Beauce

Cross-border trade uncertainty rattles Beauce entrepreneurs

Ruby Pratka, Local Journalism Initiative reporter

editor@qctonline.com

Businesses in the entrepreneurial Beauce region, southeast of Lévis, near Quebec’s border with Maine, have been on edge ever since U.S. President Donald Trump first announced plans to place tariffs on Canadian exports, in early February.

Marie-Christine Lavoie is the director general of the Chambre de commerce et industrie de la Nouvelle-Beauce (CCINB), based in Sainte- Marie de Beauce. The tariff uncertainty and the breakdown of what had been the cross-border status quo “has a huge impact on our companies,” she told the QCT shortly before the latest round of tariffs announced by Trump came into force.

“In Beauce, we’re very close to the border, so for a lot of our companies, geographically speaking, it’s easier for them to work with U.S. clients,” she said. “Boston or Maine is practically the same distance as Montreal. That’s how the market developed.”

The frictionless cross-border trade that made the development of that market possible essentially disappeared on Feb. 1, when Trump announced 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian imports except for energy imports, which would be subject to a 10 per cent tariff. Those tariffs were delayed until March 4, then suspended on CUSMA-compliant imports and auto parts. A 250 per cent tariff on lumber and dairy imports was announced in March but not implemented as of this writing, according to the Toronto Star.

On March 12, the Trump administration imposed a 25 per cent tariff on steel and aluminum imports; on April 3, the day after Trump announced blanket tariffs of 10 to 49 per cent on imports from countries around the world, Canadian- made auto parts were added to the list. Prime Minister Mark Carney has since announced 25 per cent counter-tariffs on U.S.-made auto parts and steel and aluminum products.

The uncertainty over tariff policy “has a huge impact” on the companies which are some of the Beauce region’s largest employers, Lavoie said. “We have businesses that export 70 to 90 per cent of their production to the U.S., and we also have members who import, which is another issue.

“If there’s another 25 per cent tariff starting in April, it will hurt our members, and we’re afraid of closures,” Lavoie said. “We’re hoping for an agreement.”

In the interim, some of the CCINB’s more than 1,700 members have made adaptations, and others have made agreements with U.S.-based clients to be shielded from the full impact of the tariffs. Others have been exploring new markets internationally or in other parts of Canada. A few, which rely on shipping heavy steel products into the United States, “might have to rethink their business model.”

In light of the upcoming election, Lavoie said, “We would like the next ministers to be really listening to our businesspeople, so that the decision made in the office reflects the decision on the ground. Things like counter-tariffs can impact certain businesses which [make] their supplies a lot more expensive.” She called on the next govern- ment to remove barriers to in- terprovincial trade, which both Carney, as Liberal leader, and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre have pledged to do. “There are some products that were easier to send to the United States than to Alberta – we should bring those [barriers] down for a strong, united, entrepreneurial Canada.”

She also called on the next government to take the needs of the region (which is chronically low on labour and relies heavily on economic immigration programs) into account when reforming the temporary foreign worker program, and to be more responsive to business owners who have questions about government programs. “We have three per cent unemployment. Our companies are always looking for staff and there are people who need to let their foreign workers go because they can’t renew their work permits. For a region like ours, the loss of these employees hurts more than the tariffs. They could allow a grandfather clause or make it dependent on employment rates instead of imposing a pan-Canadian measure. The realities [from one part of the country to the other] are totally different.”