TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2026-03-03 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029349

CANADA CANADIAN TOURISTS HAVE DISAPPEARED ... Conway Media / George Conway Trump Policies Drive Canadians Away as Carney Warns of Fallout PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XTcGIcpuVk
1 Minute Ago: Trump Policies Drive Canadians Away as Carney Warns of Fallout \| George Conway Conway Media Dec 22, 2025 3.2K subscribers Canadian snowbirds are changing their travel plans, and the effects are being felt across the United States. As fewer long term visitors head south, tourism officials are growing increasingly concerned about what this shift means for local economies. In this video, we explore why Canadian travelers are saying no, how US tourism hubs are reacting, and why this quiet decision could carry serious consequences for America in the months ahead. Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 Let me tell you something that should worry every American who cares about this country's economic future. I've been watching the numbers come in over the past few months. And what I'm seeing is not just concerning, it's alarming. We're witnessing something unprecedented. The United States is losing its most loyal group of foreign visitors. And it's not because of a recession, not because of a pandemic, but because millions of Canadians have made a deliberate decision to stay away. The economic damage is already spreading. And by the time I'm done walking you through this, you'll understand why this might be one of the most overlooked stories of this entire trade war. For decades, I've observed how Canadian travelers formed the backbone of American tourism. These weren't occasional visitors. They were the reliable regulars who crossed our border without hesitation, filled hotels in Florida and Arizona every winter, supported restaurants in Maine and Wisconsin, and sustained thousands of small businesses that depended on their 1:01 predictable return year after year. That relationship built over generations is now breaking down in real time. I'm looking at new data from United States tourism authorities and it shows a dramatic year-over-year collapse in travel from Canada. Meanwhile, visitors from Europe, Japan, and other regions are actually increasing. This is not a global slowdown we're dealing with. This is a targeted withdrawal. What sits at the center of this crisis is a trade war defined by tariffs, political tension, and something far more difficult to quantify. A growing loss of trust between the United States and Canada. I want you to understand why this moment is especially dangerous. Tourism losses do not behave like trade flows. Factories can reopen when disputes are resolved. Supply chains can shift and adapt. But once consumer confidence collapses, it does not return easily. The psychological damage lingers long 2:00 after the policy disputes are settled. And here's the most unsettling question I keep asking myself. If Canadian snowbirds are willing to sell their homes, cancel their winter plans, and redirect billions in spending elsewhere, what else might they be prepared to walk away from next? What's alarming officials in Washington right now is not simply the scale of the decline. It's the structure of it. Canadian travel to the United States is not falling evenly across all categories. Short weekend trips are disappearing. Winter stays are being cancelled months in advance. Property sales by long-term Canadian residents in southern states are accelerating at rates we haven't seen before. I want to emphasize something crucial here. These are not impulsive decisions made in the heat of political frustration. These are deliberate exits carefully planned and executed. Tourism analysts are now facing a problem they rarely confront. Canadian visitors are not substituting one American 3:00 destination for another. They are removing the United States from their travel calculations entirely. That distinction matters enormously. And I need you to understand why. A family that decides to skip Florida but chooses California instead still supports the domestic economy. The money stays within our borders. But a family that chooses the United Kingdom, Mexico, or simply stays home in Canada, that money is gone. It's not circulating through American businesses, not paying American workers, not generating American tax revenue. Local officials in snowbird dependent regions are already reporting early warning signals that keep me up at night. Hotel bookings are soft well ahead of the winter season. Seasonal hiring plans are being revised downward. Municipal tourism revenues that fund essential public services are being quietly refor months before peak season even begins. 4:01 What makes this situation even more severe is the timing. These shifts are unfolding before the World Cup and the Olympic cycle periods when the United States was counting on foreign travel to offset other economic headwinds. I keep thinking about one question that few people in Washington seem willing to ask openly. If Canadian travelers are leaving now before the full effects of this trade war are even visible, what happens when this trend moves from warning signs to irreversible behavior? Stay with me through this analysis because by the end, one data point will explain why this disruption may be far deeper than any current forecast suggests. The earliest damage from this collapse in Canadian travel isn't showing up on national balance sheets where economists and policymakers typically look. Instead, I'm seeing it appear quietly in local payrolls, seasonal contracts, and municipal budgets that rarely make headlines. This 5:00 is something I've learned to watch for over the years. Tourism losses of this kind don't strike Wall Street first. They hit weight staff, hotel housekeepers, shuttle drivers, airport contractors, and small business owners whose margins were already razor thin before this trade war intensified. These are the people who feel the pain first and they're feeling it right now across the northern border states and traditional snowbird destinations. I'm hearing from local tourism offices that are confronting what they describe as a structural problem rather than a temporary slowdown. Canadian visitors historically arrived in predictable waves. They