73% Back Tariffs on U.S. Energy and Critical Minerals as Majority Supports Restricting Exports South

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

A trade fight that began with tariffs is now pushing Canadians toward measures once treated as economic last resorts. New Ipsos polling finds 73% support imposing export tariffs on Canadian critical minerals sold to the United States, with an identical share backing export tariffs on crude oil, natural gas and electricity. Majorities also favour going further by limiting how much of those resources Canada sends south.

That matters because these are not ordinary consumer goods. Oil, natural gas, electricity, potash, aluminum, nickel and other minerals are woven deeply into North American industry and infrastructure. Canada therefore possesses genuine leverage, but using it carries a difficult trade-off: many U.S. buyers depend heavily on Canadian resources, while Canadian producers still depend heavily on the American market.

The 73% Result Reflects a Broader Appetite for Retaliation

The 73% figure does not stand alone. In related Ipsos findings, 63% of respondents said Canada was right to hold firm in trade negotiations even if doing so meant higher costs and job losses, while 73% backed Ottawa’s dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs. On resources specifically, 71% supported limiting Canadian critical-mineral exports to the United States and 69% supported limiting crude oil, natural gas and electricity shipments.

That support is broad, although it is not uniform. Younger adults were less enthusiastic about the government’s hard line than older Canadians, a difference Ipsos linked to differing exposure to economic risk. The research was conducted online among 1,001 Canadian adults on August 26 and 27, with quotas and weighting used to reflect census characteristics. Ipsos reported a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points, meaning the headline numbers represent substantial majorities even after normal polling uncertainty is considered.

Energy Gives Canada Leverage Because the U.S. Market Is So Deeply Connected

Canada’s strongest bargaining chip is energy because the cross-border relationship is enormous. Statistics Canada reported that 222.7 million cubic metres of Canadian crude oil went to the United States in 2025, equal to roughly 89% of the country’s crude exports. Natural gas was even more concentrated: approximately 3.56 billion gigajoules flowed south, representing more than 96% of Canadian gas exports despite the opening of a new overseas LNG route.

The dependence runs both ways. Federal energy data show the United States accounted for 85% of Canadian energy exports by value in 2025. For American refiners, utilities and industrial users, Canadian supply is embedded in systems built over decades around nearby production, pipelines and transmission infrastructure. That makes energy tariffs or restrictions potentially powerful. It also makes them risky for Canada because lost U.S. sales could affect producers, workers, provincial revenues and communities whose economies were built around uninterrupted continental trade.

Electricity Shows Why Resource Leverage Can Be More Complicated Than It Looks

Electricity is frequently presented as a particularly immediate pressure point because power crosses the border in real time and can become especially valuable during periods of high demand. The United States is Canada’s electricity export market, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford has explicitly raised the possibility of restricting electricity alongside critical minerals if the confrontation becomes more severe.

The relationship, however, is not simply Canada supplying an endlessly dependent customer. Prolonged dry conditions reduced Canadian hydroelectric generation and contributed to periods when Canada became a net electricity importer in late 2025. In December, electricity imports from the United States jumped 79.3% from a year earlier to 3.1 million megawatt-hours, while exports fell to 2.3 million. That episode illustrates why electricity can be a complicated trade weapon. Weather, regional grid conditions and reliability requirements can quickly change which country needs additional supply, meaning a restriction designed to hurt American buyers could reduce Canada’s own flexibility.

Critical Minerals Reach Into Agriculture, Manufacturing and National Security

Critical minerals give the retaliation debate a much broader strategic dimension. Natural Resources Canada says Canadian critical-mineral exports to the United States reached approximately $28.8 billion in 2025, representing about 57% of Canada’s total exports in the category. These materials feed industries ranging from agriculture and automobiles to electrical equipment, aerospace, nuclear power and advanced manufacturing.

American import data demonstrate why Canadian supply matters. U.S. Geological Survey figures show Canada supplied 79% of American potash imports, 56% of aluminum imports, 56% of refined zinc imports and 28% of niobium imports over the 2021–2024 period. The United States was more than 50% net-import reliant for all four materials in 2025. Potash is a fundamental fertilizer input, while niobium is valuable in high-strength steel and specialized alloys. A disruption therefore would not remain confined to mines or commodity traders; it could eventually reach farms, factories and strategic industrial supply chains.

Restricting Exports Would Be a Bigger Step Than Matching U.S. Tariffs

Three different retaliation tools are now part of the conversation: tariffs on American imports, export tariffs on Canadian resources sold south and outright limits on the quantity Canada exports. Ottawa has already announced counter-tariffs of 15%, 25% and 50% covering $27.6 billion in U.S. imports beginning September 8. Those measures penalize selected American goods without preventing Canadian resource producers from continuing to serve U.S. customers.

