Jim Stanford, Author at Centre for Future Work

New Research Documents Vital Skills of Harm Reduction Workers

Jim Stanford — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 20:17:15 +0000

Harm reduction services and nonprofit supportive housing play a vital role in addressing the overlapping crises of opioid overdose, mental health, and homelessness that are causing so much hardship in many parts of Canada. These services have been widely debated and researched, but this discourse often overlooks the workforce that provides these services, whose skills and knowledge are often taken for granted.

During the summer of 2026, a research team based at the University of British Columbia’s School of Social Work undertook a study involving 30 online and in-person interviews with frontline workers and managers working in harm reduction and supportive housing in Vancouver’s downtown eastside (DTES). The interviews explored the knowledge and skills of harm reduction workers, and what changes they would recommend to strengthen this work. The findings documentd the wide array of finely-honed skills, knowledge and practices used by these workers, as they endeavour to provide dignity and care for those facing the challenges of homelessness, mental illness and addiction.

The findings of this innovative research are contained in a new report, ‘Do More for Less and Get Blamed for It’: What Harm Reduction Workers Bring to their Jobs and their Community, by Donna Baines, Oliver Hsueh and Denise Cheung. Their research confirms that the workers providing these frontline services bring a rich and multi-dimensional set of skills, both formal and informal, to their jobs. Investing in those workers, including through expanded training, improved safety and working conditions, and adequate compensation and benefits, must be an essential aspect of future efforts to improve these services and better help the populations they serve.

The post New Research Documents Vital Skills of Harm Reduction Workers appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

A Tri-National Vision for a North American Economy that Works for Workers

Jim Stanford — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 02:33:49 +0000

U.S. President Donald Trump’s abrupt and erratic trade policies have caused substantial disruptions around the world. But no countries have been more exposed to the twists and turns of his policies than Canada and Mexico: America’s neighbours and largest trading partners.

The three-country trade agreement, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) that Trump himself negotiated and implemented in 2020 has not held back his unilateral and illegal actions.

For labour and equality advocates, Trump’s actions create a quandary: they oppose his policies (which have hurt workers in the U.S., as well as other countries), but without seeming to endorse the pre-Trump status quo as the ideal model. After all, the CUSMA (and the 1994 NAFTA, before it) imposed a very one-sided, corporate-friendly set of rules on the continental economy. The previous trade deals guaranteed freedom of movement and special protections for investors and multinational corporations, while curtailing the ability of national and sub-national governments to limit the economic, environmental, and social fallout of corporate decisions.

It is possible to both oppose Trump’s tariffs, but also oppose the corporate-oriented trade arrangements which he now ignores. And it is possible to envision a continental economy that supports development, living standards, and sustainability in all parts of North America, rejecting the false worker-versus-worker ideology which Trump has weaponized in his trade war.

To that end, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford recently participated in a tri-national project to develop a proposal for North American trade and cooperation that prioritizes living standards, labour and human rights, environmental protection, and income equality. The project was hosted by an initiative called Game Changers, based at the University of Massachusetts—Amherst. The Game Changers network assembled progressive proposals in numerous policy areas in advance of the coming U.S. mid-term elections, with the goal of showing Americans (and others) that there are workable, hopeful alternatives to the increasing authoritarianism of Trump and his compliant MAGA base.

Stanford joined Thea Lee, Hector de la Cueva, Luis Ranger, and Jasper Andrée in developing a proposal titled ‘Democratizing North American Trade.’ The proposal is described more fully in:

A two-page policy brief which summarizes its main features.

A full 25-page paper including a critique of both Trump’s tariffs and the previous CUSMA deal, and a summary of six priority features of a more democratic approach to continental trade.

A two-minute shareable video dramatizing the major themes.

A one-hour webinar where the authors describe the paper and discuss how to advance these ideas in the current political and economic crisis.

Readers are invited to share any of these materials throughout your own networks. We are grateful to the Game Changers network for the opportunity to participate in this tri-national project, showing that a better North American economy is indeed possible.

