively lead the party into the next federal election in three years time.

Moreover, history shows that floor crossing is one of Canada’s most dramatic political traditions.  Since Confederation in1867, 132 MPs have crossed the floor, with varying degrees of success.  In addition, past floor crossings have occurred involving different parties at the time.  The motivations behind such dramatic political decisions can vary from policy disagreements to personal ambition, such as being appointed to a Cabinet position.  Certain past high profile crossings had even sparked national rage. Today, the media has paid particularly attention given that this most recent wave of Carney-era crossings pushed the Liberal net all time figure to its highest point ever in the history of floor crossings.  It would appear that those MPs deciding to do so did so because of their belief that the current PM is best suited to represent Canada and push forward policies aimed at making the Canadian economy more diverse and less dependent on the U.S.  Polls have also shown that Carney’s popularity is at an all time high, well above that of Poilievre who is his closest rival.

However, when an MP walks across the House of Commons to join a different party, it represents both political calculation and personal conviction, often triggering controversy about democratic representation and voter trust.  Furthermore, statistically the harsh reality of crossing the floor for most MPs who switch parties is that they struggle to win reelection in their new partisan colours.  In addition, as for conservative or other party views on social issues, the PM has made it quite clear that those views will not find their way into any legislation his Liberal government will propose.  Some analysts would even argue that the addition of MPs from other political stripes could be a healthy thing.  In this case, the ruling Liberals will have access in caucus to different perspectives which could influence their decision making.

Now that the Carney-led government has a majority and has the votes, there will be greater expectations with respect to the speedier passage of legislation through Parliament.  Already, there is growing pressure on the government to deal with the most immediate domestic issues such as affordability, economic development and employment, as well as those surrounding trade and national defence.  What’s interesting is that rumours continue to surface as to the possibility of even more Conservative floor crossings, which would indeed be unprecedented!

Canada Economy Federal Election Federal Government Trade with U.S.

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 »
Dec 5

The Impact of Acculturation and Secularization in the Province of Québec

by bcurry

The roots of the secularism movement in Québec date back to the 1940s and ’50s, when the Catholic Church wielded tremendous social and political influence.  For example, the province’s healthcare and education, had been extensively under the purview of the Catholic Church.  In the 1960s, the Quiet Revolution (Révolution tranquille) was a period of major socio-political and socio-cultural transformation in Québec.  In particular, this period was marked by the secularization of the government, the separation of the state and the church, notably from the Catholic Church.  A primary change was an effort by the provincial government to assume greater control over public health care and education. To achieve this, the government established ministries of Health and Education, expanded the public service and made substantial investments in the public education system.

As part of Canada, Québec’s French language and Catholic religion are guaranteed under the Canadian constitution.  However, Québec has since also been formally recognized by the federal government as a “unique” nation within the Canadian confederation.  Indeed, the issue of maintaining the French language and culture in Québec has always been great concern, which was particularly heightened during the independence movements within the province surfacing during the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s.  The election of the political party, the Parti Québecois (PQ) in 1976 brought the issue of potential Québec separation from Canada to the forefront.  As a result, the issue of secularism temporarily receded into the background.  That all changed on Sept. 11, 2001 as a result of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York triggered a backlash against Islam, and in Québec in particular.  In the years following 9/11, media outlets in Québec began spotlighting – often with sensational headlines – what became known as the “reasonable accommodation crisis,” focusing on concessions made for religious groups.  In 2013, a minority PQ government proposed the notorious “charter of Québec values,” aiming to ban religious symbols for public servants, but it went nowhere after the PQ lost the 2014 election.

The reigning Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government, which was elected before there was a final decision on that bill, took its own stab at legislating “secularism”, reviving a watered-down version of the charter of values which eventually became Bill 21.  In 2019,  as Québec’s current secularism law, Bill 21 prevents some public servants, including judges, police officers, prosecutors and teachers, from wearing religious symbols while on the job.  Learning from previous projects, the CAQ tried to make Bill 21 legally bullet-proof by preemptively using Canada’s constitutional “notwithstanding clause” to override certain sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Last May, the Québec legislature also passed a bill requiring immigrants to embrace the common culture of the province.  The law can be used to withhold funding for groups, events that don’t promote Québec’s common culture.  The law appears to be Québec’s answer to the Canadian model of multiculturalism that promotes cultural diversity.

In November of this year, Bill 9, titled An Act Respecting the Reinforcement of Secularism in Québec, sets out to build on two previous secularism laws passed under Premier François Légault.  Indeed, this bill goes much further than the previous laws.  For example, it would ban subsidized daycare and private school workers from wearing religious symbols, such as a hijab or kippa; phase out public subsidies for religious private schools that select students or staff based on religious affiliation, or that teach religious content; and ban prayer spaces in public institutions including universities, as well as group prayers in public spaces such as parks without municipal authorization.

While one can understand the concept of secularism whereby the state is deemed separate from the church as a democratic principle, the Québec government’s initiatives and policies have taken extreme measures which are seen as targeting the rights of minorities.  In particular, they appear to be directed primarily at Québec’s Muslim population.  This targeting is especially interesting since Muslim Québecers, who mostly come from francophone countries, could be an important ally in a province that wants to preserve the French language and culture.

The government refers to this initiative as laicité which takes secularism one step further and is really about separating religion from the public sphere.  I would instead deem these broad initiatives to be a form of “acculturation.” Acculturation is where the state assimilates or causes to assimilate people to a different culture, normally the predominant one.  One thing that could either help settle the debate over these contentious policies — or perhaps exacerbate them even further — is the Supreme Court ruling on Bill 21 expected sometime next year.  Some see the current CAQ government’s initiative as more of a political distraction given Premier Légault’s unpopularity in recent polls and the upcoming provincial election next fall.  Even if the CAQ is defeated, the next government most probably led by the Parti Québecois will very likely continue the contentious policy of acculturation no matter what.

Canada Extremism Quebec Politics Quebec's Bill 21 Race Relations Racism Religion

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 »
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 »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.