More than 57,000 people have now put their names behind an extraordinary demand: Canada should formally declare U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra persona non grata and ask Washington to remove him.
The House of Commons e-petition has transformed from a political protest into a fast-growing diplomatic controversy. It comes after months of friction over Donald Trump’s “51st state” rhetoric, tariffs, Canadian sovereignty and allegations surrounding American contacts with Alberta separatists. Prime Minister Mark Carney has previously rejected calls to expel Hoekstra, arguing that Ottawa must continue dealing with the Trump administration. But with the petition’s validated signature count surging past 57,000, the pressure is becoming harder for Ottawa to dismiss as a fringe complaint.
The Signature Count Exploded in a Day
The scale and speed of the petition’s growth are striking. House of Commons petition e-7531 showed 57,070 validated signatures as of August 12, with the total still capable of rising because the petition remains open until November 18. Canadian Press had reported only a day earlier that more than 29,000 people had signed. By Wednesday morning, the figure had already climbed beyond 56,000 before crossing 57,000 on Parliament’s website.
The support is also geographically broad. Ontario accounts for 23,755 signatures, followed by British Columbia with 11,901, Alberta with 6,378 and Quebec with 5,242. Every province and territory is represented, including 98 signatures from Yukon, 78 from the Northwest Territories and 11 from Nunavut. House rules require signatures to be validated before they are added to the published total. Eligible signatories must be Canadian citizens or residents of Canada, meaning the counter is more rigorous than the unverified click totals sometimes associated with informal online campaigns.
The Petition Goes Far Beyond a Symbolic Rebuke
The petition, initiated by Calgary resident Leanne Walker, makes three explicit demands. First, it asks the federal government to declare Hoekstra persona non grata and request his removal as U.S. ambassador. Second, it wants Ottawa to raise what the petition describes as a pattern of conduct inconsistent with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Third, it calls for a parliamentary committee to examine possible U.S. diplomatic interference in Canadian domestic affairs.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is the MP attached to the petition and is expected to present it in Parliament. That does not necessarily mean May endorses every allegation it contains: House of Commons rules explicitly state that an MP can authorize or present a petition without endorsing its contents. Still, the language represents a significant escalation from an earlier parliamentary petition concerning Hoekstra. That previous effort asked Ottawa to review his conduct and consider diplomatic measures, including seeking his recall. It ultimately collected 27,119 signatures before closing on June 25. The new petition has already attracted more than twice as many.
Hoekstra Arrived Promising Respect for Canadian Sovereignty
The controversy is particularly notable because Hoekstra entered the job sounding considerably more conciliatory. During his March 2025 U.S. Senate confirmation hearing, he was directly asked whether Canada was a sovereign country and whether it should be treated as such. He answered affirmatively and emphasized the long history of cooperation between the two countries. The Senate confirmed him the following month by a 60-37 vote.
Hoekstra was hardly new to politics or diplomacy. He previously represented Michigan in the U.S. House of Representatives and served as Trump’s ambassador to the Netherlands during the president’s first administration. Yet his Canadian posting quickly became unusually combative. By September 2025, he was publicly expressing frustration over what he considered anti-American rhetoric in Canada. Speaking in Halifax, he criticized the “elbows up” political mood surrounding the 2025 federal campaign and objected to Canadian politicians describing Washington’s tariff campaign as a trade war. Those remarks helped turn an ambassador who was supposed to manage an unusually sensitive relationship into part of the political dispute himself.
The 51st-State Rhetoric Became the Breaking Point
Nothing has fuelled that dispute more consistently than Trump’s repeated references to Canada becoming an American state. The remarks have been rejected across Canada’s political spectrum, but Hoekstra’s handling of them has repeatedly drawn attention. Rather than consistently distancing himself from the rhetoric, he has at times questioned why Canadians remain so upset about it and has defended his responsibility to communicate the president’s position.
The issue flared again in June when Trump posted another reference to Canada as the “51st state.” Hoekstra amplified the president’s message through his official social-media account, prompting reporters to ask Carney whether the ambassador should be asked to leave. Earlier in the summer, Hoekstra also said the possibility of Canadian annexation would make for a “great discussion” between Trump and Carney. The current petition specifically cites his treatment of the 51st-state language as one of the reasons Ottawa should act. For many Canadians signing it, the dispute is therefore less about diplomatic etiquette than about whether rhetoric questioning Canadian sovereignty should carry consequences.
Alberta Separatism Raises the Stakes
The most serious allegations in the petition concern Alberta separatism. Its organizers cite contacts between U.S. officials and Canadian separatist groups and ask Parliament to investigate whether those contacts crossed the line from ordinary diplomatic engagement into interference in Canadian domestic politics. The petition specifically points to reports involving the Alberta Prosperity Project and a voter-identification platform used by the separatist-linked Centurion Project.