The post A Tri-National Vision for a North American Economy that Works for Workers appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Debunking Five of Donald Trump’s Big Lies About Canada

Jim Stanford — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 20:03:38 +0000

Ever since Canada’s negotiators ended talks for a new trade agreement with the U.S., President Donald Trump’s insults and threats to America’s northern neighbour have become more aggressive, and bizarre, than ever. He has renamed a Great Lake, imposed new 50% tariffs on further Canadian-made products, compared us unfavourably to North Korea, threatened still more tariffs because we use a different dollar, and posted AI images insulting our Prime Minister.

Underneath all of the trolling lurks a more sinister strategy: Trump wants to convince Canadians that we will pay an enormous economic price for resisting his demands, to the point that Canada’s viability as a nation will be jeopardized. In this commentary, originally published in the Toronto Star, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford dissects five of Trump’s most far-fetched lies – and argues Canada’s economic resilience in the past 18 months has already disproved Trump’s claim that we cannot exist without him.

Lies the President Told You

by Jim Stanford

Donald Trump can’t tolerate being trumped. What’s left of his influence – with voters, with other countries, with increasingly restive Republicans – depends on a cultivated image of dominance. No matter what you think of his policies, don’t get in his way, or you will face retribution.

There’s no other way to understand Trump’s desperate and seemingly unhinged response to Canada’s decision to end fruitless trade talks. If a band of polite Canadians can stand up to his extortion, what sort of resistance might be inspired among others harmed by his policies?

So Trump has unleashed a northward torrent of abuse – ranging from the economic (imposing still more tariffs), to the ridiculous (renaming Lake Ontario), to the disturbing (an AI image showing him threatening a supine Mark Carney with a hockey stick).

Comedian Jon Stewart summed up Trump’s strategy as trying to “troll [Canada] into submission.”

Amidst all the nonsense, Trump and his lieutenants are rolling out new justifications for targeting Canada. Like his initial excuses when he launched the trade war last year (fentanyl smuggling, military underspending, Canadian content rules), they’re all unfounded. Here’s a handy guide for debunking his latest doozies:

The trade deficit with Canada is $90 billion: Trump’s numerical claims about the Canada-U.S. trade imbalance have always been imaginary. Last year he threw out several invented numbers, ranging as high as $200 billion. This week he claimed $90 billion.

The true deficit for 2025, based on official U.S. government data, was $27 billion. That consisted of a $55 billion deficit on merchandise, partly offset by a $28 billion U.S. surplus on services. (Yes, Donald, services count.)

That’s just 3% of the massive two-way $900 billion bilateral flow. America’s trade with Canada is far more balanced than with the rest of the world – adding to the mystery of why Canada is suddenly Public Enemy Number One.

The deficit constitutes a subsidy to Canada: Whatever its size, Trump claims a trade deficit is equivalent to a subsidy. In reality, a trade deficit simply means one country buys more from another country, than it sells to that country.

When you spend $200 at the grocery store, it’s not a “subsidy.” You’ve bought things you need. America needs what it buys from Canada; our exports are better or cheaper than from other sources.

Any actual subsidy goes the other way. Other countries (including Canada) supply the U.S. with trillions of dollars of capital each year. That’s what allows the U.S. to run a perpetual trade deficit, every year for the last fifty.

The U.S. would save money by cutting off trade with Canada: Canada is the largest market for U.S. exports, $426 billion worth in 2025 alone. Ending that would cause massive recession in the U.S., not just Canada.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn’t make you feel better. It doesn’t save money, either.

Canada cheats at trade with its dollar: One of Trump’s most bizarre recent posts claimed that Canada’s dollar (presently worth about 72 cents U.S.) is used to rip off America. He pledged to stop this, without specifying how.

Yes, our currency has the same name. But that hardly means it should be worth the same. 25 other countries also have “dollars”. Are they cheating, too?

