Canada must develop its own legal arsenal to combat unpredictable American trade actions rather than relying on diplomatic goodwill or international arbitration, according to prominent trade lawyer Barry Appleton. In a stark warning published recently, Appleton argues that regardless of upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Canada finds itself systematically disadvantaged in trade disputes with its southern neighbor.
The End of Diplomatic Illusions
The long-standing Canadian belief that friendship with the United States translates to fair treatment in trade matters has been shattered, Appleton contends. This illusion collapsed when Washington invoked a "national emergency" to justify taxing Canadian exports. According to the expert, these tariffs didn't emerge from strategic calculation but from political whim—a reflex that treats allies as supplicants and trade law as mere suggestion.
Appleton brings substantial credibility to his arguments, having testified three times before both U.S. and Canadian trade authorities this year alone. He reports that officials repeatedly ask the same question: "What can Canada do?" His consistent answer: stop asking Washington for permission to defend Canadian interests.
Structural Imbalance in Trade Capabilities
The core problem, Appleton explains, is institutional rather than ideological. The U.S. Trade Representative commands hundreds of lawyers, economists, and negotiators, while Ottawa's entire trade law division could fit in a single large Toronto boardroom. This represents not just a power imbalance but a fundamental difference in bandwidth and capacity.
When advising Canadian corporate clients facing international disputes, Appleton delivers a sobering reality: "you're bringing a handbook to a knife fight." The Americans possess multiple legal weapons including Section 232, Section 301, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and numerous other statutes. Canada's primary recourse—filing World Trade Organization complaints—offers little practical protection, with resolutions potentially taking years if the WTO remains functional at all.
The Sovereign Economy Act Solution
Appleton proposes concrete legislation: Canada needs a Sovereign Economy Act that would grant Ottawa emergency powers to impose retaliatory tariffs, secure critical industries, and freeze assets of hostile economic actors—all within 48 hours of a U.S. trade violation.
The timing is critical. Within weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether former President Donald Trump's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs was legal. Appleton outlines two possible outcomes, both problematic for Canada.
If the court strikes down the emergency tariffs, the administration will likely pivot to other statutes: using Section 232 under the guise of national security, claiming unfair trading practices under Section 301, or even invoking the Trading with the Enemy Act if necessary. If the court upholds the tariffs, the precedent stands, and every future U.S. president inherits this unilateral taxation power.
"Either way, Canada loses—unless we stop reacting and start legislating," Appleton emphasizes.
Canada's response must be structural rather than sentimental, he argues. The country cannot rely on American restraint or international arbitration to protect its interests. Instead, Canada needs its own domestic legislative arsenal—powers that allow for proportionate retaliation, targeted tariffs, and emergency mobilization when facing economically hostile actions from trading partners.
