This week Ontario Premier Doug Ford suggested putting Canadian oil and gas “on the table” as leverage in the trade fight with the United States . Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pushed back immediately. Cutting off energy exports, she argued, would harm Canadians and escalate an already damaged trade relationship. Ford soon confronted the complexity of Canada-U.S. energy security — and a deep Ontario vulnerability. Line 5 runs from Alberta to Ontario through Michigan. If Canada threatened U.S. energy access, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has targeted the pipeline before, or U.S. President Donald Trump , who has made clear he will escalate any retributive trade action, could interrupt Ontario and Quebec’s access to aviation fuel, diesel and gasoline. Threats that create self-inflicted damage are not trade leverage. They are, at best, a theatrical way to point to American energy dependence on Canada. At worst they point to Canada’s structural dependency on the U.S. for transport, refining and Ontario and Quebec energy security. Canada does not need more performative politics. We need some new strategic thinking about national infrastructure and economic resilience. It’s time to build a national strategic energy reserve like the rest of our G7 peers. Canada has all the natural advantages needed to combine Alberta’s vast resources with Ontario’s geological and industrial capacity to produce world-leading energy security and economic resilience. In March 2026 the prime minister discovered the need for a strategic reserve the hard way. He pledged 23.6 million barrels of oil to an IEA-coordinated emergency release amid Middle East disruptions, hoping to show Canada’s reliability as an energy-rich ally. One problem: Canada is the only G7 nation without a strategic energy reserve. Ottawa had no barrels under federal control to pledge. Markets noticed. BMO Capital Markets reported that the pledged volumes were not additive. They were an accounting conceit— production growth already built into industry plans that would add “little new crude to a tight market.” That episode underscores the irony of being an energy superpower in a world of trade friction, supply-chain risk and geopolitical volatility. Canada has the supply. It does not have the storage buffer that turns energy into national strength. A strategic energy reserve would let a prime minister honour international commitments with real volumes, and give Ottawa a tool for rapid response when allies face disruption. At home, it would cushion manufacturers, refiners and consumers against price and supply shocks. Production advantage would become usable hard power. Other G7 countries already operate this way. The United States stores hundreds of millions of barrels in Gulf Coast salt caverns. Japan, Germany, France and others hold stockpiles equal to 90 days or more of imports. Canada, a net exporter, has relied on markets and ad-hoc production increases. The past week showed why that is no longer enough. Without a strategic energy reserve, Canada is far less resilient than it needs to be. Canada already has the right geology, next to its industrial heartland. Dozens of salt caverns in Sarnia-Lambton have stored hydrocarbons and liquefied petrochemicals safely for decades — the same geology the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve uses. A reserve there would buffer the plants that produce fuels, advanced materials, resins and bio-based chemicals and give Ontario and Quebec manufacturers more reliable feedstock as cross-border logistics grow riskier. Controlling the supply from Alberta into that reserve is equally essential. Ontario’s petrochemical and manufacturing cluster still depends on Line 5, putting a critical Canadian artery at the mercy of another country’s politics. A strategic energy reserve should therefore be paired with a sovereign pipeline, building on Energy East or the Northern Shield concept. Domestic control over the barrels flowing into Sarnia would cut external political risk and keep more value-added processing inside the country. This is a practical way to join Alberta’s resources with Ontario’s refining, petrochemical and manufacturing capacity and its U.S. market access. Secure Canadian supply into a reserve would support Alberta production, stabilize costs for Ontario and Quebec industry, and give both provinces a shared project that builds capability rather than division. Three steps are necessary: First, build out Sarnia’s storage to be capable of carrying 40 million barrels, enough to honour an IEA-scale pledge with real crude and still cover Sarnia for two months if Line 5 ever goes down. Second, establish clear rules for fill and release — price triggers, supply shocks and international commitments. Third, secure the capital and regulatory consent to build the pipeline and national reserve and lock in sovereign supply. These are not minor tasks. But if we are serious about national sovereignty the upside is worth it: economic multipliers, stronger security and the ability to meet the next shock with actual barrels instead of public relations. Threatening U.S. energy access is not a viable national trade strategy. Building the capacity to store, control and deploy Canadian energy when it is needed is. A national strategic energy reserve, backed by secure domestic supply chains, is one clear way to make Canada stronger, more resilient and more united. David Knight Legg is a board director and advisor to energy, finance and technology firms Alberta’s AI data centre gamble: Big investment or local burden?Opinion: Alberta is ground zero for Canada’s 10-year investment crisis