Trump's sinister trade war does not excuse unhelpful responses

0:00Welcome to Hub Headlines. Today's program features the best commentary and analysis published in the Hub for September 10th. Up first is Sean Spear, writing on why Canada's retaliatory tariffs against Trump may be economically harmful and strategically misguided. Andrew Coyne has written a column for the Globe and Mail Taking Issue with Analysis, published by the Hub on the Canada U.S. Trade Dispute. His principal argument is that our warnings about the economic costs of retaliatory tariffs and are uncomfortable yet pragmatic case for accepting the reported agreement with the Trump administration fail to reckon with the fact that this is not a normal trade dispute. Trump is a proto-fascist who wants to annex us. The normal lines of economic analysis therefore don't apply. Even if one accepts that argument, which is increasingly the prevailing view in Canadian political circles, it prompts a series of questions.

1:01If Coyne and others concede the harms and limits of retaliatory tariffs, what's their purpose? Is the assumption that Canadian tariffs are going to induce a change in the administration's posture? Why would one assume that based on the economic and political evidence to date, and doubly so, if you believe the president is an irrational actor? If accepting the terms of a sub-optimal agreement, though a far better one than might have been expected in the circumstances, fundamentally misreads the situation. What's the alternative? What's the end game of escalating tariff and non-tariff responses? Is the expectation that the dispute will be resolved following the midterm elections? If so, why and how? Is it the 2028 presidential election? If so, why and how? If the objective is instead to endure a protracted economic conflict while Canada re-orients its economy away from the United States, how long will it take? What will it cost? And how much economic damage should Canadians be prepared to accept along the way?

2:04Those advocating for a maximalist response generally refrain from answering these questions. They accuse those who raise them of disloyalty. Yet those questions require an answer. One can accept that this trade war is the making of the president. One can believe that the president is wrong and even sinister. But that doesn't absolve us of having to be clear in our own minds and with the Canadian public about how we intend to deal with him. If coin and others are essentially arguing for an escalating and protracted trade war, in the hope that it resolves itself in some indeterminate way, at some indeterminate date, they should be honest about it. They should acknowledge the costs and trade-offs and explain their theory of victory. My own soberness comes from two places. First, I was skeptical that an agreement could be reached that would be as seemingly tolerable as the originally reported Carney Greer terms. Protecting the vast majority of exports from tariffs and lowering the White House's attention on Canada would have been a better than expected outcome and certainly better than where we

3:07stand today. Second, as someone who spends a lot of time in the United States, including in Blue State America, I'm highly doubtful that the American public or the Democratic Party is going to come to our rescue. Americans may tell pollsters that they dislike Trump's treatment of Canada, but disapproval isn't salience. Americans have far bigger issues competing for their attention, including a burgeoning debt crisis at home and a failing foreign war abroad. The idea that ending the trade war with Canada will become a galvanizing issue in November is well-intentioned but almost certainly wrong. Nor should Canadians assume that Democratic victories would necessarily restore the old trading relationship. Protectionism now has roots in both parties, and any future administration would face fiscal and political pressures of its own. Trump's particular hostility to Canada may be unique. The broader retreat from free trade is not. All of which brings us back to the questions above. Trump is responsible for this trade war.

4:09We remain responsible for choosing a response that best serves Canada. That was a commentary by Sean Spear. He is the hub's editor at large. You can read the full text of his article on our website, the hub.ca. Our second essay is by Cara Stern, writing on how parking restrictions on multiplexes worsen housing inequity for young Canadians. Canada's economy is increasingly unfair to young people. Sometimes it feels like we've made great progress in getting politicians to recognize this fact. Other times, they propose policies that make me wonder if they've been listening at all. Despite spouting easy slogans and platitudes about understanding the generational inequity young Canadians face, governments often choose to protect the privileges of long-time property owners at the direct expense of younger Canadians trying to build a future. Right before the summer break, Toronto City Councilor Alejandra Bravo directed staff to study whether it makes sense to limit the number of parking passes

