Canada’s political fault lines over oil are shifting in an unexpected direction. A new Spark Insights poll finds that two out of three Conservative voters would support limiting or taxing Canadian oil exports to the United States as leverage in the escalating fight with President Donald Trump. Nationally, support for a broader package of export restrictions, export taxes and procurement retaliation sits at roughly four in five.
The finding does not mean Canadians are eager for an energy confrontation. In the same research, 83% said they hoped Canada and the United States could return to a friendly, mutually beneficial relationship. What it does show is a widening willingness to consider tools once viewed as politically untouchable. With the U.S. still taking the overwhelming majority of Canadian crude exports, energy has moved from the background of the trade dispute to the centre of the leverage debate.
The Conservative Number Changes the Debate
The headline number is politically striking because Conservative voters have traditionally been the strongest defenders of expanding Canadian oil production and export capacity. Spark Insights says two out of three past Conservative voters would nevertheless support limiting or taxing oil exports to the United States. The online poll involved 6,345 adults and was conducted from Aug. 26 to Sept. 1.
That result sits inside a broader national appetite for retaliation. About 80% of respondents were willing to support measures including export restrictions or taxes on oil and canola, restrictions on potash and electricity, and ending purchases of U.S. military equipment. The point is not that voters suddenly oppose the energy sector. Rather, many appear to see oil as a strategic asset in a trade fight. That makes the Conservative cross-tab especially important: energy leverage is no longer confined to Liberal, NDP or nationalist voters in this trade confrontation.
Canadians Still Want the Relationship Repaired
The same poll contains an important counterweight to the appetite for retaliation. Fully 83% of respondents said they wanted the two countries to return to the kind of friendly and mutually beneficial relationship they once had. That suggests Canadians are not embracing economic conflict for its own sake. The preferred destination remains normalization; the tougher measures are being treated as bargaining instruments.
That distinction matters because export restrictions can sound far more aggressive than conventional tariffs. They would target a commodity embedded in U.S. refinery and transportation systems, potentially raising costs on both sides of the border. Yet public opinion appears to have moved toward accepting that risk if Washington keeps escalating. The political message for Ottawa is therefore complicated: Canadians want a restored relationship, but they also want the federal government to show that access to Canadian resources cannot be taken for granted during a prolonged tariff confrontation.
Alberta’s Numbers Complicate the Usual Divide
Perhaps the most surprising regional result comes from Alberta. Spark Insights reports support in the province ranging from 74% to 78% for the package of measures it tested, only a few points below the national level. That is notable in a province where oil and gas are central to employment, revenues and export income, and where political leaders have repeatedly warned against using energy exports as a weapon.
The finding does not erase Alberta’s economic concerns, but it suggests the trade fight has changed the emotional and political calculation. A voter can strongly support pipelines, production growth and energy jobs while also believing that oil should be used as leverage against an increasingly hostile U.S. administration. That combination helps explain why the issue no longer fits neatly into an East-versus-West frame. The debate is increasingly about when leverage becomes too costly, not simply whether Canada possesses leverage at all.
Why Canadian Oil Gives Ottawa Real Leverage
The reason oil carries so much strategic weight is straightforward: the United States depends heavily on Canadian supply. Canada supplied 63.4% of U.S. crude oil imports in 2025, according to the Canada Energy Regulator, and nearly 100% of U.S. natural gas imports. Canada also supplied 81.3% of the electricity imported by the United States that year.
Crude oil is the biggest piece of the relationship. Canada exported 4.3 million barrels per day in 2025, with 3.9 million barrels per day going to the United States. U.S. data show Canadian crude imports continued near four million barrels per day through much of 2026. The Midwest is especially connected to Canadian supply, receiving close to three million barrels per day in several recent months. That infrastructure cannot be replaced instantly, which is precisely why energy is viewed as one of Canada’s strongest potential bargaining chips.
Canada Is Exposed Too
Energy leverage cuts both ways because Canada is deeply dependent on the U.S. market. In 2025, 90.1% of Canadian crude oil exports went south of the border, worth about $126.1 billion. The wider hydrocarbon relationship was similarly concentrated: the United States accounted for 90.8% of Canada’s hydrocarbon export volumes that year.
