Few industries are as overtly political as auto manufacturing.

Profitable automakers routinely demand — and receive — government money as a condition of locating their plants in this or that jurisdiction.

When automakers are on the ropes, as General Motors and Fiat Chrysler were in 2009, governments spend billions to bail them out.

So it should come as no surprise that politics is in the air as GM, Chrysler and Ford begin contract talks with their unionized employees in Canada.

With the North American Free Trade Agreement under attack from both major candidates in the U.S. presidential election, these talks promise to be the most politicized in recent memory.

The workers, represented by their union, Unifor, are essentially demanding that the three automakers locate enough new production in Canada to keep the big plants in cities like Oshawa, Windsor and Brampton open.

The car companies have their usual arguments — that it is cheaper to assemble autos in either low-wage Mexico or the largely non-unionized U.S. South.

But they are also operating within a political climate that is increasingly hostile to American firms willing to shift well-paying jobs from the U.S. to other countries.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to revise NAFTA to enable him to slap punitive tariffs on autos produced in Canada and Mexico. He has singled out Ford.

His Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is more vague. But she, too, has been forced by public opinion to take a more critical approach to the trade deal linking Canada, Mexico and the U.S.

So far, most NAFTA critics in the U.S. have focused on manufacturers who locate in Mexico. But foreign is foreign and there is unlikely to be much sympathy for Canada if one of the big three U.S. automakers decides to set up a new production line in Ontario rather than, say, Michigan.

The reaction of Canadian governments to the rise in American protectionist sentiment has been oddly low-key.

On the one hand, Canadian politicians seem to believe it is not happening. There appears to be an assumption that Trump will lose and that Clinton is fibbing when she critiques free trade.

On the other hand, Canadian governments are attempting to take advantage of interstate rivalries within the U.S.

Last week, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne journeyed to Michigan to sign a non-binding memorandum of understanding with that state’s governor aimed, in part, at discouraging auto plants from locating in the U.S. South.

It’s not a foolish move, but it assumes two things: first, that NAFTA will continue as is and, second, that Michigan’s regional ties to Ontario are stronger than its national and emotional ties to the rest of the U.S.

Otherwise, Canadian governments see their role as helping the auto industry make money.

Ontario, for instance, is planning to build a $20-million network of battery-charging stations across the province to encourage the big automakers to build electric cars here.

And maybe they will. Or maybe they’ll build their new electric cars in Tennessee and sell them to Ontarians and their tax-subsidized network of charging stations.

Certainly, there was no effort made by either the Ontario Liberal government or the former federal Conservative government to use the 2009 auto bailout to leverage more electric-car investment — or indeed any investment — in Canada.

In fact, Ottawa and Queen’s Park were so anxious to rid themselves of the $13.7 billion worth of GM and Chrysler shares giving them this leverage that they sold them at a $3.5 billion loss.

Still, when GM announced plans in June to hire up to 750 new software technicians over the next two years, Wynne and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were there to take bows.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

What the leaders didn’t comment on was the fact, reported by the Star at the time, that most of these 750 technicians are to come to Ontario from California.

Nor did the leaders say what they might do to ensure that the more than 23,000 people already employed in Canada’s auto sector keep their jobs. That, it seems, is the task of their trade union.