Preston Manning offers advice for Canada’s response to Trump Tariffs

From Josh Andrus of Project Confederation

Former leader of the Official Opposition and founding leader of the Reform Party of Canada, Preston Manning, recently reached out to me and asked me to share the following piece with Project Confederation supporters.

And with yesterday’s reprieve from tariffs, giving us at least 30 days to conduct some diplomacy, his thoughts on how that diplomacy should be conducted couldn’t be better timed.

Project Confederation has been saying the same thing for years – Canada needs to strengthen its position in North America by playing to its strengths, not doubling down on bad policies.

We need to focus on what actually matters instead of political grandstanding.

With Trump back in the White House, Ottawa is already stumbling into the same mistakes – empty tough talk, knee-jerk counter-tariffs, and no real strategy.

Manning lays out a better approach: one based on common sense, not political posturing.

Read his full piece below:

Responding to Trump: Will Foolishness or Common Sense Prevail?
By Preston Manning

With the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States, how to appropriately respond to his administration’s initiatives — not the rumoured initiatives but the actual ones — becomes a highly relevant question for Canadians and our governments.

Unfortunately, a goodly portion of Canada’s political and media establishment got off on the wrong foot by responding foolishly rather than sensibly to Trump’s initial musings about Canada becoming a 51st state with Wayne Gretzky as governor. Instead of simply dismissing this as just another off-the-cuff joke for which Trump is notorious, much of the Canadian establishment took it seriously, giving it much more attention than it deserved.

And then there is the even more foolish response to Trump’s 25 per cent tariff threat by the stumbling Trudeau government — a government which is afraid to meet Parliament, whose leadership is seriously divided and, according to the polls, has the support of merely 20 per cent of the Canadian population.

Trudeau hastily assembled the premiers and announced the next week that he had taken a “Team Canada approach” which already shows signs of falling apart. The collective response of Canada to the expected Trump tariffs was then, predictably, declared to be a negative one involving the imposition of counter-tariffs.

Premier Doug Ford stated that counter-tariffs would be Ontario’s primary response, even before it was known what specific tariffs Trump was proposing. Premier David Eby of B.C. hysterically proclaimed that his province was preparing for “economic war” with the U.S. And Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland — the former finance minister who left the country with a $60-billion deficit and whom Trump most likely regards as the Canadian equivalent of Kamala Harris — trumpeted that she was the best person to lead Team Canada in its future relationship with the U.S.

But is not all of the above largely foolishness? Does not a common-sense approach to the tariff threat suggest going back to square 1 and analyzing it in the context in which it first was made?

Trump initially made tariff threats for the stated purpose of forcing Canada and Mexico to get serious about stopping the uncontrolled and illegal movement of unwanted migrants into the U.S.

Common sense then suggests that Canada’s initial response to Trump’s tariff threat should have been positive rather than negative, and that the Canadian response to the new Trump administration should have prioritized measures to stop the violation of U.S. borders by illegal migrants.

What needed to be said was this: “Here is what Canada’s federal and provincial governments are doing to stop this illegal activity and what we (Canada and the U.S.) can do cooperatively to secure North America from this threat.” No need now to threaten tariffs and retaliatory counter-tariffs, so let’s get on to some real business.

Trump being a businessman (of sorts) and a dealmaker, common sense further suggests bringing a positive response to an item which clearly is on Trump’s agenda and which also happens to be very much in Canada’s interest: energy security. This is a subject dear to Trump’s heart, referenced in his inaugural address, and a front on which Canada can lead from its strengths, not its fears.

There are few economic fronts on which Canada surpasses the U.S., but the truth is that, as the second-largest nation on Earth by land mass, Canada possesses some of the largest stocks of natural resources on the planet.

Thus surely common sense suggests that the most important component of Canada’s response to the Trump administration should be making North America more self-sufficient, especially with respect to energy.

Even our present prime minister has been obliged to belatedly reference this strength, but unfortunately, it is a subject on which his tattered Liberal government has zero credibility. For nine years it has most often treated the resource sectors — energy, agriculture, mining, forestry and the fisheries — as relics from the past and even environmental liabilities. It has opposed or delayed every major infrastructure project designed to increase our energy export potential — vetoing Northern Gateway in 2016, stalling Energy East until it was cancelled in 2017, making little effort to overcome roadblocks to pipeline construction in B.C. and imposing unconstitutional barriers to petroleum production through legislation such as Bill C-69, also known as the “No More Pipelines Act.”