Exchange rates are determined by capital flows, investor expectations, comparative inflation, and many other factors. By boosting inflation and destabilizing investor confidence with his enormous deficits, Trump’s policies might indeed drive down America’s dollar. Then he can stop blaming Canada.

Canada can’t survive without the U.S.: This is Trump’s biggest, and most dangerous, lie. And getting us to believe it is central to his intimidation strategy.

Despite reduced U.S.-bound exports, Canada’s economy has continued growing. Two-thirds of those lost merchandise exports have been offset by new exports to other countries. And almost 80% of our GDP is produced and consumed right here, by Canadians, for Canadians. Trump can’t touch that.

Yes, it will be a bumpy ride to disentangle our economy from overreliance on what is now a failed democracy next door. But as the 10^th largest economy in the world, with a wealth of natural and human resources, and a stronger capacity to solve problems together, we will most definitely survive without Trump’s America.

The post Debunking Five of Donald Trump’s Big Lies About Canada appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

How Canada is Surviving Trump’s Trade War

Jim Stanford — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 04:49:11 +0000

Centre for Future Work Economist and Director Jim Stanford was recently invited to give testimony to the Senate’s National Finance committee, regarding the state of Canada’s macroeconomy in the wake of Donald Trump’s trade war and other geopolitical uncertainty. Stanford emphasized the continuing resilience of the national economy, which has avoided recession and recently chalked up decent growth and job-creation numbers – despite the damage done by U.S. tariffs to our exports and business investment. He warned Senators that diversifying the destination for Canadian exports is not an adequate response to current risks: Canada must also focus on diversifying the composition of exports, using pro-active measures to add value to Canadian resources through processing and manufacturing (rather than depending mostly on exports of unprocessed resources, which now account for over 50% of total Canadian merchandise exports). He also stressed that the challenge of the trade war does not justify jettisoning core labour, social, and environmental criteria in economic development policies. Stanford specifically criticized the federal government’s intention (in its Bill C-39) to codify ministerial powers to ban strikes in the federal sector of the economy, on vague and subjective grounds of ‘national interest’.

Stanford’s opening remarks to the Senate committee are posted below. They draw on more extensive analysis contained in several recent public presentations; see Stanford’s presentation slides here for more detail.

Opening Remarks

Senate Standing Committee on National Finance

Hearings on Canadian Economic Outlook, Sep. 29, 2026

By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director

Centre for Future Work

Thank you very much, Senators, for the opportunity to meet and share my views on Canada’s economic and fiscal situation as you prepare for the upcoming federal budget.

The Centre for Future Work is a labour economics research institute, founded in Canada in 2020. We conduct research on the full range of economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages and income distribution, skills and training, sector and industry policies, globalization, the role of government, public services, and more. The Centre also develops timely and practical policy proposals to help make the world of work better for working people and their families. The Centre is independent and non-partisan.

Today I will provide some short comments on the current state of Canada’s economy, how it is withstanding the uncertainty caused by the erratic changes in U.S. trade policy, and themes that the federal government should emphasize in its future actions. Then I will welcome your questions and comments.

Recent economic indicators confirm that Canada’s economy is maintaining its stability and momentum despite the disruptions arising from U.S. tariffs and other uncertainty on the international front. Second-quarter growth was both strong and well-balanced. All major cylinders in Canada’s economic engine were firing: with significant growth in consumer spending, government expenditure (on both current services and capital investment), business non-residential investment, residential investment, and exports. Even our exports to the U.S. grew, as well as our exports to other countries. The overall rate of growth (2.3% annualized) would have been much stronger but for a major inventory drawdown during the quarter, as businesses worked down excess inventory accumulated in previous less vibrant quarters. That portends continued strength in future quarters, as firms adjust to renewed growth and readjust their inventories accordingly.