stayed longer than most foreign travelers. They spent steadily across housing, food, transportation, and even healthcare services. That consistency, that reliability allowed small businesses to plan their staffing months in advance with confidence. Without that predictability, risk shifts 6:00 downward to the workers who can least afford it. In Florida, Arizona, and Texas, winter hiring projections are already being revised. Hotels that once relied on multi-month Canadian stays are shortening seasonal contracts or delaying recruitment altogether. I want to paint you a picture of what this actually looks like on the ground. Restaurants that structured their menus and operating hours around long-term visitors are cutting back their operating days. These aren't dramatic closures that generate news coverage. They're slow, quiet reductions that compound over time. A few fewer shifts here, a position not filled there. The United States Travel Association has long noted that more than half of American hotels operate as small or medium-sized businesses. Unlike global chains that can offset losses with international portfolios, these properties have no hedge. When Canadian bookings vanish, revenue disappears entirely. And when occupancy declines below sustainable thresholds, 7:01 maintenance gets deferred, staff hours get reduced, and capital improvements get postponed indefinitely. The deterioration I'm describing becomes visible only after several seasons, by which point recovery is far more expensive and far more difficult. But the impact extends well beyond hospitality. Local governments depend heavily on tourism-driven taxes to fund basic public services. Hotel occupancy fees support transit systems. Short-term rental taxes help finance emergency services. Restaurant sales taxes contribute to local infrastructure. When Canadian spending retreats, municipal planners face budget gaps that cannot be filled quickly by domestic travelers alone. This is where the trade war and tariffs intersect with everyday American life in ways that abstract policy discussions never capture. Trade disputes are often framed as 8:01 negotiations over steel, autos, or agricultural inputs, big categories that seem removed from daily experience. But tourism is fundamentally a consumer confidence industry. When that confidence breaks, spending doesn't simply pause waiting for better times. It relocates. And in this case, it's relocating outside the United States entirely. I've looked at the data on domestic travel. And yes, it has increased among higher income American households. But that shift doesn't solve the underlying problem. Affluent domestic travelers concentrate their spending in limited time frames and select destinations. Canadian snowbirds distributed their spending broadly and consistently across entire months. Their absence creates uneven demand that destabilizes local economies rather than simply shrinking them. Labor data reinforces my concerns here. Tourism and 9:01 leisure employment remains among the most sensitive sectors to external shocks. The pattern is predictable and devastating. Reduced hours precede layoffs. Layoffs precede workforce exits. And once skilled hospitality workers leave the industry, rehiring becomes extremely difficult, even if demand eventually returns. That's how temporary disruptions become structural labor shortages. There's also a price effect that compounds everything else. Fixed costs, utilities, insurance, property taxes, regulatory compliance don't decline when visitors disappear. To compensate, businesses raise prices on remaining customers or reduce service quality. Both outcomes discourage future demand, creating a feedback loop that accelerates decline. For the United States, this is happening at an especially vulnerable moment when consumer credit stress is rising and small business borrowing costs remain 10:00 elevated. One of the most persistent assumptions I encounter in Washington is that lost Canadian visitors can simply be replaced. The thinking goes something like this. If travelers from Canada stay away, visitors from Europe, Asia, or Latin America will fill the gap. On paper, the math appears convincing. Overseas tourists spend more per trip. Major global events promise surges in demand. Airline capacity can be adjusted. Hotel inventory already exists. But I've spent enough time studying these patterns to know that this comparison fundamentally misunderstands how tourism actually functions in the real world. Canadian visitors occupy a unique category within the United States tourism economy that cannot be easily replicated. They travel frequently, not occasionally. They cross the border with minimal friction. No lengthy visa applications, no complex entry procedures. They stay longer than most foreign visitors and they return 11:01 year after year to the same communities where they've built relationships. Their spending patterns resemble domestic consumption more than international tourism. That stability, that depth of connection cannot be recreated quickly with marketing campaigns or policy adjustments. Overseas travelers behave fundamentally differently. They plan trips years in advance. They're highly sensitive to visa processing times, airport congestion, security screening procedures, and the overall political climate. Even small increases in administrative friction can redirect demand to competing destinations. When visa wait times stretch longer and new traveler fees are introduced, marginal travelers don't wait around, they choose elsewhere. Tourism demand doesn't disappear when conditions become less favorable. It reassigns itself to alternative destinations. The United States is now competing for those travelers in a far less forgiving 12:00 environment than many policymakers seem to recognize. European destinations offer faster entry and dense transit networks. Asian hubs invest aggressively in airport efficiency and traveler convenience. Mexico and the Caribbean market, simplicity and hospitality. These aren't abstract comparisons I'm making. They're real alternatives in booking engines where travelers make decisions in minutes about where their money will go. The critical flaw in the replacement strategy is timing. And this is something I cannot emphasize strongly enough. Canadian travel declines immediately when confidence