British Columbia Premier David Eby has urged Prime Minister Mark Carney to consider non‑tariff measures in retaliation for the United States’ latest 50 % tariffs on C$28 billion of Canadian goods, warning that Ottawa’s current dollar‑for‑dollar response overlooks leverage points such as the planned purchase of American F‑35 fighter jets and the export of U.S. thermal coal through a Metro Vancouver port. Speaking at a B.C. Liquor store in Vancouver on Tuesday, Eby praised Carney’s decision to match the tariffs from 8 September but argued that the federal government must also revisit defence procurement and accelerate the phase‑out of coal shipments to pressure the White House. He noted that British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec are bearing the brunt of the trade dispute and called for smoother access to the C$7.5 billion federal relief package announced to aid affected workers and businesses.
Eby’s Critique of the Current Federal Response
The premier said that while matching tariffs are a proportionate and necessary first step, they do not address the broader strategic tools available to Ottawa. He argued that buying C$12 billion worth of F‑35 jets from the United States while simultaneously being hit with punitive duties sends a contradictory signal. “When your friend kicks you in the back, one of the first rules is you don’t then go and buy $12‑billion of fighter jets from that person,” Eby remarked, referencing the ongoing review of the fighter‑jet programme launched at the start of the trade war in early 2025.
Eby also highlighted the continued shipment of American thermal coal through a port facility in Metro Vancouver, noting that the cargo is destined for the U.S. market because American ports cannot handle the volume themselves. He urged the federal government to consider speeding up the planned phase‑out of these exports, which is currently set for 2030, as a potential lever in the dispute.
Historical Precedents and Political Pressure
Drawing on past proposals, Eby pointed out that former B.C. Conservative leader John Rustad once suggested imposing a levy on U.S. thermal coal shipments to dissuade the White House from levying tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber. “I think that this is something that the federal government should be looking at as well,” he said, indicating that similar measures could be revisited today.
The premier acknowledged that Ottawa has pledged a C$7.5 billion trade relief programme to support workers and industries hit by the tariffs, but he stressed that the application process must be straightforward. “Federal supports for workers affected by the latest round of punishing U.S. tariffs are a good start,” he told reporters, “but the process for businesses to access supports should be as smooth as possible.”
Diplomatic Moves and Mixed Signals from Washington
On Saturday, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told American media that the Trump administration had offered to reduce tariffs on lumber – a file repeatedly pressed by Eby – but claimed that Canada had declined the offer. Eby urged caution when interpreting U.S. statements, saying that while progress had been made on the softwood lumber negotiations from the Canadian side, any agreement signed with the current administration would likely be short‑lived. “Let’s not be naive about this. Any agreement that would have been signed with this president wouldn’t have lasted as long as it took him to write his signature,” he warned.
Nevertheless, Eby affirmed his confidence in Carney’s stance, describing the prime minister’s decision to stand up to President Donald Trump as the correct course of action. “The only way to deal with a thug and a bully is to stand up to him,” he declared, adding that he was proud of the prime minister for taking that step.
Why it Matters
The push for non‑tariff countermeasures highlights a growing recognition among Canadian leaders that traditional tit‑for‑tat tariffs may not be sufficient to deter protectionist actions from the United States. By targeting defence procurement and energy exports, Ottawa could impose economic costs on specific U.S. sectors while avoiding a broader escalation that harms Canadian consumers and businesses. If successful, such tactics could reshape the framework of future trade disputes, offering a more nuanced toolbox for smaller economies facing larger, unpredictable trading partners. The outcome will also test the effectiveness of federal relief programmes in shielding vulnerable industries and workers from the fallout of a protracted trade conflict.
