From the Fraser Institute

By Scott Lincicome

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide the fate of the global tariffs President Donald J. Trump has imposed under the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). A court decision invalidating the tariffs is widely expected—hovering around 75 per cent on various betting markets—and would be welcome news for American importers, the United States economy and the rule of law. Even without IEEPA, however, other U.S. laws all but ensure that much higher tariffs will remain the norm. Realizing that protection will just take a little longer and, perhaps, be a little more predictable.

As my Cato Institute colleague Clark Packard and I wrote last year, the Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, but the legislative branch during the 20th century delegated much of that authority to the president under the assumption that he would be the least likely to abuse it. Thus, U.S. trade law is today littered with provisions granting the president broad powers to impose tariffs for various reasons. No IEEPA needed.

This includes laws that Trump has already invoked. Today, for example, we have “Section 301” tariffs of up to 25 per cent on around half of all Chinese imports, due to alleged “unfair trade” practices by Beijing. We also have global “Section 232” tariffs of up to 50 per cent on imports of steel and aluminum, automotive goods, heavy-duty trucks, copper and wood products—each imposed on the grounds that these goods threaten U.S. national security. The Trump administration also has created a process whereby “derivative” products made from goods subject to Section 232 tariffs will be covered by those same tariffs. Several other Section 232 investigations—on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, commercial aircraft, and more—were also initiated earlier this year, setting the stage for more U.S. tariffs in the weeks ahead.

Trump administration officials admit that they’ve been studying these and other laws as fallback options if the Supreme Court invalidates the IEEPA tariffs. Their toolkit reportedly includes completing the actions above, initiating new investigations under Section 301 (targeting specific countries) and Section 232 (targeting certain products), and imposing tariffs under other laws that have not yet been invoked. Most notably, there’s strong administration interest in Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the president to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits via global tariffs of up to 15 per cent for no more than 150 days (after which Congress must act to continue the tariffs). The administration might also consider Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a short and ambiguous law that authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 per cent on imports from countries that have “discriminated” against U.S. commerce—but this is riskier because the law may have been superseded by Section 301.

We should expect the administration to move quickly to use these measures to reverse engineer Trump’s global tariff regime under IEEPA. The main difference would be in how he does so. IEEPA was essentially a tariff switch in the Oval Office that could be flipped on and off instantly, creating massive uncertainty for businesses, foreign governments and the U.S. economy. The alternative authorities, by contrast, all have substantive and procedural guardrails that limit their size and scope, or, at the very least, give American and foreign companies time to prepare for forthcoming tariffs (or lobby against them).

Section 301, for example, requires an investigation of a foreign country’s trade and economic policies—cases that typically take nine months and involve public hearings and formal findings. Section 232 requires an investigation into and a report on whether imports threaten national security—actions that also typically take months. Section 122 has fewer procedures, but its limited duration and 15 per cent cap make it far less dangerous than IEEPA, under which Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs of 100 per cent or more.

Of course, “procedural guardrails” is a relative term for an administration that has already stretched Section 232’s “national security” rationale to cover bathroom vanities. The courts also have largely rubber-stamped the administration’s previous moves under Section 232 and Section 301—a big reason why we should expect the Trump administration’s tariff “Plan B” to feature them.

Thus, a court ruling against the IEEPA tariffs would be an important victory for constitutional governance and would eliminate the most destabilizing element of Trump’s tariff regime. But until the U.S. Congress reclaims some of its constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy, high and costly tariffs will remain.

Peter Menzies

Better thousands of us die prematurely, apparently, than risk a grownup conversation

About the same time as William Watson’s outstanding book Globalization and the Meaning of Canadian Life was being published in the late 1990s, the newspaper I worked for was sending a journalist to Europe to research a series of articles on how health care systems work in some of those countries.

I mention Bill’s book, which was runner-up for a public policy Donner Prize, because it exquisitely details many of the things Canadians believe about themselves that simply aren’t true. Which was the same reason why the Calgary Herald sent its health reporter (yes, there used to be such a thing), Robert Walker, to Europe – to expose its readers to the fact that there are more than two health care systems: our “defining” one and America’s, both of which are extremes. To the best of my knowledge, that remains the only time a Canadian news organization has taken on that task.