erodess. There's no lag time. Overseas travel growth, if it arrives at all, does so slowly over years. That gap produces revenue shortfalls that no optimistic forecast can paper over. And there's a deeper issue at play here that goes beyond economics. Canadian travelers didn't leave because of price or convenience. They left because of trust. That is not something that marketing 13:01 campaigns can restore, no matter how wellunded or cleverly designed they might be. Tourism is often treated as an economic afterthought in policy discussions. But I want to make clear why perception shapes outcomes long before policy does. In this trade war environment, perception is now working actively against the United States. For many Canadians, the decision to stay away is no longer transactional. It's not just about getting the best deal anymore. It's symbolic. Spending choices are being framed as civic choices, as statements of values. That mindset spreads faster than official data can track. moving through social networks and family conversations in ways that economists struggle to measure. Once travel becomes political, recovery requires more than policy adjustments. It requires a fundamental reset in tone, credibility, and predictability. This is precisely why traditional tools are failing to stem the tide. Reducing 14:02 airport weight times doesn't address border anxiety. Infrastructure upgrades don't counter the stories people share about inconsistent enforcement or hostile encounters. Marketing campaigns cannot overcome narratives of hostility or instability that have taken root in public consciousness. When perception hardens, even small negative signals reinforce existing beliefs. The consequences extend far beyond tourism into areas that should concern everyone watching America's competitive position. Business travel follows leisure travel trends. Conferences relocate to friendlier venues. Investment scouting slows as executives become wary. Informal crossber networks that have supported commerce for generations begin to weaken. These are secondord effects that rarely appear in short-term impact studies but accumulate relentlessly over time. Trade wars are typically evaluated through export volumes, tariff 15:01 schedules, and retaliatory measures. The kind of metrics that economists and trade negotiators obsess over in their daily briefings and policy papers. What receives far less attention and what I believe deserves far more scrutiny is how quickly consumer behavior can harden into long-term patterns that persist regardless of subsequent policy changes. I've been studying this phenomenon throughout my career, and tourism serves as one of the earliest and most reliable indicators of that behavioral shift. The signals coming from Canada right now are unusually clear and unambiguous, and they should serve as a stark warning about what's coming in other sectors of the American economy. Once travelers establish new routines, I've observed repeatedly that they rarely revert quickly to old habits, no matter how favorable conditions might become later. Snowbirds who choose to winter in Canada, the United Kingdom, or Southern Europe don't simply sit in temporary 16:00 holding patterns waiting to return. They begin forming new social networks in those places. Friendships, community connections, the kind of relationships that make a place feel like home. They establish health care arrangements with local doctors and specialists who come to know their medical histories. They develop seasonal habits and rituals in their new locations, favorite restaurants, familiar walking routes, local traditions they come to cherish. Travel becomes familiar again, just in a different place entirely. Here's what's counterintuitive about this dynamic, and it's something I think policymakers in Washington fundamentally misunderstand. The psychological cost of returning to the United States rises over time, not falls. Each season spent elsewhere makes the old patterns feel more distant, more foreign, almost like remembering someone else's life. The friends they used to see in Florida have either moved on or found new social circles. The favorite restaurant may have closed. The 17:00 neighborhood has changed. Meanwhile, their new winter destination feels increasingly like where they belong. From an economic standpoint, this matters enormously because tourism demand is what economists call path dependent. Past choices don't just influence future ones. They constrain them in ways that compound with each passing year. A traveler who skips one season is statistically likely to skip the next and even more likely to skip the one after that. A traveler who sells their Florida condominium or Arizona vacation home is unlikely to re-enter the American real estate market anytime soon, if ever. The transaction costs alone are prohibitive, but more importantly, the emotional investment has been withdrawn. Each individual decision, seemingly small in isolation, reduces the probability of future return. For the United States, this creates a compounding risk that current forecasts dramatically underestimate. 18:00 Even a modest annual decline of 5 or 10% sustained across multiple years produces cumulative losses far greater than a single dramatic shock would. The math is unforgiving, and I don't think enough people in positions of authority have truly reckoned with it. Local economies don't collapse suddenly in ways that generate headlines and provoke urgent policy responses. They erode gradually, almost imperceptibly, losing resilience with each season that fails to recover. A hotel that was marginally profitable becomes unprofitable. A restaurant that could absorb slow weeks can no longer cover its fixed costs. A small tour operator who depended on Canadian bookings quietly closes and finds work in another industry. These individual failures don't make national news, but they represent the permanent destruction of economic capacity that took years to build. By the time anyone notices the 19:01 cumulative damage, the infrastructure of tourism, the skilled workers, the specialized businesses, the networks of suppliers has dispersed and cannot be quickly reassembled. Policymakers often assume that once tariffs are adjusted or negotiations conclude, consumer behavior will simply normalize and return to previous patterns like