Turning off the oil taps could be Canada’s 'trump card' in a tariff war
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cb04a/cb04ab1cf774578a4acbc34ac4ad0956dbd3f1fb" alt=""
Art by Ata Ojani/Canada's National Observer
U.S. tariffs are on hold for at least 30 days, but the threat of economic war is a Damoclean sword that continues to dangle over Canadians.
Canadian officials are attempting to convince the White House to abandon its tariff threat, but a bruising trade war is still on the table and experts say Ottawa must thoughtfully consider its options. Restricting or taxing oil and gas exports into the United States is a major point of leverage Canada could use that federal officials have not ruled out, despite calls to do so from the oilpatch and Alberta government.
Using fossil fuels as leverage could inflict pressure on the American economy, though it’s controversial — and some say could backfire.
The U.S. needs Canada’s oil because their refineries aren't tooled to refine anything else, said Stuart Trew, trade researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in an interview with Canada’s National Observer. “It's an absolute dependency at this point, and we should be leveraging that.”
“The goal, first and foremost, is financial pressure on these importing companies, which will put financial pressure on the entire economy and Trump administration.”
Unlike tariffs, which tax imports, an export tax is paid to the government by the company that wants to export its goods. By putting export taxes on oil exports, the federal government could increase its revenue and make it more expensive for U.S. refineries to purchase Canadian crude.
The argument for an export tax is that U.S. refineries, particularly in the Midwest, have few other options. If refineries could purchase heavy crude from elsewhere, an export tax would only incentivize them to do so — but most can’t. Canadian crude makes up virtually 100 per cent of Midwest oil imports according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Underscoring the point, in August the U.S. Energy Information Administration noted Canadian oil imports have become increasingly important to U.S. refineries across the country. “In 2023, 60% of U.S. crude oil imports originated in Canada, up from 33% in 2013,” the agency found.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3a99a/3a99ad89ef5f2e6ed64f9c97af03e0e01ed94ec5" alt=""
Because the Americans are a captive consumer for Canadian crude, one option for Canada in a trade war would be to put export taxes on oil and gas to ratchet the price for U.S. refineries to the point where it's no longer profitable. In that scenario, the U.S. would be staring down the barrel of fuel shortages or companies forced to operate at a loss, creating enormous economic pressure on President Trump.
Lisa Young, a political science professor with the University of Calgary, said she understands the appeal of an export tax given it’s quick and impactful, but warned there could be significant blowback. For her, the two issues are how Americans would respond, and whether Canadian national unity could withstand the stress.
Young said Canada’s approach to the tariff threat to date has involved pointing out to Americans — whether through official channels like government officials meeting their counterparts in Washington or talking to U.S. media to speak more directly to the public — that tariffs are damaging to U.S. consumers as well.
“It's one thing to be able to point to something really immediate like an increase in the price of gas in the Midwest to say ‘this is a consequence of a decision the American government made, and Canada has nothing to do with this,’” she said. “But if it's an export tax, then I worry it feeds into the notion that Canada is trying to take advantage of Americans … and you might see a rallying of American public opinion against Canada, in the way that Canadian public opinion has rallied against the United States over the past week.”
The U.S. might very well retaliate by ramping up tariffs in response, as Trump has threatened. Another potential risk of export taxes is that Canada (particularly, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick) also reimport crude oil from the United States to refine, potentially pushing up the cost for Canadian consumers.
“Canada would need some kind of plan for keeping costs down in Canada for this kind of move,” Trew said.
‘Oil is the trump card’
Canadian labour leaders support increasing pressure on the United States if a trade war breaks out. The Canadian Labour Congress said in a statement the U.S. must feel immediate consequences for targeting the Canadian economy and called for a “full-scale” response including dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs, support for impacted workers, and cutting the U.S. off from Canadian resources including electricity, lumber, critical minerals, oil and gas.
Similarly, Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, the country’s largest private sector union, and a member of the Prime Minister’s Council on Canada-U.S. relations, called Trump’s tariff announcement a “turning point for our country.”
Not everyone favours the use of fossil fuel exports as leverage. Following the pause on tariff implementation, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who previously warned of a national unity crisis if the federal government restricted oil and gas exports, said she was once again calling on federal officials and other premiers to “de-escalate rhetoric, abandon any non-tariff measures for the time being, and turn our efforts entirely to advocacy and good-faith negotiation.”