That dependence creates a risk if Ottawa restricts exports too aggressively. Canadian producers need buyers, pipelines still need destinations and provincial governments still rely on resource revenues. If barrels cannot quickly move to alternative overseas markets, benchmark prices could weaken and the pain intended for U.S. refiners could rebound onto Canadian producers. The Bank of Canada has warned that renewed competition from Venezuelan heavy crude can pressure Western Canadian Select prices. In other words, oil may be powerful leverage, but it is not a cost-free weapon. Its strength comes from interdependence, not one-sided control.
Ford and Smith Represent Two Very Different Strategies
The public mood is colliding with disagreement among premiers. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has argued that Canadian resources should remain available as leverage and has said everything should be on the table if the dispute further worsens. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has taken the opposite position, calling an oil export tax disastrous and warning that retaliation could damage jobs and energy revenues.
Their disagreement captures the central policy dilemma. Ontario sees U.S. dependence on Canadian energy as a pressure point that could force Washington to reconsider tariffs. Alberta sees the same relationship as a market Canada cannot afford to destabilize. Yet both premiers have supported building more capacity to move oil within Canada. That overlap is significant. Even leaders who disagree on retaliation increasingly agree that Canada needs more options, because a country with more domestic pipelines and more overseas buyers has greater freedom to respond to trade shocks.
Trans Mountain Has Already Changed the Equation
Canada has already taken one major step toward reducing that vulnerability. The Trans Mountain Expansion, which entered service in 2024, nearly tripled the system’s capacity to about 890,000 barrels per day and sharply increased access to Pacific markets. The Canada Energy Regulator says crude exports to countries other than the United States have more than tripled since the expansion began operating.
The change is visible in trade patterns. In 2025, 90.1% of Canadian crude exports still went to the United States, but that was down from 93% in 2024. Marine shipments from the Westridge terminal surged, with more heavy crude moving to Asia and the U.S. West Coast. This matters for the leverage debate because diversification changes the cost of saying no. The more Canadian barrels can reach alternative buyers, the more economically manageable a temporary restriction on U.S.-bound supply becomes for producers at home.
Using Oil as a Weapon Could Have Lasting Costs
Any move to tax or limit oil exports would carry economic risk. Canadian heavy crude is tied to refinery demand south of the border, while producers are watching competition from Venezuelan barrels. The Bank of Canada said this summer that increased Venezuelan heavy crude supply could put downward pressure on Western Canadian Select, a key benchmark for Canadian producers today.
A poorly designed restriction could therefore reduce Canadian revenues while encouraging U.S. refiners to accelerate efforts to secure alternatives. Alberta’s government has warned about that possibility. The U.S. pain might be real, especially in the Midwest, but the longer-term outcome would depend on duration, exemptions, available storage and how quickly suppliers could respond. For Ottawa, the challenge would be to create credible pressure without turning temporary leverage into permanent market loss. That makes an export tax more flexible than an outright cutoff, but neither option is economically simple.
Other Polls Point in the Same Direction
Spark Insights is not the only poll showing support for tougher energy measures. A Leger poll conducted in mid-August found 70% of Canadians supported a special tax on oil and natural gas exports to the United States, while 74% supported a tax on electricity exports. Even in Alberta, 58% supported an oil and gas export tax in that research.
Ipsos found a similar mood later in August. Its poll for Global News showed 73% support for tariffs on energy and 69% support for limiting crude oil, natural gas and electricity exports to the United States. Ipsos also found 73% backed dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs on $28 billion of U.S. goods. Different pollsters used different wording and samples, so the figures are not directly interchangeable. Still, the direction is consistent: a clear majority of Canadians are now open to retaliatory tools that would have been politically explosive before the current trade conflict.
Trump Is Scrambling Traditional Conservative Politics
For the Conservatives, the poll creates a complication. Their energy message emphasizes expanding production, building pipelines and reducing dependence on the United States through global markets. Yet two in three Conservative voters in the Spark research are willing to contemplate restricting or taxing U.S.-bound oil in the Trump fight. That is more interventionist than the party’s emphasis on expanding market access.
Separate Spark reporting from the same period found that 47% of past Conservative voters rated Prime Minister Mark Carney’s handling of U.S. relations as good or acceptable, while 38% approved of the federal government’s overall performance. Those figures do not mean Conservative voters have switched parties, but they show that Trump has scrambled partisan instincts. The political question is no longer simply who is most pro-energy. It is who can convince voters that Canadian energy strength will be used without sacrificing the industry that creates it.
