Article content continued

Canadian officials have argued the bilateral period has been necessary for the U.S. and Mexico to sort out tough issues such as rules of origin for autos.

But trade experts say Canada’s omission is — at least in part — a tactic by the White House to divide and conquer as it applies extra pressure on Ottawa to accept what could be a less-palatable deal.

Peter Clark, a veteran Ottawa-based trade strategist, said the U.S. is letting Canada cool its heels in what he calls a unique approach to negotiations.

“It’s not unusual to have bilateral sessions, but not to this extent,” said Clark, who considers a Lighthizer a good tactician.

“It’s an Ambassador Bob special.”

Derek Burney, a former Canadian ambassador to Washington, agrees that keeping Canada away from the table in recent weeks is part of the U.S. strategy.

“Crude and rude to be sure. But not necessarily damaging,” Burney wrote in a brief email, adding that Canadian officials “will have to wait and see, while holding our ground without flinching.”

Ohio-based trade lawyer Dan Ujczo said the bilateral U.S.-Mexico talks are necessary because the two countries’ one-on-one issues are more significant at this point in the year-long negotiations — but he added that leaving Canada on the sidelines has an added effect.

“I think it was just a negotiating reality, but there’s no question in my mind that it was designed to impose maximum leverage — as any negotiator would,” said Ujczo, who works for the law firm Dickinson Wright.