Connect with us

Business

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

Published

9 minute read

Project Confederation

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.

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

Business

‘Let’s Do A Deal’: Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy Says Yes To Trump’s Demands

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Zelenskyy said he was open to making a deal with the U.S. regarding Trump’s request for Ukraine to supply the U.S. with rare earths and other minerals in exchange for continued financial aid.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Reuters on Friday that he hopes to make a deal with President Donald Trump to bring an end to the war with Russia.

During his campaign for office, Trump vowed to bring peace to the world, as multiple foreign wars had been pushed during the Biden-Harris administration. In an interview with Reuters, Zelenskyy said he was open to making a deal with the U.S. regarding Trump’s request for Ukraine to supply the U.S. with rare earths and other minerals in exchange for continued financial aid.

“These deposits are priceless, it is huge amounts of money, huge. That’s why we need to protect it,” Zelenskyy said. “If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal, we are only for it.”

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 Russia-Ukraine war has lasted more than two years, with the Biden-Harris administration  providing $175 billion in economic and military aid to Ukraine, but the conflict shows no signs of ending. Last year, Ukraine presented a “victory plan,” suggesting the idea of allowing allies to invest in its essential minerals, according to Reuters.

With Russian occupation controlling less than 20% of Ukraine’s mineral resources, including roughly half of its rare earth deposits, Zelenskyy told Reuters that Moscow could potentially strike deals with North Korea and Iran.

“We need to stop Putin and protect what we have — a very rich Dnipro region, central Ukraine,” Zelenskyy told the outlet.

Just days after his election, Trump warned Russian President Vladimir Putin not to escalate the war against Ukraine during a phone call, reportedly reminding him of the U.S.’s large presence in Europe. The call with Putin came after a conversation between Trump, Department of Government Efficiency’s Elon Musk and Zelensky, in which the Ukrainian president reportedly said he left the meeting feeling content.

“We will protect those trillions. We will prevent Russia from mining the minerals which will later be used to produce technologies for the three countries of the axis of evil. The Americans helped the most, and therefore the Americans should earn the most. And in rebuilding Ukraine, they should have this priority. And they will.”

Continue Reading

Business

Mark Carney’s carbon tax plan hurts farmers

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Gage Haubrich

Liberal leadership front-runner Mark Carney recently announced his carbon tax plan and here are some key points.

It’s expensive for Canadians.

It’s even more expensive for farmers.

Carney announced he would immediately remove the consumer carbon tax if he became prime minister.

That sounds like good news, but it’s important to read the fine print.

Carney went on and announced that he would be “integrating a new consumer carbon credit market into the industrial pricing system.” Carney also said he would “improve and tighten” the industrial carbon tax and impose carbon tax tariffs on imports into Canada.

If that sounds like Carney isn’t getting rid of the carbon tax, that’s because he isn’t. He’s trying to hide the costs from Canadians by imposing higher carbon taxes on businesses.

What that means is that Carney’s plan would tax businesses and then businesses will pass those costs onto consumers.

That also means farmers.

Under the current carbon tax, farmers have an exemption from the carbon tax on the gas and diesel they use on their farm. The hidden industrial carbon tax is applied directly to industry. Businesses are forced to pay the carbon tax if they emit above the government’s prescribed limit.

But businesses don’t just swallow those costs. They pass them on. The trucking industry is a great example.

“Due to razor thin margins in the trucking industry, these added costs cannot be absorbed and must be passed on to customers,” said the Canadian Trucking Alliance when analyzing the current Trudeau carbon tax.

The same concept applies to the Carney scheme.

If Carney removes the consumer carbon tax and replaces it with a higher tax on businesses under the hidden industrial carbon tax, that means more costs for farmers.

There isn’t any exemption for farmers under the industrial carbon tax. Oil and gas refineries will be paying a higher carbon tax and they will be forced to pass that cost onto their consumers. Farmers use a lot of fuel.

The pain doesn’t stop there. Farmers also use a lot of fertilizer and Carney’s carbon tax means higher costs for fertilizer plants. Then farmers will be stuck paying more for fertilizer.

Some businesses, like those fertilizer plants, could pack up and move production south. But farmers are still going to need fertilizer. Carney’s plan compounds the pain with carbon tax tariffs.

Fertilizer is only one example. If Canadian farmers need to buy a part to fix equipment that can only come from the U.S., it could be more expensive because of Carney’s carbon tax tariffs.

This will hurt Canadian farmers when they’re buying supplies. But it’ll also hurt when farmers when they go to market. Canadian farmers compete with farmers around the world and majority of them aren’t paying carbon taxes.

Farmers wouldn’t be at a disadvantage because American farmers are smarter or farm better, but because, under Carney’s carbon tax, they would be stuck paying costs competitors don’t have to pay. And farmers know this all too well.

“My competitors to the south of me in the United States do not pay that [carbon] tax, so now my cost goes up and I have no alternative,” said Jeff Barlow, a corn, wheat and soybean farmer in Ontario. “By penalizing me there’s nothing else that I can do but just be penalized.”

And if farmers won’t be the only ones hurt.

Families across Canada are struggling with grocery prices and increasing the cost of production for farmers certainly won’t lower those prices.

Carney says that he wants to cancel the consumer tax because it’s too “divisive.” That statement misses the nail completely and hammers the thumb. Canadians don’t want to get rid of the carbon tax because of perception, they want to get rid of it because it makes life more expensive.

Carney needs to commit to getting rid of carbon taxes, not rebranding the failed policy into something that could end up costing Canadians and farmers even more.

Continue Reading

Trending

X