Poilievre Tells Trump Canada’s Oil and Minerals Can Cut U.S. Inflation — If Tariffs Come Down

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.

Canada’s trade fight with the United States is increasingly being argued in the language of household costs. Pierre Poilievre is pitching Donald Trump a simple proposition: reduce tariffs on Canadian products and the United States can draw more heavily on nearby supplies of oil, metals and critical minerals that feed refineries, factories, farms and construction.

The argument gives the Conservative leader a way to frame Canada not as a trade rival, but as a potential answer to part of America’s affordability problem. It also puts pressure on Ottawa to prove that its own tariff strategy can defend Canadian industries without deepening costs on both sides of the border. The economics are more complicated than the political slogan, however. Canada matters enormously to several U.S. supply chains, but energy prices are global, tariffs are only one input into inflation, and removing them would not guarantee an immediate drop in consumer prices.

Canadian Oil Is Already Built Into the U.S. Energy System

Poilievre’s strongest economic point is oil, because Canadian crude is already woven deeply into the U.S. refining system. Canada has long been the largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the United States, accounting for roughly three-fifths of U.S. crude imports in recent years. Much of that supply moves by pipeline into the Midwest, where refineries use equipment designed to process heavier grades similar to Western Canadian crude.

That matters because replacing Canadian barrels is not as simple as buying the same volume elsewhere. Refinery configurations, pipeline connections and crude quality shape what an operator can use efficiently. A tariff that raises the cost of Canadian energy can reach beyond the border transaction. It can squeeze refinery margins or contribute to higher fuel costs, depending on conditions. Poilievre’s pitch argues that an integrated energy relationship works better as an inflation buffer when governments are not adding costs at the border.

Tariffs Can Become Costs for American Buyers

The inflation argument becomes more credible when tariffs are treated for what they are: taxes collected on imports, not payments made by foreign governments. Economists studying the 2018–2019 U.S. tariff rounds found that much of the cost was passed through to American importers and buyers rather than absorbed by overseas producers. The effect varies by product, exchange rate, margins and substitutes, but tariffs can lift prices when businesses cannot readily switch suppliers.

That mechanism matters for basic industrial inputs. Oil, aluminum, fertilizer minerals and other raw materials sit near the beginning of supply chains, so higher input costs can appear later in transportation, construction or manufacturing. Still, Poilievre’s claim needs a qualifier: removing tariffs would reduce one source of price pressure, not erase inflation. Interest rates, wages, housing costs, global commodity markets, exchange rates and domestic demand would continue shaping overall U.S. inflation even if Canadian trade became much cheaper.

Critical Minerals Broaden Canada’s Case Beyond Crude

Oil is only part of Poilievre’s message. Canada also has deposits and production across minerals that Washington regards as strategically important, including nickel, cobalt, graphite, copper, potash and uranium. Natural Resources Canada maintains a critical-minerals list because these materials are essential to sectors ranging from batteries and electricity grids to defence, agriculture and manufacturing. The United States has its own critical-minerals strategy aimed at reducing supply-chain vulnerabilities.

That creates an unusual trade dynamic. Washington wants more secure North American sourcing, yet tariffs can make Canadian material more expensive for U.S. processors just as governments try to reduce dependence on distant suppliers. The contradiction is visible where mines, smelters, chemical plants and manufacturers operate across the border as one production system. Lower tariffs could strengthen the commercial case for Canadian projects, but permitting, infrastructure, investment and processing capacity would still determine whether more mineral supply reaches U.S. factories at competitive prices.

Potash Connects the Trade Fight to Food Costs

Potash provides one of the clearest links between Canadian minerals and U.S. prices. Canada is the world’s dominant potash producer, and the United States relies heavily on imports of the fertilizer ingredient, with Canada supplying most imported volumes. Potash is central to crop nutrition. When fertilizer costs rise, farmers face higher production expenses for corn, wheat, soybeans and other staples.

The connection to supermarket inflation is indirect rather than immediate. Fertilizer is only one part of a farm’s cost structure, while weather, fuel, labour, land, transportation and processing also influence food prices. Even so, adding tariff costs to a fertilizer supply that American growers already source predominantly from Canada creates a politically awkward result for an administration focused on affordability. Poilievre can point to potash as an example where trade friction intended to pressure Canada may also directly raise costs for U.S. producers long before shoppers reach the checkout aisle.

Uranium Adds an Energy-Security Dimension

Uranium adds another dimension to the affordability pitch because Canada is a leading producer and a major supplier to U.S. nuclear utilities. Nuclear generation provides roughly one-fifth of American electricity, making fuel security important even though uranium represents a small share of a reactor’s total operating cost. Saskatchewan’s high-grade deposits have made Canada a valuable source for utilities seeking reliable supply from an allied country.