Her position was echoed by the Pathways Alliance, whose member companies (Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil, MEG Energy and ConocoPhillips Canada) represent 95 per cent of oil sands production. In a statement ahead of expected tariffs, the alliance’s president Kendall Dilling urged the federal government to “avoid worsening the situation by restricting energy trade or imposing export tariffs on Canadian energy to the U.S.”
In Alberta there is a sense of suspicion and frustration at the federal government built over many years that could be exacerbated if Ottawa uses oil and gas as leverage, Young said.
Using oil “to win this fight, to protect Ontario manufacturing, is going to press so many buttons in Alberta and parts of Western Canada around national unity that it's going to spark something that looks like a crisis at a time when unity is a strategic advantage,” she said.
Asa McKercher, research chair in Canada-U.S. relations at St. Francis Xavier University, told Canada’s National Observer that Ottawa would likely consider an export tax on oil if not for the domestic political struggle.
“The nastiness of Danielle Smith when it comes to asserting Alberta independence within the federation is the thing preventing that lever from being pulled,” he said. “But if the tariffs go through, and there's no negotiation, or negotiations go nowhere, or Trump says the only thing I'll accept is if you become the 51st state, pulling that lever will be more and more attractive to a Liberal government.”
McKercher said the language used by Trump in his tariff directive “gives the game away.” Essentially, by proposing 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods, except energy which was set at 10 per cent, Trump is revealing the country’s dependency on cheap Canadian energy and a concern about prices rising too high for Americans.
“Oil is the trump card, to use a terrible term,” he said.
This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) published a list of a dozen strong responses Canada could adopt, including export taxes on energy products of at least 15 per cent, taking over U.S.-owned assets, implementing an aggressive green industrial strategy, and targeting U.S. oligarch and Trump allies — like blocking, freezing, or punitively taxing Elon Musk-owned companies including X, Starlink and Tesla.
A ‘shitstorm of uncertainty’
President Trump has given a plethora of reasons for the tariffs, ranging from fentanyl and immigrants crossing the border to a desire to annex Canada to a lowering of the trade deficit. Regardless of what reasons Trump publicly uses to threaten economic war, McKercher said it’s clear the real reason is to disrupt the country's major trading partners to the U.S.’s economic advantage. This is leading to a paradigm shift in the relationship between the two countries, he said.
“The fentanyl issue is just a smokescreen for what is a long term goal of reshoring American jobs and reshoring American investment, and stirring up the shitstorm of uncertainty for investors, ” McKercher said.
If Trump’s goal is indeed to bring investment back to the U.S. by deterring investment in Canada by making cross-border trade more expensive using tariffs, or simply sowing uncertainty for investors, Canadians will be in for a rough economic ride with no clear short term path out, McKercher said. That’s because if Trump wants to bring industries back to the United States, Canadian industries could be hit hard, and there is no incentive on either side to give in during negotiations.
“I think we should be looking seriously at decoupling as much as possible to lessen our susceptibility to future grunts by the beast,” he said. “Canadian governments have talked a lot about trade diversification, have talked a lot about internal trade barriers, and I think we're literally staring down the barrel of economic ruin, so I think this is a good time to be doing that and thinking about those things.”
For McKercher, delaying tariffs for a month, like both Canada and Mexico have now secured, doesn’t achieve much in the grand scheme of things because the tariff threat remains.
Monday afternoon, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada would commit $1.5 billion ($200 million more than what he announced in December) for border security to deal with fentanyl and illegal border crossings. McKercher characterized it as a “largely symbolic gesture to give Trump an off-ramp,” given most of the measures were ones Canada had already announced.
“I'd like to think that the tough Canadian response gave Trump pause,” he said. “In his tariff announcement Trump stated that he would increase the tariffs if Canada retaliated and instead he put this pause in place. So, he blinked.”
John Woodside / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
Really wish the title include the first word because it reminds one of the Convoy bunch that pp enraged so much so they occupied Parliament Hill, closed the bridges, shut down the auto industry and changed the sight of our flag. Better language please.
