T.G.I.F.

 Assurance of Supply: What Canada Should... and Shouldn't... Offer Washington!

Published August 14, 2026

The trade war is not going away. That much should be clear by now. What is still open is the shape of the settlement, and this week the outline of it finally came into view... including a demand that goes to the heart of what Canada owns.

The Globe and Mail reported Friday that American negotiators want a right of first refusal on Canadian critical minerals, completion of Canada's F-35 purchase, Canadian participation in the Golden Dome missile defence program including purchases of American radar aircraft, and a guarantee on future supplies of Canadian oil and gas. 

The immediate goal on both sides is a "phase one" deal... tariff reductions in exchange for a list of concessions... with minerals and defence handled in detail later. But Ottawa's willingness on those files is shaping what phase one looks like, and the clock runs out on August 19.

So the question is no longer whether Canada offers assurance of supply on oil, gas, electricity, potash and critical minerals. 

It is already on the table. 

The question is how it is structured... and there is a version of this deal that serves Canada well... and a version that does real, lasting damage!!!

Assurance of supply is not the same thing as right of first refusal!

This is the distinction that decides everything, and it is being blurred in almost every account of the negotiations.

Assurance of supply is a commitment not to embargo, not to impose export taxes, and not to discriminate against an American buyer. (Canada sells at the market price to a willing customer and promises not to weaponize the tap. That is a promise about Canadian conduct!)

XXX "Right of first refusal..." is a standing option on Canadian resources. It constrains who Canada may sell to, on what timeline, and... in a market where Washington has proposed a preferential trading zone with border-adjusted price floors and coordinated tariffs... it hands the terms of a Canadian industry to another country's trade representative. 

That is a promise about Canadian assets! (No! No! No!) 

***

The first costs Canada very little. The Prime Minister said publicly in May that Canada would not use energy or critical minerals as leverage in these talks. Whatever one thinks of that decision, it has been made and stated. The leverage has already been surrendered rhetorically. Selling it is strictly better than continuing to give it away.

***

The second is a transfer of sovereignty dressed as a trade concession, and Canada should NOT grant it... certainly not in exchange for tariff relief that can be revoked by executive order!

The ghost of Article 605:

Anyone drafting an assurance-of-supply commitment needs to understand what it will be compared to.

NAFTA's Article 605... the energy proportionality clause, inherited from the 1988 Free Trade Agreement... required Canada to maintain the proportion of its energy exports to the United States relative to recent supply. 

In a shortage, Canada could not prioritize its own citizens. 

Mexico refused the clause outright. Canada accepted it, spent a quarter century regretting it, and removing it was one of the genuine Canadian wins in CUSMA!

Any new supply guarantee will be read as proportionality returning through the side door, and that criticism will land within minutes of the announcement. 

It is not an unreasonable objection. The answer has to be written into the text rather than into the press release: "A conduct commitment is not a volume commitment. Canada can promise not to cut off the United States without promising to fill American demand ahead of its own!"

What Canada can actually deliver... and what it can't!

An assurance you cannot honour is worse than no assurance at all, because it becomes a breach claim later!

Oil, gas and potash: Real ✔

The volumes exist and the infrastructure moves them. 

Canadian heavy crude occupies refining capacity on the American Gulf Coast that has no ready substitute, and Saskatchewan potash has no serious non-Russian, non-Belarusian alternative at scale. 

A commitment here is credible because it describes something that already happens.

Electricity: Shaky ❓

This is the weak leg, and it should probably be dropped from any headline commitment. Electricity is provincially owned and operated, Ontario's supply margins are tight, and the 2025 export surcharge episode demonstrated how fast this file becomes political. 

Ottawa cannot credibly guarantee what Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia separately control!

Rare earths and critical minerals: Mostly aspirational! ❌

Canada has signed more than twenty international minerals partnerships and announced billions in project capital, but the paperwork has badly outrun the build. There is one commercial-scale separation facility in Saskatoon and a long list of projects that are not mines yet. Memoranda of understanding do not produce concentrate. 

Promising guaranteed supply of material Canada does not currently produce at scale is how a country signs a default into a treaty! 

Two design features that make or break the deal!

1. Automatic snap-back:

Any supply assurance must lapse automatically if American tariffs on Canadian goods exceed an agreed ceiling. 

Without that, Canada signs a long-dated binding commitment in exchange for relief that Washington can withdraw at will under Section 232, Section 338 or emergency economic powers. 

This is not a hypothetical concern. 

Talks collapsed last October over a provincial television advertisement. 

Permanence on one side and revocability on the other is not a trade agreement... it is a standing offer!

2. Price floors as Canada's ask, not America's!

The United States has already floated border-adjusted price floors in its minerals framework with Mexico. Canada should not treat that as a concession to be resisted... it should be Canada's central demand!

Chinese price suppression, not geology, is what makes Canadian critical mineral projects unfinanceable. 

A guaranteed floor price, combined with American co-investment in refining and processing on Canadian soil, is the thing that converts twenty memoranda into actual plants in Sudbury, Saskatoon and Thunder Bay!

That is the trade: Canada guarantees conduct, the United States guarantees demand. Both sides get security. Neither side gets an option on the other's resource base!

Broadening it: the continental security case:

The strongest version of this proposal is not a trade proposal at all. 

It is a security one, and the framing matters enormously to how it plays in both capitals.

North America's resource base is the one segment of the Western supply chain that Beijing cannot interdict. 

No shipping lane crosses a contested strait. 

No export license regime in another country's capital governs it. 

And Canada is the part of that base that already sits inside NORAD, is already integrated into the American defence industrial base, and is already committed to new submarines and Arctic surveillance capacity!

Presented that way, Canada is not conceding. 

Canada is supplying... and supplying the one thing the United States cannot buy anywhere else at any price... a secure continental flank!

There is a real risk in the broadening, though, and it should be stated plainly. 

Bundling energy, minerals and defence into a single grand bargain creates a single point of leverage over all three at once! 

Every future irritant... a softwood ruling, a dairy quota, a provincial ad campaign... becomes a threat to the entire package. 

The Foreign Affairs Minister was right in February to insist that any minerals arrangement be decided inside the broader CUSMA discussion rather than as a standalone sectoral deal. 

Separate tracks are harder to negotiate and much harder to hold hostage!

The bottom line:

Canada should sell the assurance it never intended to withhold... and refuse the option it cannot afford to grant!

An assurance of supply on oil, gas and potash... conduct-based, snap-back protected, paired with guaranteed floor pricing and co-investment in Canadian processing, framed as continental security rather than tariff appeasement... is a deal Canada can defend in Calgary and in Toronto! 

A right of first refusal on Canadian minerals, granted for temporary relief from tariffs that were illegal to begin with... is not!

The difference between those two agreements is a few paragraphs of treaty language. 

It is also the difference between a supplier and a dependency!