As I stood in the bustling media room at Queen’s Park last week, Premier Katherine Murray’s message couldn’t have been clearer: “We’re taking our case directly to American consumers.” The frustration was palpable as Ontario concluded its unprecedented $75 million advertising campaign against U.S. tariffs that has dominated American airwaves for the past six months.
The campaign, which wrapped up October 31st, represents the province’s most aggressive international trade advocacy effort in modern history. What began as targeted messaging in border states evolved into a full-scale media blitz across twenty-seven U.S. states. Walking through Detroit last month, I couldn’t miss the billboards declaring “Your Car Costs More Because of Tariffs” looming over major intersections.
“We had no choice but to go big,” explained Ontario Minister of Economic Development Marco Petrelli in our interview at his Toronto office. “When 32% of our provincial GDP depends on U.S. trade, we couldn’t afford to sit back while these tariffs threatened 187,000 Ontario jobs.”
The provincial government claims the campaign’s price tag—initially projected at $30 million but ultimately reaching $75 million—was necessary emergency spending. Opposition leaders have called it “political theater” and a “desperate misuse of taxpayer dollars.”
The campaign’s origins trace back to January 2025, when the U.S. imposed a 25% tariff on Canadian aluminum and steel, followed by targeted tariffs on Ontario-manufactured auto parts in March. According to data from Statistics Canada, these measures immediately threatened $17.8 billion in annual exports from the province.
“This wasn’t just about cars,” said Sophia Nguyen, Chief Economist at the Canada-U.S. Business Council. “These tariffs created a ripple effect through supply chains that threatened everything from Windsor’s tool and die shops to Toronto’s financial services sector.” Her organization estimates that within two months of implementation, the tariffs had already cost Ontario’s economy approximately $1.2 billion.
The provincial government launched its counter-offensive in May, initially focusing on border states Michigan, New York, and Ohio. The first wave of advertisements emphasized the integrated nature of North American manufacturing, noting that the average vehicle crosses the U.S.-Canada border seven times during production.
By July, Ontario had expanded its campaign to include national cable networks, digital platforms, and print media across states representing 70% of U.S. GDP. The messages evolved to highlight specific American communities dependent on Canadian trade, featuring testimonials from U.S. workers in places like Flint, Michigan and Buffalo, New York whose jobs were jeopardized by the tariffs.
“We needed Americans to understand this wasn’t just hurting Canadians—it was hurting them too,” Premier Murray explained during last week’s press conference announcing the campaign’s conclusion.
The effectiveness of this massive expenditure remains debated. Public opinion polling conducted by Ipsos in September showed awareness of the Canada-U.S. trade dispute had increased by 22 percentage points among Americans in targeted states. However, only 31% of respondents could correctly identify specific tariffs affecting their consumer prices.
Critics point out that the campaign’s conclusion coincides with the U.S. administration’s pre-existing timeline for tariff review. “Ontario spent $75 million to influence a decision that was likely coming anyway,” argued Provincial Opposition Leader Darren Williams. “This was about political optics, not economic necessity.”
Trade analysts offer a more nuanced view. “The U.S. administration was feeling domestic pressure from their own manufacturers who rely on Canadian inputs,” noted Dr. Elena Katsoulis from the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. “Ontario’s campaign created additional political cover for Washington to modify their position without appearing to capitulate.”
The U.S. announced last week it would reduce tariffs on Canadian aluminum from 25% to 10%, while maintaining other restrictions. American officials made no reference to Ontario’s advertising campaign in their announcement.
Meanwhile, the campaign’s staggering cost has raised questions about government spending priorities. The $75 million price tag equals approximately half of Ontario’s annual budget for apprenticeship programs, or enough to build three new elementary schools.
Walking through Sault Ste. Marie’s steel district last weekend, I spoke with workers at Algoma Steel who had mixed feelings about the campaign. “I’m glad they fought for us,” said shift supervisor Raj Mehta, “but that’s a lot of money that could’ve gone directly to helping plants upgrade equipment or retrain workers.”
Finance Minister Thomas Wong defended the expenditure during legislative questioning, arguing that the $75 million investment helped protect industries worth billions to Ontario’s economy. The province estimates that each percentage point reduction in tariffs preserves approximately $500 million in annual exports.
Whether this campaign represents a new normal in provincial international relations remains unclear. “We’re seeing sub-national governments increasingly acting like sovereign states in trade disputes,” observed international trade lawyer Christine Beckman. “Ontario essentially conducted its own foreign policy here, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels.”
As the automotive plants in Windsor and Oshawa continue production this week under slightly improved trade conditions, the debate over Ontario’s advertising gambit continues. The province has announced plans to commission an independent review of the campaign’s effectiveness, though results aren’t expected until spring 2026.
“In the end,” Premier Murray told reporters as she concluded last week’s press conference, “protecting Ontario jobs was worth every penny.” Whether voters and taxpayers agree will likely be determined in the provincial election scheduled for next June.