Lower trade barriers would not make electricity bills plunge. Nuclear power prices reflect plant operations, transmission, regulation, financing and local markets, while uranium can be stockpiled and contracted years ahead. But the broader point survives: the United States needs dependable supplies of energy-related materials, and Canada can provide without the geopolitical exposure attached to distant producers. For Poilievre, that supports a continental-security argument as much as an inflation argument—North American supply chains are cheaper and more predictable when policy does not make cross-border inputs costlier.

Trans Mountain Has Given Canada More Room to Maneuver

Canada’s leverage is stronger than before the Trans Mountain Expansion entered service in 2024. The project increased the pipeline system’s capacity from about 300,000 barrels a day to roughly 890,000, giving Western Canadian producers greater access to the Pacific coast. That does not replace the U.S. market, which remains overwhelmingly important, but it gives Canadian barrels another route to buyers and reduces the assumption that every incremental barrel must move south.

That diversification matters in a tariff dispute. If U.S. policy makes Canadian crude less attractive, producers have more incentive to seek customers in Asia or elsewhere, even though logistics and pricing still favour the American market. Poilievre’s message to Trump therefore contains an implicit warning as well as an offer: Canada has resources the United States values, but Canada is slowly building alternatives. Lower tariffs could preserve preferential access for U.S. refiners before those commercial relationships become less automatic.

Canadian Resources Cannot Solve Inflation by Themselves

The biggest weakness in the inflation claim is that oil is priced in a global market. Canadian production can improve North American supply security and reduce sourcing costs at the margin, but it cannot insulate American motorists from wars, OPEC+ decisions, refinery outages or shifts in demand. Gasoline prices also depend on refining capacity, fuel specifications, taxes and regional bottlenecks, not the price of crude crossing the Canadian border.

There is also a timing problem. Removing a tariff can change an importer’s cost immediately, but expanding oil or mineral output can take years. New mines require exploration, financing, permits, roads, power and processing facilities. Pipeline expansions and refinery changes involve similarly long investment cycles. That means Poilievre’s proposal is strongest as a case for avoiding self-imposed costs on existing trade. It is weaker if interpreted as a promise that Canadian resources alone can quickly push down the U.S. inflation rate.

Poilievre Is Turning Trump’s Affordability Argument Back on Tariffs

Politically, Poilievre is trying to turn Trump’s preferred tool back onto Trump’s preferred issue: the cost of living. Billions of dollars in goods and services cross the Canada–U.S. border each day, and the economies share production networks in energy, autos, agriculture and manufacturing. That scale lets the Conservative leader argue that tariffs do not stop neatly at the border; they can become costs for American companies using Canadian inputs.

The framing also distinguishes Poilievre from Prime Minister Mark Carney without requiring him to defend every Canadian countermeasure. Carney’s government must balance retaliation, negotiation and support for tariff-hit industries, while Poilievre can emphasize a bargain: remove barriers and sell reliable Canadian supply into the United States. It is an efficient message because it speaks to Canadian exporters and U.S. consumers. The risk is that Trump may value industrial protection and negotiating leverage more than the price benefit of cheaper Canadian inputs.

The 2026 CUSMA Review Raises the Stakes

The timing makes Poilievre’s pitch more consequential because 2026 is the year of the first joint review of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. CUSMA was designed to preserve preferential continental trade, yet the agreement does not eliminate every route governments can use to impose tariffs. The review therefore matters beyond legal wording: companies deciding where to place factories, mines and processing plants want confidence that cross-border rules will remain predictable.

Energy and critical minerals give Canada a practical argument for predictability. A U.S. manufacturer choosing between a Canadian supplier and a distant source weighs tariff exposure alongside price, shipping time, political risk and reliability. If the North American agreement becomes less dependable, investment decisions can shift before trade volumes do. Poilievre’s case to Trump is therefore also about expectations. Lower barriers can preserve integrated supply chains, while persistent tariff uncertainty can push both countries toward duplication, stockpiling and more expensive alternatives.

Lower Tariffs Would Be a Start, Not a Complete Solution

For Poilievre’s proposition to translate into lower costs, tariff relief would have to be paired with commercial follow-through. Existing oil pipelines can move volumes immediately, but many critical-mineral projects need investment before producing at scale. More mines alone are not enough; North America also needs refining, smelting and chemical-processing capacity if it wants supply chains that do not depend heavily on overseas middle stages.

The near-term benefit of lower tariffs would be narrow but meaningful: fewer government-imposed costs on trade that already exists. The longer-term opportunity is larger—using Canadian resources and U.S. demand to build a resilient continental industrial base. Whether that would noticeably lower inflation is uncertain, because no bilateral trade decision controls the full price level. But for fuel, fertilizer and industrial inputs, Poilievre has identified an economic tension: Washington cannot seek cheaper, safer North American supply while assuming that higher border costs carry no domestic price consequence.

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.