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.

From MXMNews

Quick Hit:

On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to create the first-ever U.S. sovereign wealth fund, with TikTok potentially becoming one of its first acquisitions. Trump emphasized the fund’s potential to generate significant wealth, positioning the U.S. alongside countries like Saudi Arabia and China that have long operated similar funds.

Key Details:

• Trump signed the order in the Oval Office, joined by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, calling the move “a very exciting event.”

• The fund may be capitalized through tariff revenues, with Trump hinting that TikTok could be included as an asset, possibly as part of a deal tied to avoiding new 10% tariffs on Chinese goods.

• Bessent and Lutnick will oversee the fund’s creation, aiming to “monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet” within the next year.

Diving Deeper:

President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to establish the first sovereign wealth fund in U.S. history, signaling a bold new approach to managing national assets. Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump described the initiative as “a very exciting event” and highlighted its potential to generate vast wealth for the country.

“Other countries have sovereign wealth funds, and they’re much smaller than the United States,” Trump noted. “We’re going to have one of the biggest funds in the world in a short period of time. The Saudi Arabia fund is large, but we’ll catch up.”

While the exact source of the fund’s initial capital hasn’t been confirmed, Trump has previously suggested that tariff revenues could play a key role. This aligns with his recent announcement of a 10% tariff on Chinese imports, which he framed as part of his strategy to combat fentanyl trafficking. Trump also floated the idea of including a stake in TikTok within the fund, hinting that Beijing might divest from the platform to sidestep the new tariffs.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlined the administration’s vision, stating, “We are going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people. We’ve studied best practices from around the world, and it will include a mix of liquid assets and domestic investments.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick added that the sheer scale of the U.S. government’s operations presents a unique opportunity to create value for American citizens. “If we’re buying billions of COVID vaccines, maybe we should hold equity in these companies to benefit the health and wealth of the American people,” he said.

Trump envisions the fund investing in infrastructure, manufacturing, medical research, and more. During his campaign, he suggested the fund could be supported through tariffs and “other intelligent things,” emphasizing that it will be a tool to strengthen America’s economic independence and global competitiveness.

With sovereign wealth funds in countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore boasting assets exceeding $1 trillion, Trump’s move represents a significant shift in U.S. fiscal strategy, positioning the nation to compete directly in this arena for the first time.