No doubt some of Trump’s advisors will also remind him that in Canada, natural resources are first and foremost a provincial responsibility with private-sector entities playing a major role in their development.

Finally, of the various players on the political stage over the last month, who has most consistently articulated this common-sense response to the issues raised by the Trump administration? Certainly not our prime minister or any of the candidates to replace him. Rather, that voice of common sense has been Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. For that reason, she should be strongly supported and joined by those like-minded.

(Originally published in the National Post on January 30, 2025)

Manning’s message is clear: Canada’s leaders need less political theatre and more common sense when responding to major challenges.

Knee-jerk reactions and failed policies won’t cut it—we need a strategy that protects our economy, strengthens our provinces, and prioritizes real solutions over rhetoric.

That’s exactly what Project Confederation is fighting for.

But we can’t do it alone.

If you want to see a stronger, more self-sufficient Canada, consider making a donation today.

Every dollar helps us push for real change and hold Ottawa accountable.

DONATE

Related Topics:#AlbertaProsperityProject #PrestonManning #ProjectConfederation CanadaUSRelations TrumpTariffs

Up Next

Trudeau still refusing to recall Parliament despite ongoing Trump tariff threats

Don't Miss

Trump creates U.S. sovereign wealth fund – may purchase TikTok

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

$2.6 million raised for man who wrestled shotgun from Bondi Beach terrorist

Energy / 16 hours ago

The Top News Stories That Shaped Canadian Energy in 2025 and Will Continue to Shape Canadian Energy in 2026

Energy / 17 hours ago

Western Canada’s supply chain for Santa Claus

Business

Some Of The Wackiest Things Featured In Rand Paul’s New Report Alleging $1,639,135,969,608 In Gov’t Waste

Published on December 24, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Ireland Owens

Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul released the latest edition of his annual “Festivus” report Tuesday detailing over $1 trillion in alleged wasteful spending in the U.S. government throughout 2025.

The newly released report found an estimated $1,639,135,969,608 total in government waste over the past year. Paul, a prominent fiscal hawk who serves as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a statement that “no matter how much taxpayer money Washington burns through, politicians can’t help but demand more.”

“Fiscal responsibility may not be the most crowded road, but it’s one I’ve walked year after year — and this holiday season will be no different,” Paul continued. “So, before we get to the Feats of Strength, it’s time for my Airing of (Spending) Grievances.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The 2025 “Festivus” report highlighted a spate of instances of wasteful spending from the federal government, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) spent $1.5 million on an “innovative multilevel strategy” to reduce drug use in “Latinx” communities through celebrity influencer campaigns, and also dished out $1.9 million on a “hybrid mobile phone family intervention” aiming to reduce childhood obesity among Latino families living in Los Angeles County.

The report also mentions that HHS spent more than $40 million on influencers to promote getting vaccinated against COVID-19 for racial and ethnic minority groups.

The State Department doled out $244,252 to Stand for Peace in Islamabad to produce a television cartoon series that teaches children in Pakistan how to combat climate change and also spent $1.5 million to promote American films, television shows and video games abroad, according to the report.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent more than $1,079,360 teaching teenage ferrets to binge drink alcohol this year, according to Paul’s report.

The report found that the National Science Foundation (NSF) shelled out $497,200 on a “Video Game Challenge” for kids. The NSF and other federal agencies also paid $14,643,280 to make monkeys play a video game in the style of the “Price Is Right,” the report states.

Paul’s 2024 “Festivus” report similarly featured several instances of wasteful federal government spending, such as a Las Vegas pickleball complex and a cabaret show on ice.

The Trump administration has been attempting to uproot wasteful government spending and reduce the federal workforce this year. The administration’s cuts have shrunk the federal workforce to the smallest level in more than a decade, according to recent economic data.

Festivus is a humorous holiday observed annually on Dec. 23, dating back to a popular 1997 episode of the sitcom “Seinfeld.” Observance of the holiday notably includes an “airing of grievances,” per the “Seinfeld” episode of its origin.

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on December 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.