Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney made good on his promise to introduce retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. on Tuesday. Mirroring the American duties that went into effect on Saturday following a week of tense negotiations, the import taxes on U.S. exports will saddle about $20 billion worth of products with tariffs of up to 50 percent.

“Canada will match the new U.S. tariffs dollar for dollar,” Carney tweeted Tuesday morning, adding that the country will redouble investments in Canadian workers and businesses as it refocuses on domestic industry and other export markets.

Among the apparel items targeted in the trade action are women’s and girls’ synthetic fiber suits, dresses, skirts, trousers and other products; cotton T-shirts, jerseys, pullovers, cardigans; jerseys, pullovers, cardigans and waistcoats in man-made fibers; synthetic gloves and mittens; men’s, women’s, girls’ and boys’ overcoats, anoraks, raincoats and other outerwear, and men’s and boys’ suits, jackets and blazers in natural and synthetic fibers.

Calling the tit-for-tat trade actions “absurd,” Bob Kirke, executive director of the Canadian Apparel Federation, said he believes the duties have the potential to hurt both manufacturing markets for apparel products. “There will be no Canadian suits in the U.S. and no U.S. suits in Canada,” he said.

Large Canadian manufacturers such as Peerless Clothing and Ballin have other factories at the ready outside of Canada so they can continue to produce offshore if they need to, pulling jobs away from the Canadian market if demand shifts make it necessary.

“Peerless still makes a fair amount in Canada, but can make most any suit they want in any country around the world,” he said, adding that he had not spoken to the brands directly about their plans.

Many are likely just beginning to parse the potential impacts. Stephen Granovsky, chief executive officer of Samuelsohn, a men’s tailored clothier, said he was still “working through” the intricacies of the issue.

Kirke said he was hopeful that the two sides could make it back to the negotiating table and come to an agreement before Sept. 8, when the Canadian tariffs are slated to take effect. He urged manufacturers on both sides of the border to speak up loudly and make their displeasure known. “It’s still not too late to reverse course,” he said.

Josh Teitelbaum, trade and policy expert and senior counsel at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, believes a swift resolution is unlikely, however, given the political machinations at play in the U.S. and Canada.

“I think it’s going to be at least until October, November before the parties are going to come together and try to talk this out again,” he said, citing Canada’s upcoming provincial elections, which begin later this month and continue into the fall, as well as the U.S. midterm elections in November.

“The rhetoric after the collapse of the deal has been pretty hot from both sides, and they’ve got to go through the five stages of grief here a little bit,” he added. “There’s the interpersonal disappointment that gets expressed, but there’s also the political realities that are probably why the deal fell apart in the first place.”

In Teitelbaum’s estimation, the deal on the table last week would have likely been a difficult sell for Canadian officials. Carney, the leader of the Liberal Party, has been urged not to bend to U.S. demands and has engendered support on both sides of the political aisle for standing firm against the provocations of President Donald Trump.  

Still, Teitelbaum said he believes it’s unlikely that the duties, levied under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, will remain in effect long-term. “The incentive for the president theoretically is to cut a deal before the November midterms so that he can show that he’s addressing concerns about higher prices,” he said.

The trade lawyer also pointed to Trump’s latest threat of 50 percent sectoral tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks and auto parts as “leverage” rather than a bona fide threat — a move that will prod leaders back to the negotiating table. “He doesn’t want them to go in effect until Jan. 1, four months away,” he said of the duties. “That’s an eternity when it comes to negotiating with this president.”

When it comes to the near-term impacts of the tariffs on the apparel industry, Teitelbaum said effects should be “fairly minor — but that doesn’t mean there won’t be some acute pain for some unlucky brands.”

Canada is a small supplier of apparel to the U.S., accounting for less than half of 1 percent of all apparel that the U.S. imported last year. “But, if you source men’s or boys’ wool suits and blazers from Canada, for example, this will be a problem for you. Those suits, which account for about one-third of apparel imports subject to this tariff, are one of the biggest targets,” Teitelbaum said. The U.S. imported nearly $100 million in men’s or boys’ Canadian wool suits or blazers last year and they now face a 50 percent tariff.

Of greater concern are the long-term implications for the relationship between the two countries as neighbors and economic allies, he believes. “I think it’s fair to say that this moment represents likely the beginning of a new era in U.S.-Canadian relations,” Teitelbaum added.

Those relations “are a lot rockier than they’ve been in the past — that’s kind of been a theme of the Trump administration for a while now — but I think this takes us into a slightly different chapter than where we’ve been before,” echoed Steve Lamar, president and CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association.

Lamar pointed to the use of a new — and heretofore unused — tariff authority, Section 338, as evidence that the administration is also entering new territory when it comes to trade policy.

“There is no exemption for [U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement]-qualifying goods,” he said, “and that casts into doubt the sanctity of free trade agreements.”

“These are partnerships that are supposed to be long-term and foundational; you could make long-term investments and really create a home around supply chain dynamics,” he added. “If these tariffs are reaching into those supply chains, that sends a shock throughout everything.”

Canada and the U.S. have a symbiotic relationship when it comes to the construction of apparel products, trading inputs and fabrics over the border as finished garments come to life, often touched by many hands.

The apparel value chain wasn’t the intended mark of the trade action, of course. “No one is saying, ‘We need to address this problem with respect to the industry in Canada, therefore, we’re going to target these products.’ They’re talking about other issues, and we’re the collateral damage; the unintended victims,” Lamar said.

“There are very specific supply chain outcomes that are going to happen with respect to these products, and the companies that are producing and trading them are going to have to make some really hard decisions that affect their suppliers and their customers, too,” he added.

The larger question to contend with is whether the two sides are “on a path toward resolution or a path toward continued irritation.” The latter would be an “extraordinarily” detrimental challenge to “one of our largest and most important trading partnerships.”

“When you are encouraging trading partners to reduce their dependence — to reduce their relationship with the United States — what kind of a message is that?” Lamar said. “That’s going to create a new dynamic which is going to start to further erode American competitiveness.”

With contributions from Jean E. Palmieri