In every country examined in Walker’s reports, as is the case with almost every country in the world, public and private health care and insurance systems maintained a peaceful coexistence and the public’s needs were being met. Almost 30 years later, that remains the case. Also almost 30 years later, neither Bill’s book nor the Herald’s reporting has had the slightest impact on the prevailing media narrative in Canada. It remains determined to perpetuate the fear that any move to increase the role of private health providers or even allow doctors to work in both systems (as was proposed this week by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith) is the first step on the slippery slope to “American-style” health care. This line has been successfully used for decades – often hyperbolically and occasionally hysterically – by public monopoly advocates for Canada’s increasingly expensive and difficult to access systems. We have known for 40 years that once Baby Boomers like your faithful servant turned bald and grey that the system would be unsustainable. But that single, terrifying “American-style” slur has halted reform at every turn.

The Tyee responded with a “Danielle Smith’s secret plan to Destroy Public Health Care” column while the Globe and Mail’s Gary Mason, a Boomer, challenged my thesis here by suggesting it was time for open minds because “the reality is, the health care system in Canada is a mess.”

It is. And at least some of the blame – a lot, in my view – belongs at the door of Canadian news organizations that for decades have failed to fully inform readers by making them aware that there are a great many alternatives to just “ours” and “US-style.”

I was reminded of this in a recent Postmedia story concerning the perils of private health care provision. Referencing a study on MRIs, the story, right on cue, quotes the part of a study that states “It’s a quiet but rapid march toward U.S.-style health care.”

One would not want to suggest that those clinging to that parochial view should be denied a platform. But at the same time, readers have every right to demand that journalists push back and ask advocates for state monopolies simple questions such as “Why do you say that? Could it not be the first step towards UK-, German-, Dutch-, French-, Portugese- or Swedish-style health care?” and open the debate.

But, as it was 30 years ago and likely ever shall be, there is nothing to suggest that approach even crossed the reporter’s mind. Canadians deserve to be fully informed on major public policy matters and the record shows that when it comes to health care, media have largely failed to do so. Stuck in the fetid trench of an us and them narrative that compares two systems at extreme ends of the spectrum, the public is largely unaware that moderate alternatives exist, ensuring that no meaningful reforms will ever take place and tens of thousands of Canadians will continue to die on waiting lists – a story that continues to be of little interest within the mainstream. Better thousands of us die prematurely, apparently, than risk a grownup conversation that could challenge our national mythology and lead us down the path to “European-style” healthcare.

Postmedia’s Brian Lilley has written a defence of the use by journalists of anonymous sources. Lilley’s introduction describes him as coming down on both sides of the issue and that “Using anonymous sources is completely justified, if done right.” Well of course it is, but in my view it’s frequently and increasingly not being done right and its abuse is being exploited by government comms people to control the narrative.

An example of that occurred last week when the Globe and Mail, in a story concerning Prime Minister Mark Carney’s sojourn to the United Arab Emirates, declined to reveal the identity of a source offering very standard information. To wit:

“The (senior government) official, whom The Globe and Mail is not identifying because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said this visit matters because the UAE economy is very much driven by personal relationships – the kind that benefit from face-to-face meetings.”

This story had three bylines – from a senior parliamentary reporter, an institutional investing reporter and an economics reporter. It is inconceivable to me that, between them, they couldn’t find an on the record source who could explain how important it is, culturally, to have face to face meetings, particularly in that part of the world. Doing so would have added some needed thump to a “sources say” story and helped mute criticisms by others in the industry such as John Robson and Holly Doan, the latter stating in a Tweet that “Anon sources are gov’t propagandists.” Others have privately expressed their dismay.

Share

Meanwhile, I expect Lilley’s piece is worth a read and it’s important to hear all sides but as it is behind a paywall I haven’t got to it myself. It’s also worth pointing out that a recent Reuters Institute survey put Lilley in Canada’s top 10 social media influencers and creators.

Sadly, we have more this week on unnecessary online smartassery by journalists.

First up is Global News’s Sean O’Shea who managed to allow himself to look like a member of Carney’s comms team when he Tweeted his disapproval of some fans’ behaviour at the Grey Cup.

Then came The Hill Times’s Stu Benson, who blasted his alarm from a loudspeaker before deleting.

Honestly, folks, to paraphrase grandpa’s advice and as I have to remind myself from time to time, just because something pops into your head doesn’t mean it has to pop onto your social media feed.

Last week’s column for The Hub on how Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives remain alive and enforced in the nation’s newsrooms is available here. And don’t forget to watch out for the Full Press podcast with myself, Harrison Lowman and Tara Henley on Thursday.

Donate

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)