Ottawa should also counter Trump on doing something about illegal guns entering Canada and what he is going to do about it? So, if 0.2% of the fentanyl entering the USA from Canada is a problem to Trump, then gun issues are much larger problem for Canada. Threaten 25% tariffs on gun imports into Canada, unless Trump does something to deal with the problem, like he has asked us to do with fentanyl. Works both ways.
In 30 days, if the tariffs return, then let Smith and her corrupt oil & gas friends kick and scream, hit Trump with an export tax on all energy sources. Clearly his 10% threat than 25% tariff tells me they need our oil.
There *is* no "national unity" ... even with impending tariffs on everything, Danielle went off riding her own horse to beat the crowd, before any unified federal response could be negotiated amongst the feds and provinces.
It's also important to to remember that Danielle, Pierre, Ford, Trump, Netanyahu and Putin all speak the same language: Ollyze-ollatyme.
Their followers read and listen to O&G propaganda, and right-wing disinformation sites. They'd have to be blind, deaf and living in a cellar to come across almost anything else. Their "news" is from propaganda channels and disinformation sites. Unfortunately, by now they think they've got "insider information" and anything that contradicts that won't pass what they consider to be their "BS detectors."
I think Melanie Jolie is correct, in that if it comes to Republican Congressmen and Senators realizing they won't get re-elected in November '26, they will no longer agree with the now miraculously bleached Orange Leader.
Trump doesn't care about our smuggled-guns problem. He likes guns; even though he can't legally own one himself now. He has his bodyguards and will likely soon have an illegal militia of Oath Keepers (what oath, who knows). Did you wonder what was up when a delegation from the "International Democracy Union" (look that one up, and find the lies) included high-ups in the NRA?
2) Anyone who thinks they can reason with Trump must be forgetting that he keeps up his end of the deal like Putin does. A "deal" is just whatever you say that gets the other guy to do what you want him to ... but Trump isn't interested in a "deal." He pronounced CUSMA "a great deal, a very great deal. The best deal ever for America."
3) You cannot reason a settlement with someone who doesn't want things to be settled. His whole point is to create chaos at home (all the better to leverage opportunities where the holes break open) and fear amongst his global neighbours, to get everyone walking on eggshells around him. He's like some spousal abusers, in that respect -- not that he wasn't one.
Remember the Education Minister Snobelen, who was part of Mike Harris's
"Common Sense Revolution"? The "create a crisis" guy? They made a mess of education, and pulled funding. Kids had to share textbooks (in a dumbed down curriculum) or didn't have textbooks at all. Since only "classroom costs" were covered in the funding formula, there was no soap or toilet paper in school washrooms. Class sizes rose, janitorial services were cut back, schools fell into a state of disrepair, reflected in students' attitudes.
I remember authoring a letter to the editor, which the government accused either teachers or schoolboards of writing (I no longer remember which), and while Mike Harris "blinked" (took out double-page ads in the three Toronto daily newspapers) but the policies didn't change.
The Trump people refer to what he's doing as a "Common Sense Revolution." I wonder where they got that terminology. Not from the International Democratic Union, which is funding and strategizing right-wing movements across the globe?
Export taxes are borne by the exporter, yes. But that same "exporter" serves the domestic market, and the exporter's export taxes will ultimately be born its domestic clients as well, including the end consumers who don't have choices to not use the products unless they're pretty well-heeled compared to average Canadians ... much less those in the lowest two income quintiles.
I'll wager there are virtually no politicians who understand their lot "intuitively" or as a result of personal experience.
"Tsubouchi" the Ontario Minister of Community Services at the time, had dieticians produce an "adequate" diet featuring dented cans of tuna purchased on sale (the grocery store sales at the time were monthly, and didn't coincide with when assistance cheques were delivered, by which time lone mothers had already generally gone without food for two or three days. A few social workers and politicians undertook to live on that diet for a week ... though most of them used condiments and such that poor people couldn't afford, without including them in the budget: they were mentioned in the dieticians' work, but not costed.
At that, one local politician said he obsessed over what he'd eat next, and when and how much he could eat and have the food last the week. He said he was hungry all the time. He lost weight, and looked pale. He said he couldn't think clearly.