5:10a multiplex may qualify for. The motive for this motion is clear. They want to placate single-family homeowners who are upset that added gentle density to their neighborhoods might force them to park a few doors down. CBC for example tells the story of a woman who says she now has to sometimes drive several blocks to find a spot, which can be frustrating when she's carrying groceries or driving her elderly mother to visit. But what of those often young families in the multiplexes themselves? Don't their grocery runs or care visits deserve the same consideration. Barring multiplexes from accessing street parking permits would be a mistake. It would ingrain a two-tier class system for residents, granting single-family homeowners who have pretty much won the housing lottery, a day-facto private property right over public street space, while penalizing younger residents who are settling for denser housing as their only options. Essentially, it asks young people to accept a lower standard of living beyond what's

6:12already being asked of them. Parking spots in Toronto are highly subsidized by taxpayers. The true market cost to store your private vehicle on a public road should be much higher than the roughly $25 a month it costs. Subsidizing it so much has meant high demand for parking spaces in limited space. As neighborhoods densify in an attempt to meet the demand for more homes in our city, that's led to an increase in demand for parking spaces. Tax subsidies have led to a distortion in market demand and artificial scarcity in this public asset. Until recently, cities mostly allowed density on main streets, protecting neighborhoods from experiencing the allegedly dismal experience of living around more people. Combine that with fewer people living in households than in previous generations, and many urban neighborhoods are less densely populated than they were in the 1970s. Our policies that, until recent years, limited neighborhoods to single-family

7:14homes, combined with seniors staying longer in their homes than urban planners expected, have led to younger Canadians facing a reality where they are stuck in increasingly small apartments. At the Missing Middle Initiative, we found that most people looking to raise a family hope to live somewhere that has at least three bedrooms. These units are incredibly expensive in condos, and the alternative of single-family homes is simply out of reach for so many. One good solution is these multiplexes. Housing several units on the lot traditionally occupied by a single-family home gives the opportunity for people to live in cities, even if they don't have the wealth needed to access a traditional house. These homes are typically not going to be subsidized homes, but rather market-rate houses that are more affordable, on average, to the middle class than a neighboring house would be. That said, they come with trade-offs. People who live in them often are choosing location over the full privacy that a detached house provides. Right now,

8:19anyone in the neighborhood can apply for a street parking permit, and if capacity permits, they will be approved. No one is guaranteed a spot right in front of their house, or even within blocks of their home. That's the trade-off when you buy a home without a private parking spot. When I bought my home, I had to weigh the trade-offs of a private parking spot. I chose to sacrifice the convenience of guaranteed parking in front of my home, so that I could afford a better house than I otherwise would have been able to afford on my budget. On winter days, when the city hasn't gotten around to plowing the spots yet, I sometimes have to either avoid using my car, or I have to park several blocks away from my house. I have two young children, so I truly understand how frustrating it can be when the only spot is a five or ten minute walk from home. But I understood the trade-off when I bought the home. If people who own a single family home want to guarantee parking outside their front door, they ought to buy a home with a dedicated parking spot. It's not a good compromise

9:22for relatively wealthy homeowners to prevent the less well-off from accessing parking spots, while we all continue to pay to subsidize the cost. It isn't fair, and it isn't progressive. Either let the free market dictate who can access parking, or allow anyone living nearby to access it. Younger Canadians are already dealing with major housing challenges. Artificial constraints due to zoning, urban growth boundaries, and many other policy choices have led to prices being completely out of whack with the median income. To compensate, they're making choices to move farther away, live in smaller spaces than their parents considered comfortable, or even for go having children if they can't afford a home big enough to comfortably house them. It would be a huge injustice to young Canadians who are already accepting a lower standard of living than their parents had, to use government regulation to codify the downgrade. City leaders must recognize that using public regulation to guarantee convenience for asset-rich incumbents ultimately forces younger

10:26Canadians to pay more for less. Let's look for progress on the housing crisis, rather than create further generational divides. That was a commentary by Cara Stern. She hosts the Missing Middle Podcast with economist Mike Moffett. You can read the full text of her article on our website, the hub.ca. That's it for today's edition of Hub Headlines. We hope you enjoyed the program. Hub headlines is produced by Alicia Rao. This program was narrated by automated voices. Thanks for listening.