Export restrictions would alter that balance more dramatically. They could tighten American supply and increase costs for companies dependent on Canadian inputs, but Canadian producers would simultaneously lose access to customers unless alternative markets were immediately available. Tariffs themselves also carry domestic costs. A 2026 Bank of Canada staff study found that prices of goods affected by a 25% Canadian retaliatory tariff gradually increased, peaking about 6% higher after three months. Export restrictions work differently, but the broader lesson remains: economic retaliation in an integrated market rarely creates pain exclusively on one side of the border.

A Federal-Provincial Divide Could Shape How Far Canada Is Willing to Go

Resource retaliation also exposes regional differences inside Canada. Ontario’s Doug Ford has argued that electricity and critical minerals should remain available as leverage. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has rejected using oil and gas export taxes as a weapon, while Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has cautioned against targeting products such as oil and potash in ways that could hurt Canadian producers or encourage customers to search for permanent alternatives.

The legal structure adds another layer. Section 92A of the Constitution gives provinces important powers over the development, conservation and management of non-renewable resources and electricity generation. International energy exports are also subject to federal law. Under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, oil, gas and electricity exports require federal authorization through licences, permits or applicable regulations. Any serious attempt to restrict resource exports would therefore involve more than announcing another tariff list. Ottawa would have to navigate regulatory authority, provincial economic interests, commercial contracts and potentially intense disputes over which regions should bear the greatest cost of national retaliation.

Canada Has Begun Diversifying, but the Shift Is Still in Its Early Stages

One reason stronger resource measures are becoming easier to contemplate is that Canada has begun building alternatives to the U.S. market. Statistics Canada says crude exports to countries other than the United States surged 132.6% in 2025 to 27.2 million cubic metres, helped by the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline and greater overseas shipments. Non-U.S. destinations accounted for 10.9% of Canadian crude exports, compared with an average of only 2.8% between 2016 and 2024.

Natural gas has started moving in the same direction. Canada’s first LNG export facility in Kitimat, British Columbia, began shipping to global markets in July 2025, ending the period when essentially all Canadian gas exports went to the United States. Minerals are diversifying as well. The U.S. share of Canadian mineral exports fell from 52% in 2024 to 46% in 2025 as exports to other destinations increased. Those changes are meaningful, but they represent the beginning of diversification rather than a replacement for continental trade.

The U.S. Cannot Be Replaced Quickly, Even as New Markets Open

Diversification gives Canadian producers more options, but geography and infrastructure still make the American market exceptionally difficult to replace. Statistics Canada reported that 71.7% of Canadian merchandise exports went to the United States in 2025. That was down from 75.9% in 2024, yet it remained overwhelmingly larger than any other national destination. Energy is still more concentrated, with 85% of Canadian energy exports by value going south.

Physical networks reinforce the connection. Much of western Canadian crude travels through pipelines built around North American refineries, while natural-gas pipelines and electricity interties developed around continental demand. Trans Mountain’s expansion created valuable Pacific export capacity and LNG shipments have opened a new route for western gas, but replacing established American demand requires ports, pipelines, ships, processing infrastructure and long-term contracts. Canada therefore has the ability to make certain U.S. industries uncomfortable relatively quickly, but it does not yet have the ability to redirect every displaced resource shipment just as quickly.

Canadians Also Want Economic Protection at Home, Not Retaliation Alone

The polling makes clear that public sentiment is not simply a demand for economic escalation. Eighty percent supported giving preference to Canadian-made products in government purchasing and infrastructure projects. Separately, 67% backed a major COVID-era-style subsidy program for workers affected by the tariff conflict. Yet only 52% said they personally were willing to endure significant economic pain, showing how support can weaken once retaliation starts reaching household finances.

Ottawa appears conscious of that limit. The federal government has announced $7.5 billion in new and enhanced assistance for workers and businesses affected by U.S. tariffs. The package includes another $1.5 billion for regional tariff-response programs, a $500 million business liquidity stream, a $2 billion diversification fund and $3.5 billion in rapid-response assistance for workers and employers. Those measures accompany the $27.6 billion counter-tariff package, effectively pairing retaliation with an effort to cushion businesses and employees from the economic consequences.

The Mandate for Tougher Action Is Strong, but It Is Not a Blank Cheque

For Prime Minister Mark Carney, the numbers provide considerable political room to maintain a confrontational position. Ipsos polling put Liberal support at 44% compared with 33% for the Conservatives despite an exceptionally turbulent period in Canada-U.S. relations. At the same time, 62% wanted Parliament recalled before its scheduled return so elected representatives could debate and vote on Canada’s response, suggesting that support for toughness does not mean voters want decisions made without scrutiny.

Economic conditions could narrow that room quickly. The Bank of Canada said in July that U.S. tariffs and persistent trade uncertainty had contributed to weak Canadian growth, while unemployment had generally remained between 6.5% and 7%. Exports were recovering but remained on a lower trajectory than before U.S. tariffs were imposed. The 73% result is therefore best understood as a mandate to use Canada’s leverage more assertively—not necessarily permission for unlimited escalation regardless of the domestic cost.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.