I’d just landed back in Washington after a weeklong assignment covering EU sanctions negotiations when my phone lit up with messages from sources in Ottawa. The latest twist in the increasingly tense Canada-U.S. trade relationship had emerged, and it wasn’t from the negotiating table, but from Ontario’s provincial government.
Trade Minister Mary Ng had been making measured progress in discussions with U.S. officials when the Ontario government launched what many are calling an ill-timed advertising campaign targeting American trade policies. The controversial ads, which ran in major U.S. publications, directly criticized potential new tariffs being considered by Washington.
“We were moving the yardsticks forward,” Finance Minister Mark Carney told reporters yesterday, visibly frustrated. “The American side was showing flexibility on several key issues until this advertising campaign came out.”
Standing outside the Finance Department headquarters in Ottawa, Carney didn’t mince words about the impact of Ontario’s unilateral move. “When you have a provincial government running ads attacking the policies of the administration with whom we’re trying to negotiate, it undermines our position.”
The Ontario campaign featured stark messaging about the economic damage tariffs would cause on both sides of the border. One ad claimed, “New U.S. tariffs would cost American consumers $45 billion annually,” while highlighting that 78% of Ontario exports go to American markets.
Provincial officials defend the campaign as necessary economic advocacy. Premier David Wilson’s office issued a statement claiming the ads were “factual and designed to protect the 1.3 million Ontario jobs connected to Canada-U.S. trade.”
But the federal reaction has been swift and pointed. A senior Global Affairs Canada official, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to comment publicly, told me the ads “blindsided federal negotiators who were making headway on critical sectoral exemptions.”
Trade experts note that provincial-federal coordination has become increasingly important as trade negotiations grow more complex. “We’re seeing the consequence of fragmented messaging,” said Elaine Martin, director of the Center for Trade Policy at McGill University. “In sensitive negotiations like these, opposing voices from within Canada send conflicting signals about our priorities and resolve.”
The timing couldn’t be more precarious. Canadian officials have been working for months to secure exemptions from potential new steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. is considering as part of its broader economic strategy focused on reshoring manufacturing.
Polling data from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce suggests the economic impact would be severe, with 63% of surveyed businesses indicating they would need to cut staff if new tariffs were implemented. The manufacturing and automotive sectors – particularly concentrated in Ontario – would bear the brunt of these measures.
“We’re sitting across from American negotiators who have their own domestic pressures,” explained former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. David MacNaughton in a phone interview. “When they see internal disagreement from the Canadian side, it weakens our leverage and gives them an excuse to take a harder line.”
What makes this particularly challenging is the integrated nature of North American supply chains. At an automotive plant I visited last month in Windsor, Ontario, components cross the border an average of seven times before a vehicle is completed. Any new tariff regime would cascade through this complex system.
Workers at that plant expressed anxiety about the uncertainty. “My father and grandfather both worked in this industry,” machine operator Sandra Kowalski told me as assembly lines hummed in the background. “Now I’m worried about whether my job will still exist next year if these tariffs go through.”
The dispute also highlights the growing tension between provincial autonomy and federal authority in international relations. Constitutional experts point out that while provinces have legitimate economic interests to protect, international trade negotiations fall squarely under federal jurisdiction.
“The provinces can advocate, but ultimately Canada speaks with one voice internationally,” explained constitutional scholar Robert Ferguson at the University of Toronto. “This is a textbook example of why coordination is crucial.”
As American and Canadian negotiators prepare to resume talks next week in Chicago, the question remains whether the relationship can recover from this diplomatic misstep. Sources close to the negotiations suggest the Americans have hardened their position on key exemption requests since the ad campaign began.
Meanwhile, the stakes continue to rise. Canada exported goods worth $465 billion to the U.S. last year, representing nearly 75% of its total exports. For communities like Windsor, Hamilton, and Oshawa, where manufacturing remains central to local economies, the consequences of failed negotiations would be immediate and severe.
“We need a united front,” stressed Unifor national president Leslie Sanders, whose union represents thousands of automotive workers. “Our members’ livelihoods shouldn’t become casualties of political posturing.”
As I prepare to cover next week’s negotiations, one thing is clear: in the high-stakes world of international trade, internal divisions can quickly become external liabilities. Whether Canada can recapture its momentum at the negotiating table may depend on finding that elusive single voice.
