Energy and forest products dominate the list of what B.C. ships across the U.S. border, as a Conservative MLA accused David Eby's NDP government of leaving the province unprepared for tariffs threatened by incoming president Donald Trump.
A new report from the Business Council of British Columbia underscores the importance of B.C.'s trading relation with the United States. It finds energy (mainly natural gas, some electricity) accounts for 27 per cent of all exports to the United States, closely followed by forestry and building material products (24 per cent).
Consumer goods (11 per cent), metal and non-metallic minerals (11 per cent) and electronics, electrical equipment and parts (seven per cent) round out the top categories.
Overall, 54 per cent of provincial exports go to the United States, which makes that country B.C.'s largest trading partner. While B.C.'s export share with markets in Asia including China (14 per cent), Japan (11 per cent) and South Korea (six per cent) "somewhat reduce our dependence on a single export market – at least relative to most other provinces," the report notes that "any U.S. trade barriers will still have a significant impact on B.C.’s economy."
Preliminary figures presented Thursday by Premier David Eby and B.C. Finance Minister Brenda Bailey forecast 124,000 fewer jobs and a loss of $69 billion in combined gross domestic product could happen if threatened American tariffs of 25 per cent come true, assuming Canada responds with counter-measures itself.
Jairo Yunis, BCBC's policy director, said "any disruption in our trading relationship (with the U.S.) would reverberate through our economy" that would also cause damage on the other side of the border.
"American consumers and businesses would also face impacts from new tariffs—a critical point we must continue to emphasize. Trade offers no win-lose scenarios, only opportunities for mutual benefit or shared loss,” Yunis said.
The U.S. state perhaps most impacted by such a lose-lose scenario is Washington, which absorbs 32.3 cent of B.C. experts, followed by California (10.6 per cent) and Illinois (seven per cent). Democrats rather than Trump's Republicans dominate all three states.
But other provinces have deeper ties to Republican-controlled states. Senior Canadian leaders including Eby have accordingly talked about the importance of lobbying businesses, political representatives and populations-at-large in states with strong economic ties to Canada on top of more high-level discussions.
Yunis' report recommends a "Team Canada" approach while also getting "our own house in order by addressing domestic policy challenges to ensure a strong, growing economy that attracts investment."
These recommendations broadly align with the rhetoric heard at First Ministers' meetings and more closely in B.C. But if the possibility of tariffs could lower trade barriers between provinces and speed up various permitting processes in B.C., they could also lead to other policy changes. In question is a promise to deliver $1,000 to 90 per cent of households to help with affordability.
When asked twice about the fate of this proposal first announced during the fall election campaign — before Trump's election and subsequent tariff threats in November — Eby did not specifically rule out changes.
This has drawn criticism from the Conservative Party of B.C. Its finance critic, MLA Peter Milobar (Kamloops Centre) accused Eby of creating uncertainty and keeping British Columbians "in the dark" about the proposed affordability measure.
Milobar also accused Eby of having left B.C. "totally unprepared for this crisis" by pointing to latest figures that show B.C. with a record-setting deficit of $9.5 billion.
BCBC's report does not include any forecasts about potential job losses, but says five per cent of all B.C. jobs rely on merchandise exports destined for the U.S., adding jobs would be "exposed" if the U.S. were to impose new trade barriers.
This exposure does not mean they would be "eliminated," but it could mean that many British Columbians working in especially vulnerable sectors like forestry and logging could face reduced hours, lower wages or both.
The report notes vulnerable sectors are "among the most productive in B.C.’s economy, making their risk especially concerning."
Workers in mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction contribute $481,834 in GDP each; utilities sector workers $483,142 and forestry and logging workers $186,613 — "all significantly higher" than the provincial average of $126,209 per worker.
"A decline in these jobs would significantly reduce provincial output and income," the report said.
While not directly stated in the report, this development would likely be felt most painfully in rural and northern B.C., where resource extraction makes up a disproportionate share of jobs.
