B.C. residents spending less in the U.S. by an ‘astonishing' amount: report
The report from Vancity used data from enviro™ Visa spending patterns, which showed a 'significant drop' compared to the same period last year.
The credit union found that these findings reflect caution among consumers and an early sign of changing priorities.
In-person spending in Washington state declined 47 per cent compared to the same period in 2024, according to the report and online spending at U.S.-based retailers fell 14 per cent with clothing purchases showing the sharpest drop — down 26 per cent.
Online bookings for U.S. hotels and cruises also fell by 28 per cent.
However, Vancity said the total value of Mexican peso wire transfers from Vancity members nearly quadrupled but there was no rise in the number of wires, which could suggest an increase in high-value purchases, such as vacation properties.
Story continues below advertisement
1:56
Blaine border behind the scenes
'These numbers show a behavioural shift in how members are spending their money this year,' Wellington Holbrook, Vancity's president and CEO, said in a statement.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'Whether it's cross-border shopping or U.S. travel, we're seeing a notable change as people are being more deliberate with their spending, and in many cases, looking closer to home.'
In an interview with Global News, Holbrook said these numbers are 'astonishing.'
'When we hear that Canadians aren't spending in the U.S. they're really meaning it.'
The most recent numbers from Statistics Canada show that cross-border travel by British Columbians was down 52 per cent in May, compared to May 2014.
Holbrook said the data also showed people are spending the same amount of money but it is being spent at local businesses or local merchants.
Story continues below advertisement
'When the trading relationship normalizes, maybe some of the emotion falls out of it, but I would expect to see a rebound, but from this level of significance, it's hard to see it come all the way back anytime soon,' he added.
'Thirty-three per cent, that's one out of every three dollars that was being spent in the U.S. has disappeared. I don't imagine it coming back in a matter of months.'
Holbrook added that based on the data it did appear that the peak drop happened in April.
Transaction data was collected on all personal Vancity Visa purchases from January 1, 2023 to June 1, 2025. Vancity has 600,000 members, although not all of them have a Visa card.
Participating merchants disclose the country in which the transaction occurs, and any merchant with a location in the U.S. was defined as 'U.S.-based'. Merchant category codes were further grouped into categories to observe trends.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
4 hours ago
- Canada Standard
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
Canada News.Net
5 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
Calgary Herald
5 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
How the trade war is turning into a tourism win for Canada
Article content Meanwhile, traffic was up for both domestic and non-U.S. international flights at Canada's largest airports in April, according to Statistics Canada's latest monthly data on air passenger travel. Article content Domestic traffic was up by 7.4 per cent to two million in April compared to the previous year. This modestly surpassed the 2019 pre-pandemic level by 1.5 per cent, Statistics Canada said. Article content In April, the number of passengers screened for international flights other than to the U.S. was 1.4 million — up 7.1 per cent over the same month in 2024, and sharply higher — up 19 per cent — than the pre-pandemic level posted in April 2019. Article content Americans are also visiting their northern neighbours less as trade tensions between the countries persist, with trips to Canada by U.S. residents declining for the third month in a row in April. Article content How could Canada benefit from the changes? Article content Article content Domestic searches on popular vacation sites have significantly increased in 2025, with internal data revealing Canadians' appetite for homegrown holidays. Article content Economic uncertainty and the weaker Canadian dollar have proved a silver lining for the tourism sector, the BDC said in a March report. While foreign visitors are important contributors to tourism in Canada, Canadians actually make up the biggest share of demand for tourism businesses at about 76 per cent, it said. Article content Abacus Data said its survey shows that 19 per cent of Canadians who have either changed or cancelled their visit to the U.S. have shifted to travelling to different locations within Canada instead. Article content The decline in flight bookings to the U.S. has driven some airlines to modify capacity for certain routes. Flair Airlines Ltd., for example, restarted some inter-Canadian routes earlier than planned this year due to the rise in local demand. Article content Article content Flight data released by OAG Aviation Worldwide Ltd. showed a 'collapse' in passenger bookings on flight routes between Canada and the U.S., dropping by more than 70 per cent in every month through to the end of September 2025. Article content Domestic travellers aren't the only ones favouring Canada. French hotel group Accor SA, which owns 57 brands including Fairmont and Novotel, said Canada is gaining traction as a tourist destination as travellers increasingly avoid the U.S. for holidays. Article content Desjardins principal economist Sonny Scarfone said in a June report that increased domestic tourism could act as a stabilizing force by offsetting weaker performance in industries that are more exposed to U.S. trade. Canada has traditionally recorded a travel services trade deficit, but this trend recently reversed, he said. Article content 'When Canadians redirect their vacation budgets to the local economy, the positive ripple effect extends well beyond the tourism sector itself,' he wrote. Article content Scarfone said that given the current geopolitical climate and relatively weak loonie, Canada has the opportunity to further improve its travel trade balance in the coming quarters by encouraging domestic tourism and attracting more international visitors. Article content Focusing on Quebec, he said that if half of the province's residents who plan on cancelling their trips to the U.S. were to redirect their spending domestically, the resulting boost — factoring in indirect economic effects — could add an estimated $900 million to Canada's GDP. Article content TD Economics expects tourism spending in Canada to grow in the range of two to four per cent in 2025. Article content While American spending is set to drag on the overall tally this year, with cross-border spending projected to decline by five to 10 per cent, domestic spending at home will offset much of that, TD economist Anusha Arif said in a June 26 note. Article content Arif said that while hard data is still sparse, early indicators of travel within Canada are encouraging. According to a survey by TD Bank Group, 64 per cent of Canadians plan to travel domestically. Article content She said growth in spending by domestic and non-U.S. international visitors is likely to deliver an overall net increase of $2 to $4 billion in overall tourism spending for 2025. Propelled by these tailwinds, Canada's tourism sector could hold up far better than what otherwise would be the case in 2025, Arif added.<
