LaPointe: BC Ferries deal with China torpedoes government's own messaging

Ferries to be built in China

Photo: Darren Stone, Times Colonist

Nicolas Jimenez, B.C. Ferries’ president and chief executive officer, says there was no Canadian bidder in the case of the Chinese ferries deal that's facing political backlash.

Principles. Policies. Timing. Context. Optics. They all matter in politics.

Into this bouillabaisse we present to you today the curious case of the Chinese ferries. Every one of these political elements is now akimbo and susceptible to skepticism, criticism and cynicism.

In our new era of elbows-up, BC Ferries—and fairly or not, the David Eby NDP government by extension—is instead choosing a path of arms-embracing in selecting China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyards to build (at cost unknown) four sleek ferries to modernize its tired fleet.

The principle involved here is the sudden desire to reduce our dependence on foreign goods and services, seemingly even when they are a better buy from a taxpayer perspective, in order to keep the money in Canada as we withstand whatever U.S. President Donald Trump will agree to in the weeks and months ahead as an acceptable ransom of our hostage-taking. It also matters as a principle that this involves a big-ticket outlay to China, a country we do not always attach to positively. The ferry deal fails this.

The policies involved are a buy-B.C., buy-Canada, red tape-reduced, prosperity-promising combination of diversifying trade away from America to build new alliances while providing greater opportunities in a mixture of protectionism, repatriation of economic opportunity and the production of new jobs to raise our moribund productivity as a country. The ferry deal fails this, too.

The timing involved concerns a Crown corporation that can’t win for losing and a premier who years into his term can’t find his feet on running the province’s economy. The ferry deal is, in many respects, the correct taxpayer choice of price-conscious procurement; a Canadian company didn’t even bid on the deal, after all. But it doesn’t help the BC NDP government, its unionized base of support or the British Columbian economy at a time it can use more of these minor megaprojects to feed government spendthriftiness. It shouldn’t go unnoticed that Eby is traipsing around Asia on the trade mission—everywhere, it seems, but China. The ferry deal fails this, as well.

The context involved is twofold.

First, the province’s finances are a mess and the economic prospects are the worst in the country, so when even an independent Crown corporation chooses to send capital to another country, it would be money ideally spent at home. (The material benefits to B.C. come much later in maintenance and refits.)

Second, the deal stands to contribute, fairly or not, to the early B.C. ambivalence about its participation in the new grand experiment Prime Minister Mark Carney has unfurled—the build, baby, build campaign. The province has already given the straight-arm to a new pipeline from Alberta across our terrain to the ocean to ship oil to customers not called the United States, under the pretension that the Trans Mountain pipeline is an adequate facsimile or somehow is well undercapacity; now it appears to be appeasing a country we don’t feel particularly warm about. The ferry deal fails on both accords.

Finally, the optics involved are obviously awful. Optics often are, notwithstanding the explanation from BC Ferries CEO Nicolas Jimenez—no Canadian bidder, an experienced and respected manufacturer, a concerted bid review process that scored the winner highly, and the best deal for the taxpayer. The deal fails and falls flat on its face on this.

One can only imagine the discussion Jimenez had with the government to break the news. By the time Transportation Minister Mike Farnworth expressed “disappointment,” I’d guess other parts of the vocabulary had been employed. To a casual observer, which most of us are on most things, the appearance is that this ought not to have been an economic opportunity that slipped into the cracks for British Columbia or Canada, considering we have shipbuilders in B.C. and in the east. But a ship is not a ship is not a ship. Like a lot of these decisions, it takes a lot to explain the rationale, and little to critique. Such is frequently the plight of leadership and its decisions.

If only this one didn’t collide with principles, policies, timing, context and optics—we’d be celebrating, finally, the eventual arrival of much-needed vehicles from a much-praised shipyard. But politics and public opinion are never easy to navigate, and the Eby government will wear this call, as we will see—if, indeed, the deal holds.

Kirk LaPointe is a Lodestar Media columnist with an extensive background in journalism. He is vice-president in the office of the chairman at Fulmer & Company.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Yu: B.C. businesses show signs of life but economic chill persists

Gauging business climate

Photo: Pixabay

Small business sentiment in B.C. remains at a level consistent with a recession.

Small business sentiment continued to bounce back from trade war woes in May but remained at a level consistent with a recession.

Nationally, the Canada Federation of Independent Business’s 12-month confidence index rose five points from 34.7 in April to 40 points in May, with the short-term index up 1.9 points to 42.4 points. In normal times, these measures are at or above 60 points.

Trade-reliant businesses, understandably, were particularly pessimistic, with exporter sentiment at 26 points, and importer confidence at 29.

