ONTARIO RESOURCE WARNING ADDS ENERGY LEVERAGE TO CANADA-U.S. TARIFF FIGHT

Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned Monday that Canada should be prepared to cut electricity and critical minerals to the United States if the tariff fight between the two countries worsens, adding a resource-security dimension to a dispute that began with duties on goods. Ford’s comments, reported by the Associated Press, came after President Donald Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on about $20 billion worth of Canadian products and Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged dollar-for-dollar retaliation beginning September 8. The warning showed how quickly tariff disputes can spread into strategic supply chains.

Ford’s position does not mean Canada has decided to restrict electricity or minerals exports. Foreign trade policy is led by the federal government, and any move involving energy flows or critical minerals would require careful legal, economic and diplomatic calculation. Still, the statement matters because Ontario is Canada’s most populous province, a manufacturing center and a significant participant in cross-border energy and industrial systems. By raising the possibility publicly, Ford signaled that provincial leaders may push Ottawa toward stronger leverage if Washington escalates further.

Electricity is a sensitive tool because Canada and the United States share integrated grids across several regions. Canadian power exports help supply parts of the U.S. market, and cross-border electricity trade can support reliability, price stability and emissions goals. Cutting or restricting flows would not be a simple symbolic act. It could affect utilities, consumers, industrial users and grid planning. It could also invite U.S. retaliation or legal challenges. That is why such threats are usually used to signal seriousness rather than as first-line policy.

Critical minerals are even more strategic. The United States and its allies are trying to build secure supplies of minerals used in batteries, defence systems, electronics, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. Canada has positioned itself as a reliable source and processing partner for democratic economies seeking to reduce dependence on China. If tariff conflict causes Canadian leaders to question whether the U.S. can be treated as a stable partner, mineral cooperation could become politicized. That would complicate North American industrial planning far beyond the current list of tariffed goods.

Ford’s comments also reflect domestic political pressure. Ontario’s economy is deeply tied to U.S. manufacturing, especially autos, steel, machinery and parts. Trump’s separate threat to raise tariffs on cars, trucks, auto parts and steel to 50 percent starting in 2027 would hit sectors central to the province. A hard public line allows Ford to show voters and businesses that Ontario is not simply waiting for federal negotiators. It also increases pressure on Carney to ensure that Canada’s response is seen as strong enough to deter further U.S. demands.

The federal government is currently pursuing a more calibrated retaliation plan. Carney has announced dollar-for-dollar tariffs on selected American goods including steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper products and electronics. That approach seeks to match the value of U.S. tariffs without immediately weaponizing energy or critical minerals. It leaves room for negotiations before September 8 and avoids immediate damage to shared infrastructure. Ford’s warning sits at the harder edge of the Canadian debate: if tariffs escalate, Canada may need to use assets Washington values most.

Washington has argued that the tariffs are necessary to address what it considers unfair Canadian trade practices. Trump has described Canada in confrontational terms and said American companies can avoid tariffs by building in the United States. Canadian officials reject that argument, saying North American supply chains are mutually beneficial and that U.S. tariffs raise costs for families and companies. The disagreement is not only about tariff rates. It is about whether two countries with deeply integrated economies still treat each other as trusted partners or as leverage targets.

Resource threats can change the negotiating psychology. Tariffs on consumer goods or industrial products are familiar tools. Electricity and critical minerals touch national security, climate policy and industrial strategy. If Canada moves from retaliatory tariffs to resource restrictions, U.S. officials may perceive the dispute as more serious and seek settlement. They may also respond with broader coercive measures. The risk is that each side begins using assets previously treated as shared infrastructure as bargaining chips, weakening the trust that makes integration possible.

Businesses prefer predictability to symbolic strength. Utilities, miners, auto manufacturers, battery companies and investors need stable rules to finance long-term projects. A public threat to restrict minerals or power could encourage companies to diversify supply or delay investment until policy becomes clearer. At the same time, companies also want governments to defend market access. The challenge for Canadian leaders is to demonstrate resolve without creating unnecessary uncertainty for sectors they are trying to protect.

Ford’s warning therefore marks a political escalation even if it is not yet a policy decision. It shows that Canada’s response options extend beyond matching tariffs and that provinces may push for stronger tools if the United States threatens core industries. The next phase will depend on whether negotiations resume, whether Trump formalizes his 2027 auto and steel threat, and how Ottawa designs the September retaliation package. For now, the tariff fight has moved closer to the strategic heart of North American integration. Fact-check date: August 24, 2026. Article type: News. Sources: Associated Press; Reuters.