water finding its level. History suggests otherwise. And I think this assumption represents one of the most dangerous blind spots in current strategic thinking. Consumer trust rebuilds slowly under the best circumstances requiring consistent positive experiences over extended periods. When decisions were motivated by values rather than mere convenience. When people felt disrespected, unwelcome, or politically alienated. That rebuilding becomes even more difficult and prolonged. You cannot simply announce that the trade war is over and expect decades of builtup goodwill to magically reappear. The trade war in this sense is no longer 20:02 confined to policy circles and negotiating rooms where professionals speak in measured terms about bilateral relations. It has migrated into household decision-making across an entire nation of nearly 40 million people. Kitchen table conversations about where to spend the winter have become infused with political meaning. That transition marks a threshold that is extraordinarily difficult to reverse through conventional policy tools. No trade agreement, however skillfully negotiated, can reach into those conversations and change how people feel about their southern neighbor. This raises a deeper concern that extends well beyond tourism and should occupy the attention of anyone thinking seriously about America's economic future. If Canadian consumers have already internalized this shift in their thinking about the United States, if they've already mentally recategorized America from trusted neighbor to uncertain option, how many other foreign 21:00 markets are quietly conducting their own reassessments? How many European business travelers are choosing conference destinations elsewhere? How many Asian tourists are selecting alternative English-speaking destinations? How many investors worldwide are adding risk premiums to their calculations about American market exposure? These questions don't have easy answers, but the fact that we're asking them at all should be deeply troubling. Tourism may be the most visible casualty because it's the most immediately measurable. We can count hotel bookings and border crossings in real time, but it's unlikely to be the last sector affected by this broader erosion of confidence. Consumerf facing industries often move first because they're most sensitive to shifts in perception. But investment decisions and trade relationships follow the same underlying signals, just more slowly and with longer lag times. The tourism data we're seeing now may be a leading indicator of changes that will only become apparent in business investment statistics two or three years from now. 22:00 When a close ally like Canada, a country that shares our language, our border, our values, and much of our history, redirects spending on this scale, it sends a message that reverberates far beyond the travel industry. It suggests a broader reassessment of American reliability that other nations are certainly watching with great interest. This isn't outright hostility we're witnessing. Canadians aren't burning American flags or calling for economic warfare. It's something more subtle and in some ways more concerning. Caution, a measured stepping back, a diversification of options. and caution once it takes hold in the collective consciousness of a nation changes behavior across every border and every sector. For the United States, this matters profoundly because our economic influence has long rested on more than price competitiveness alone. We weren't always the cheapest option, but we were the reliable option, the predictable 23:02 option, the option that came with a certain implicit guarantee of stability and fair dealing. That reputation depended on predictability, openness, and trust. Intangible assets that took generations to build and can be squandered with remarkable speed. Trade wars test those foundations in ways that simple tariff calculations never capture. Tariffs raise costs in measurable, quantifiable ways that economists can model and policymakers can debate. But uncertainty raises risk premiums that affect everything in ways that are much harder to see until the damage is already done. Risk premiums influence capital flows, investment timing, and the willingness of international partners to enter long-term commitments with American counterparts. Why sign a 20-year supply agreement with an American company if you're not sure what the trade environment will look like in 5 years? Why invest in expanding your American 24:01 operations if the rules might change dramatically with the next election? These calculations are being made right now in boardrooms around the world, and the tourism data suggests what conclusions people are reaching. Canada's response demonstrates something that should concern every American strategist thinking about our long-term competitive position, optionality. Canadian consumers and businesses are proving in real time that they can adapt to a world where the American market is less central to their plans. They can choose alternatives and not merely survive but thrive. That adaptability fundamentally reduces American leverage in future negotiations of all kinds. The implicit assumption that access to our market is so valuable that partners will accept whatever terms we dictate is being tested. and the results are not encouraging. The most critical mistake now would be dismissing these signals as emotional overreaction or temporary 25:00 disruption that will naturally correct itself. Markets don't care about intent or about how policymakers meant for things to turn out. They respond to outcomes. And the outcome here is measurable, sustained withdrawal from a relationship that once seemed as solid and unshakable as the border itself. The question that keeps me awake is not whether this trade war can be managed through clever negotiation, but whether the United States has fully accounted for the costs that never appear in headline trade statistics. Because by the time those costs become obvious to everyone, by the time they show up in unemployment figures and municipal bankruptcies and shuttered businesses along the border, the decisions that caused them will already be permanent. And the people who made those decisions will have moved on to new destinations and new lives that no longer include

SITE COUNT