The long-term index in B.C. rose by 3.2 points to 39.1 points, but was still in negative territory, and fifth-highest among provinces. The short-term index improved more, up 7.4 points to 44.4, the highest level since December 2024.

Insufficient demand and shortages of skilled labour continued to be the most-noted constraints to sales or production growth for businesses in B.C. A shortage of working capital and physical space also limited sales growth. Tax and regulatory costs, wage costs and insurance costs were cited as the top input cost constraints. Occupancy, product input and fuel costs also made the list.

Full-time staffing plans improved, with 12 per cent of surveyed businesses expecting to increase staff levels. That said, 21 per cent were still planning to reduce full-time employment levels, the greatest number in the last year.

In the labour market, B.C. shed more than 6,000 positions in March, according to Statistics Canada’s latest Survey of Employers, Payroll and Hours. The decline of 0.2 per cent suggests drag from the trade war and U.S. tariffs. Goods-producing industries reported nearly 3,400 fewer positions (down 0.9 per cent) while services-producing industries lost nearly 3,600 fewer positions (down 0.2 per cent).

The job vacancy rate edged up to 3.5 per cent in March, with total vacancies rising to 88,350 — highest level since December 2024. The job vacancy rate has remained below four per cent since May 2024. This points to weak hiring sentiment, which has further deteriorated with tariff challenges. Surveys from the CFIB and the Bank of Canada point to the persistence of a soft hiring environment.

Within goods-producing industries, the majority of the decline was concentrated in the resources sector, which shed nearly 3,800 positions (down 14.3 per cent). Construction also saw a modest 300-position decline (down 0.2 per cent). The notable decrease in payroll counts on the services side was in accommodation and food services, which reported a loss of more than 1,500 positions (down 0.7 per cent).

Finance and insurance also had 950 fewer positions (down one per cent), and the professional, scientific and technical services sector reported more than 900 fewer positions (down 0.5 per cent). The declines were offset by growth in health care and social assistance, which added more than 1,900 positions (up 0.5 per cent).

On the wage front, seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings in B.C. rose 0.4 per cent to top $1,300. Going forward, we expect hiring momentum will continue to slow as businesses temper investment and expansion, and remain cautious due to economic uncertainty.

Bryan Yu is chief economist at Central 1.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Charlebois: Our dairy addiction is making Canada a trade pariah

Dairy supply management

Photo: Postmedia

Canada's dairy industry benefits from supply management.

When it comes to supply management and trade policy, Canada seems trapped in a cycle of repeating the same costly mistakes.

Before Mark Carney’s arrival as prime minister, the previous Parliament adopted Bill C-282, introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. The bill granted blanket immunity to Canada’s supply-managed sectors — most notably dairy — against any future concessions in trade negotiations, regardless of the partner or economic context. It effectively locked in protectionism for a system that is already struggling to justify itself in the modern global economy.

During the federal election campaign, on April 3, Carney stated in a Radio-Canada interview that no legislation was necessary to protect Canada’s dairy industry. It appears he has since changed his mind — or someone changed it for him.

Last week, the newly elected 45th Parliament unanimously passed Bill C-202, a near-identical copy of C-282. The Senate may still push back, as several senators have signalled concerns about the bill’s long-term economic implications. But the momentum is clear: Supply management is once again being shielded from scrutiny under the pretence of national interest.

Politically, it’s a savvy move — especially for the Bloc. In Ottawa, few MPs from any party dare challenge one of the most powerful lobby in the country: The Dairy Farmers of Canada. Their influence is formidable, both federally and provincially.

But the question remains: What exactly are we protecting?

Canada has the highest industrial milk prices in the G7. This is not true for poultry or eggs — but it is for milk, a critical staple in household diets. These elevated prices do not necessarily lead to innovation or reinvestment. In fact, many producers are content to maintain the status quo, knowing the system protects them from competition. The result? Canadian consumers foot the bill for a sector with little incentive to become more efficient or cost-effective.

Defenders of supply management often point to food safety and quality. It’s true that bovine growth hormones are banned here. That’s commendable. But there are other practices that deserve more transparency.

A 2022 study published in Trends in Food Science and Technology revealed that palm oil derivatives are permitted in dairy cow feed in Canada. This may contribute to the now-documented phenomenon of firmer, less spreadable butter at room temperature — a story known as “Buttergate” was dismissed by dairy farmers initially, despite mounting evidence.

More recently, a peer-reviewed study co-authored by researchers at McGill and Dalhousie Universities and published in Ecological Economics estimated that Canada discards between 600 million and one billion litres of milk annually. The dairy lobby vehemently disputed these findings but has yet to present alternative data. The reality is simple: Cows don’t stop producing milk when market demand fluctuates, and losses — whether in volume or value — are inevitable.