But "6-toes" Mike pooh-poohed that noise, because that politician wasn't from his party. Kids who don't get enough nutritious food to eat can't learn at school. They develop behaviour problems. They develop learning difficulties that usually outlive their school careers.
And Trump doesn't care, either. Neither do any of his henchmen. They have *never* had to "do without."
That isn't actually irrelevant: it's what the poor people have to do when they can't pay for the gas-produced electricity, or the "share" of the gas heat ostensibly heating their basement room.
I've always been in favour of nationalizing the oil patch. But the current situation puts some unexpected advantages to that in sharp relief: If we nationalize the oil patch, we can then have the oil companies take Smith off the payroll. And sack their legions of lobbyists in Ottawa. For that matter, we can have them stop bankrolling white supremacists. Oil company money is a significant factor in the rise of the far right in Canada. In general it would be a huge benefit for the Canadian political environment.
Nationalized oil companies also give us significant benefits in more conventional economic terms:
--Not sending the profits south
--We can have them build local oil refineries so we don't need to send crude abroad for cheap
--We can make them diversify towards renewable energy and not bitch about it
Totally. It takes some time, though, to build a refinery, and costs a lot of money.
I'm in favor of nationalizing not only all natural resources, but also energy distribution systems and essential communications infrastructure. I would never have said that 30 years ago. But the landscape has changed.
It makes sense to keep clean electricity corridors that cross provincial boundaries in federal hands. Owning the land and infrastructure for distribution and wholesale transactions still allow third party private companies to build the solar, wind and geothermal power plants without taxpayers hit up for their capital costs. First Nations could also play a pivotal role in building out renewables.
I like the third point best. They'll still profit because renewables offer a great return on the investment as demand goes up from filling an energy vacuum created by decreasing fossil fuel consumption as cheaper renewables create their own demand, etc.
Those oil and gas companies would love it if we became the 51st state, and who knows may be actively working against us. Hmmm, maybe that's why Danielle Smith keeps threatening Canada should we use export taxes, while coddling the US.
Makes sense. The oil companies working in Alberta are 80% majority foreign owned, and they are the ones with heavy oil refineries designed for bitumen.
In fact, the majority of US domestic consumption of fuel comes from Canadian oil refined in their heavy oil refineries. Many US proponents make overblown generalizations about the USA being the largest producer of oil in the world, when in fact their exported oil is mainly light sweet crude from conventional wells (which are in decline) and fracking their shale formations (also subject to high production decline rates). The US doesn't have enough light oil refineries (different tech than heavy oil refinement) to use this source at home.
Which means they are hooked on Canadian oil more than they openly admit, and any retaliatory tariffs or flow restrictions will hit them very hard without viable alternative sources. Venezuela has heavy oil, but we all know what the US thinks of that nation. Besides, Venezuelan refineries are in disuse because of sanctions and it would take years to repair or rebuild the infrastructure.
Never mind Oil Power, how about that soft power? Surely other nations can see that if we don't hang together, Trump will hang us all separately, tariff-bullying one nation at a time. If we all respond with tariffs together, when any one is bullied, Trump will have to back down.
On us all.
Once he decisively loses a battle - loses his tariff club, his favourite toy for looking tough - he'll be more tractable on other files, as well.
Organize.
It sounds to me that he wants to use it for his "sovereign wealth fund" like other nations have, which he thinks means investing in the likes of his real estate ventures, like having a private slush fund.
For sure he's kept me guessing whether he's actually really stupid, dumb or crazy like a fox.
He doesn't care how the populace will suffer. I'm pretty convinced he intends to grab it all and run Venezuela, or wherever they'll have him. He's also talked about "taking" Venezuela.
I would suggest that our negotiators brush up on John Nash's Game theory. The goal is to have a win-win outcome.
It doesn't apply to people like Trump, who can't feel like a winner unless he can see "the other side" as having clearly lost because they're suffering. Domination is what makes him feel like a winner: that's why he rapes women, refuses to pay his lawyers, rips off banks and tenants, etc.
He has no loyalty to anyone, uses people and throws them away and like Doug Ford said, behaves like he's your friend, and then sticks a knife in you.
We need a little "12 Monkeys" time travel. Instead of sending an "Insurance" agent back in time, however, send them forward so we can have an idea of where this lunacy goes.
Good column; there's a lot packed in.