Some underlying events have been independently reported, but the petition’s conclusions remain allegations rather than established findings. Reuters reported in January that U.S. State Department officials had held three meetings with the Alberta Prosperity Project, which has advocated a referendum on Alberta independence. Carney responded by saying he expected the Trump administration to respect Canadian sovereignty. Hoekstra later rejected suggestions that Washington was strategizing with Alberta separatists, telling Global News that the administration was not working with them on separation. That disagreement is precisely why the petition’s demand for parliamentary scrutiny could become politically significant: rather than asking Canadians to accept either side’s characterization, it calls for elected officials to investigate what contacts occurred and what they involved.
Carney Has Already Chosen Engagement Over Expulsion
The biggest obstacle facing the petition is that Carney has already rejected the basic remedy it proposes. When asked in June whether Canada should expel Hoekstra after the ambassador amplified Trump’s latest 51st-state message, Carney said no. His explanation was pragmatic: regardless of the rhetoric coming from Washington, the United States remains Canada’s most important economic and security relationship, and his government has to work with the administration Americans elected.
That calculation is easy to understand from the numbers. Global Affairs Canada says nearly C$3.6 billion worth of goods and services crossed the Canada-U.S. border every day in 2024. Supply chains in automobiles, energy, agriculture and manufacturing operate across the boundary, while the countries cooperate on NORAD, NATO, border enforcement and intelligence. Expelling the president’s ambassador in the middle of tariff and CUSMA disputes would therefore be more than a symbolic rebuke. It could trigger retaliation or make already difficult negotiations harder. Petition supporters, however, are effectively arguing that economic dependence cannot mean accepting unlimited diplomatic provocation without a response.
What Persona Non Grata Would Actually Mean
Declaring Hoekstra persona non grata would be a serious diplomatic measure, but it is firmly established in international law. Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations allows a receiving country to notify another government that the head or another member of its diplomatic mission is no longer acceptable. The receiving state does not have to provide a reason. The sending country is then expected to recall that diplomat or terminate the person’s diplomatic functions.
Canada has used comparable tools before when relations with foreign governments deteriorated. In May 2023, Ottawa formally declared Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei persona non grata after accusing him of interference in Canadian politics. In October 2024, Canada served expulsion notices on six Indian diplomats and consular officials following an RCMP investigation into alleged violent criminal activity linked to agents of the Indian government. Those situations involved national-security allegations different from the dispute surrounding Hoekstra, so they are not direct precedents. They nevertheless demonstrate that asking a foreign diplomat to leave is a real power available to Ottawa rather than merely rhetorical language contained in a petition.
The Petition Can Force an Answer, Not an Expulsion
Even 57,000 signatures do not compel the government to remove an ambassador. Canada’s parliamentary petition system is a mechanism for putting an issue formally before the government, not a referendum whose result becomes binding policy. An electronic petition requires only 500 valid signatures to qualify for certification after its signing period closes. Petition e-7531 has exceeded that requirement more than one hundred times over.
Once a certified petition is presented to the House of Commons, however, the government cannot simply ignore it procedurally. House rules require a formal government response within 45 calendar days of presentation. That means Ottawa will eventually have to state its position on the request and explain, at least politically, whether it believes further action concerning Hoekstra is warranted. The petition remains open until November 18, so its final total could be substantially higher than 57,000. It is also important not to mistake signatures for a scientific measurement of public opinion. Petition signers are self-selected. What the total demonstrates is intensity and mobilization around the issue, not that 57,000 signatures automatically represent the views of Canada as a whole.
The Anger Reflects a Much Broader Collapse in Trust
The petition nevertheless fits into a much wider deterioration in Canadian attitudes toward the United States. Pew Research Center surveyed more than 42,000 people across 36 countries between February and May 2026 and found a remarkable change in Canada. In 2022, 83% of Canadians surveyed described the United States as a reliable partner. In 2026, only 35% did. That shift is far larger than anything that can be explained by one ambassador.
Hoekstra has argued that part of his job is to present Trump’s views and has criticized what he regards as excessive anti-American rhetoric in Canada. The U.S. Embassy told Canadian Press it was aware of the new petition but declined additional comment. For Ottawa, the challenge is therefore bigger than deciding what to do with one diplomat. Canada must simultaneously protect a vast economic relationship, negotiate with a confrontational administration and reassure a public increasingly sensitive to perceived attacks on sovereignty. Whether Hoekstra remains in Ottawa or not, 57,000 signatures have turned that tension into a formal question the federal government will eventually have to answer.
