Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

2025 Federal Election

MEI-Ipsos poll: 56 per cent of Canadians support increasing access to non-governmental healthcare providers

Published on

 

  • Most believe private providers can deliver services faster than government-run hospitals

  • 77 per cent of Canadians say their provincial healthcare system is too bureaucratic

Canadians are increasingly in favour of breaking the government monopoly over health care by opening the door to independent providers and cross-border treatments, an MEI-Ipsos poll has revealed.

“Canadians from coast to coast are signalling they want to see more involvement from independent health providers in our health system,” explains Emmanuelle B. Faubert, economist at the MEI. “They understand that universal access doesn’t mean government-run, and that consistent failures to deliver timely care in government hospitals are a feature of the current system.”

Support for independent health care is on the rise, with 56 per cent of respondents in favour of allowing patients to access services provided by independent health entrepreneurs. Only 25 per cent oppose this.

In Quebec, support is especially strong, with 68 per cent endorsing this change.

Favourable views of accessing care through a mixed system are widespread, with three quarters of respondents stating that private entrepreneurs can deliver healthcare services faster than hospitals managed by the government. This is up four percentage points from last year.

Countries like Sweden and France combine universal coverage with independent providers and deliver faster, more accessible care. When informed about how these health systems run, nearly two in three Canadians favour adopting such models.

The poll also finds that 73 per cent of Canadians support allowing patients to receive treatment abroad with provincial coverage, which could help reduce long wait times at home.

Common in the European Union, this “cross-border directive” enabled 450,000 patients to access elective surgeries in 2022, with costs reimbursed as if they had been treated in their home country.

There’s a growing consensus that provincial healthcare systems are overly bureaucratic, with the strongest agreement in Alberta, B.C., and Quebec. The proportion of Canadians holding this view has risen by 16 percentage points since 2020.

Nor do Canadians see more spending as being a solution: over half say the current pace of healthcare spending in their province is unsustainable.

“Governments shouldn’t keep doubling down on what isn’t working. Instead, they should look at what works abroad,” says Ms. Faubert. “Canadians have made it clear they want to shift gears; now it’s up to policymakers to show they’re listening.”

A sample of 1,164 Canadians aged 18 and older was polled between March 24th and March 28th, 2025. The margin of error is ±3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

Education

Schools should focus on falling math and reading skills—not environmental activism

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

In 2019 Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustees passed a “climate emergency” resolution and promised to develop a climate action plan. Not only does the TDSB now have an entire department in their central office focused on this goal, but it also publishes an annual climate action report.

Imagine you were to ask a random group of Canadian parents to describe the primary mission of schools. Most parents would say something along the lines of ensuring that all students learn basic academic skills such as reading, writing and mathematics.

Fewer parents are likely to say that schools should focus on reducing their environmental footprints, push students to engage in environmental activism, or lobby for Canada to meet the 2016 Paris Agreement’s emission-reduction targets.

And yet, plenty of school boards across Canada are doing exactly that. For example, the Seven Oaks School Division in Winnipeg is currently conducting a comprehensive audit of its environmental footprint and intends to develop a climate action plan to reduce its footprint. Not only does Seven Oaks have a senior administrator assigned to this responsibility, but each of its 28 schools has a designated climate action leader.

Other school boards have gone even further. In 2019 Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustees passed a “climate emergency” resolution and promised to develop a climate action plan. Not only does the TDSB now have an entire department in their central office focused on this goal, but it also publishes an annual climate action report. The most recent report is 58 pages long and covers everything from promoting electric school buses to encouraging schools to gain EcoSchools certification.

Not to be outdone, the Vancouver School District (VSD) recently published its Environmental Sustainability Plan, which highlights the many green initiatives in its schools. This plan states that the VSD should be the “greenest, most sustainable school district in North America.”

Some trustees want to go even further. Earlier this year, the British Columbia School Trustees Association released its Climate Action Working Group report that calls on all B.C. school districts to “prioritize climate change mitigation and adopt sustainable, impactful strategies.” It also says that taking climate action must be a “core part” of school board governance in every one of these districts.

Apparently, many trustees and school board administrators think that engaging in climate action is more important than providing students with a solid academic education. This is an unfortunate example of misplaced priorities.

There’s an old saying that when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Organizations have finite resources and can only do a limited number of things. When schools focus on carbon footprint audits, climate action plans and EcoSchools certification, they invariably spend less time on the nuts and bolts of academic instruction.

This might be less of a concern if the academic basics were already understood by students. But they aren’t. According to the most recent data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the math skills of Ontario students declined by the equivalent of nearly two grade levels over the last 20 years while reading skills went down by about half a grade level. The downward trajectory was even sharper in B.C., with a more than two grade level decline in math skills and a full grade level decline in reading skills.

If any school board wants to declare an emergency, it should declare an academic emergency and then take concrete steps to rectify it. The core mandate of school boards must be the education of their students.

For starters, school boards should promote instructional methods that improve student academic achievement. This includes using phonics to teach reading, requiring all students to memorize basic math facts such as the times table, and encouraging teachers to immerse students in a knowledge-rich learning environment.

School boards should also crack down on student violence and enforce strict behaviour codes. Instead of kicking police officers out of schools for ideological reasons, school boards should establish productive partnerships with the police. No significant learning will take place in a school where students and teachers are unsafe.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with school boards ensuring that their buildings are energy efficient or teachers encouraging students to take care of the environment. The problem arises when trustees, administrators and teachers lose sight of their primary mission. In the end, schools should focus on academics, not environmental activism.

Michael Zwaagstra

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X