U.S. tariff swaps 'not the answer to our big problem,' trade lawyer says | Hanomansing Live

And we want to talk more about this with Barry Appleton. He's an international trade lawyer and policy strategist. He's also a former advisor to B.C. and Ontario on NAFTA, which was replaced, of course, by Kuzma, and professor at the Bocelli School of International Affairs, and we've reached him in Toronto. Barry, it's been a rollercoaster of a day. Thank you for your time tonight. Happy to be here. Okay. Let's start talking about Maine, because that seems to be what has sparked or started the rollercoaster, if you will. What do you make of the trade exemptions there? Okay, well, first of all, the Maine event is not the only event. So let's sort of deconstruct it and put it all together. So one of the things that's really important, obviously, is that not only is affordability an issue in the American election, but also is the fact that the president needs to control the Senate. And Maine is in play. It's not the only state in play, but it's an important state. And so Maine already was able to get some things changed into the tariffs from President Trump, the Section 232 tariffs. This is the second time. Twenty-two tariffs have come off. However, a hundred tariffs have come on. So this isn't lowering the tariff wall. It's sort of rearranging the bricks in the wall. And the bricks are going down with respect to Maine. And so that's obviously going to help Senator Collins, but it's not the answer to our big problem. Senator Susan Collins being the Republican who had been lobbying for this, you say it's going to help. It can certainly look like a victory for her to her voters. Is it enough, though, of an edge for her leading up to the midterms? what I'm getting at is, is this swapping out of tariffs going to really make a difference when it comes to that position? Well, it could. I mean, Senator Collins has incumbency in her favor. She's also a very senior senator. She runs the Appropriations Committee, and she's a very good friend of Canada. So if you actually are going to have a senator that's going to get elected, you actually want an ally like Senator Collins if you're on the Canadian side. now president trump realizes he needs her he didn't really want her before he really needs her now and that's why these are coming down so if in fact we're getting some tariff relief and we're getting some not a lot but if we're getting a change in attitude because the president's realized that he's hit a wall himself and he can't go any further that's actually good for canada and it's probably good for senator collins but let's talk about the swap that happened here and and the unevenness of it, because as you said, 22 tariffs off, but many more have now been put in place. And maybe they're kind of coming out of the blue to a number of businesses in Canada that are suddenly finding themselves hit by this. Why do that from a political strategy here? Was it necessary? Pure spite. The president wanted to show that even though he had to take some things down and those were really primarily for the agricultural sector in maine that was having a real problem being able to deal with its harvest and its production um but at the same time he wanted to show that he wasn't backing down so we threw a hundred things but the hundred things are kind of crazy you've got wooden coffins you've got carpet you got shampoo you've got things that don't naturally fit together they threw in a tariff on on ontario waste going to michigan like these are not related to an industry or to a big idea you know reshoring their jobs back to the united states it's simply trying to show that the president's tariff policy was going to continue but without a a principled or foundational basis so we're dealing with the situation again of the president wanting to show that he's tough but having to make concessions because his policies aren't working they're not working on affordability and they're not electing enough republicans that he needs in the senate to be able to continue along that's what we're seeing and that's actually good for canada just going to point out that also added to that list are canoes of a specified length um that are now suddenly being tariffed here um how does ottawa approach trade talks given this i guess we're going to call it the latest strategy from the american side this you know a surprise this is now off the table this is now on the table i mean it feels like the the it's just ever moving it's ever moving that's exactly but trade negotiations could be like that and we've seen those before the issue here is this number one we're starting to see a vector where president's objectives are going to start to align more and more with canada's objectives canada wants a deal and starting to signal that it understands that whatever deal is going to take place, we're going to be paying more in tariffs. Whatever happens, it's not going to be tariff-free anymore. That's closer to the American position. Our chief negotiator started mentioning that two or three days ago. At the same time, President Trump realizes he can't just keep going with the tariffs because it's hurting American business and it's now counting So we're seeing pain on both sides. That's usually the beginning of the opportunity to bring the parties together to get a deal. So actually, I'm a little more optimistic than I was before, because we're starting to see a change in the vector. But it's just a little one, but it's better than anything we've seen since everything blew up in August. I mean, fair enough. The one question that has bothered me or stayed with me throughout all of this is that even if there is a deal, I mean, is it worth the paper that it's written on when you consider the fact that, you know, there have been these changes. You know, there's a promise that this is going to be the reality. And then suddenly it's something else. What are your thoughts there? This is where good treaty practice kicks in. Things called snapbacks, where you actually put the penalty right into the deal. We've never done that with the United States, but I do that. If I was in that room, I put snapbacks all over. So if the U.S. doesn't do this, this is the immediate reaction, the immediate price they have to pay. It helps protect the expectations and deals with the situations where everybody knows the price. It usually works in trade. That's what I would think we should be doing. Okay. Barry Appleton in Toronto, thank you for that. Thanks for having me.