Canada’s dairy sector has long cultivated a culture of opacity. Rather than engage with critics or offer transparency, it leans on silence and self-congratulation. Accountability is elusive, and reform is taboo.

Looking ahead, Canada will need to renegotiate trade deals with the United States, Mexico, and other partners. Two choices await: We either pay billions in compensation to dairy farmers for theoretical “losses” each time concessions are made — a practice that borders on economic racketeering — or we forfeit our credibility as a reliable trade partner, unwilling to negotiate in good faith for a sector that represents less than 1% of our GDP.

What message does this send to the world at a time when Canada urgently needs to diversify its economy?

By clinging to a misunderstood and outdated system, our elected officials are prioritizing short-term political gain over long-term economic progress. We are rewarding complacency and institutionalizing inefficiency — all under the guise of defending national interests.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sylvain Charlebois is the director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Canseco: A third of Canadians avoiding U.S. purchases as Trump anger dips

Buying Canadian

Photo: Rob Kruyt, BIV

A quiet going into the U.S. at the Peace Arch border crossing into Blaine, Wash., on June 3, 2025. A growing number of Canadians approve of the PM’s handling of tariffs as support for U.S. goods and travel continues to drop, according to Research Co. polling.

One of the unique traits of the current Donald Trump administration is its ability to sculpt a narrative on social media. Whether the enemy is the previous head of state, “wokeness” or Harvard University, a tweet from Trump can galvanize supporters and offend opponents.

Canada is not immune. Most Canadians — but not as many as a few weeks ago — are paying attention to what Trump is saying and doing. Late last month, 69 per cent of Canadians told us they have followed news related to the dispute over tariffs “very closely” or “moderately closely,” down 15 points since our survey in late March.

The situation could not be more different for Canada’s two main federal political leaders. Practically seven in 10 Canadians (69 per cent, up 10 points) approve of the way Prime Minister Mark Carney has dealt with the tariffs implemented by the United States. The rating for Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre fell from 47 per cent to 39 per cent.

Across the country, 40 per cent of Canadians think a Conservative federal government would be better positioned at this point to deal with the Americans, while a larger proportion (46 per cent) disagree. The age gap that was evident throughout the campaign on properly conducted public opinion research remains. While just over half of Canadians aged 18 to 34 (51 per cent) think a Conservative prime minister would have a better handle on Trump than Carney, fewer Canadians aged 35 to 54 (45 per cent) and aged 55 and over (25 per cent) concur.

More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) approve of the way their provincial premier has managed tariffs. Among the four most-populous provinces, the rating is superior for Doug Ford of Ontario (58 per cent) and David Eby in B.C. (56 per cent) than for Quebec’s François Legault (49 per cent) and Alberta’s Danielle Smith (47 per cent).

Over the past few weeks, the level of animosity toward the U.S. has subsided slightly, with 60 per cent of Canadians saying they are actively avoiding purchasing U.S. goods if a non-American alternative is available, and at least three in 10 avoiding American restaurant franchises, cancelling a planned trip to the U.S. and avoiding American entertainment options. These reductions are accompanied by a faint hope that the worst is behind us, with 40 per cent of Canadians foreseeing the U.S. government rescinding the tariffs implemented on Canadian products.

Majorities remain in favour of targeted action, but not as virulently as a couple of months ago. At least three in five Canadians would welcome suspending all steel, aluminum and wood exports to the United States (65 per cent), shutting off all energy exports (63 per cent) and officially demanding an apology from Trump for his statements related to Canada becoming an American state (60 per cent).

More than half of Canadians (57 per cent) would request an independent dispute settlement panel under the terms of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement and recalling Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. in response to Trump’s statements about Canada becoming an American state (51 per cent). Only one in five Canadians (20 per cent) would welcome a formal process for Canada to become a U.S. state.

At least seven in 10 Canadians are calling for enhanced trade with Australia and New Zealand, the U.K., the EU, Mexico and Japan.

In the fourth month of Trump’s four-year term, Canadians are still wary. More than four in five (82 per cent) think tariffs are “definitely” (45 per cent) or “probably” (37 per cent) still as threat to Canada — a proportion that rises to 86 per cent among those aged 55 and over. While Canadians may not be as angry as before, they know that the erratic nature of the American president will be a peril for the remainder of his tenure.

Mario Canseco is president of Research Co.

Results are based on an online survey conducted from May 25 to May 27, 2025, among 1,002 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to census figures for age, gender and region in Canada. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.