In the labour market, job-creation has been decent if not spectacular, with over 200,000 jobs created in the last 12 months, most of them full-time. Even manufacturing (which has borne the brunt of U.S. trade actions) has seen year-over-year job growth of over 20,000 new positions, which attests to the diversity and resilience of this vital sector. Ironically, the weakest employment numbers are presently arising from the public sector, including education (mostly due to job reductions in colleges, adjusting to the whiplash effects of erratic immigration policies for international students) and public administration (mostly due to headcount reductions in the federal civil service). This public sector downsizing is unnecessary. The public sector is relatively insulated from President Trump’s trade actions, and should be a source of stability as the economy adjusts to the new global environment. The federal government in particular should rethink this downsizing, which will also affect the quality of federal service delivery to Canadians.

One warning sign from the labour market is a noted deceleration of wage growth, which had been quite robust over the previous four years. The initial inflation shock following the COVID pandemic required a pickup in wage growth in Canada, to try to restore real purchasing power for Canadian workers damaged by the temporarily high inflation of 2022 and 2023. That repair job worked: wage growth exceeded inflation significantly from late 2023 until the present, allowing real wages to recover and then some. Real wages are now higher than they were before the pandemic, and this has been essential in helping Canadian address affordability challenges. It is testament to Canada’s labour relations system that real wages, on average, have been more than fully repaired. Strong improvements in minimum wages in most provinces (and the federal jurisdiction), and Canada’s strong collective bargaining system, explain why real wages have performed better here than in many other countries – including the U.S., where real wages are falling.

However, a combination of slower wage growth and a rebound in inflation (resulting from the U.S. war against Iran) are now threatening that success. Hourly nominal wages were up only 2.0% year-over-year in August, the slowest in 5 years – and not enough to keep up with current inflation. Placing continued priority on strong wage gains for Canadian workers will be essential for protecting purchasing power and sustaining consumer spending, which after all accounts for half of total GDP. In this context, I must express alarm regarding the federal government’s intention to codify restrictions on normal collective bargaining rights in its proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code, as part of its current Bill C-39. Codifying the government’s right to interfere arbitrarily in bargaining and suppress constitutional rights (including the right to withhold labour) on the basis of vague and subjective measures of ‘national interest’, is a step in the wrong direction, that would heighten the risk of future deterioration in real wages in Canada.

Canada’s trade performance has also been surprisingly robust despite the impact of swings in U.S. policy. Exports of goods and services in nominal terms have increased to both the U.S. and other countries, partly due to higher prices (especially for oil) and partly increased volumes. Since the end of 2024 (when President Trump won election), Canada’s exports to countries other than the U.S. have grown by 18% (to the second quarter of 2026). Even our exports to the U.S. are up 9%. The share of our total exports going to the U.S. has fallen to 67%. There is a lot going on behind these numbers (including the rise in world petroleum prices following the U.S. war on Iran), but it seems clear that efforts to diversify Canadian trade ties are paying off.

Let me conclude with some high-level thoughts about the broad task facing Canada’s economy in the coming years. The attacks on our economy, and indeed our sovereignty, from south of the border are forcing us to redefine how we orient Canada’s economic and social development. Instead of relying on access to the huge U.S. market as our key advantage in investment location, we must develop a more self-reliant and diversified vision for future investment, innovation, trade, and growth. This means attracting more investment here (from both foreign investors, but also more investment of our own capital, such as the trillions held by Canadian entities, including our pension funds, in the U.S. and other foreign markets). It means strengthening our trade ties with the rest of the world. But it’s not just the quantity of investment and exports that matters: it’s also the composition of those flows, and the quality of the economy – and society – that we build. There is a current temptation, as we gird our national loins to withstand the irrationality of the Trump administration, to double down on anything we can do, and do quickly. This has contributed to a great rush to expand resource extraction and exports.

However, reinforcing Canada’s dependence on extraction and export of unprocessed primary products has its own risks to our economic capability and sovereignty – including well-known vulnerability to global demand and geopolitical swings, as well as (in the case of fossil fuels) environmental risks that are more urgent every year (and which continue to accumulate regardless of the climate denialism of the U.S. government and some others). Our vision should be to build an economy that is not just viable in the face of Trump’s attacks, but retains the core values which motivate Canadians to defend our country as an entity distinct from that south of the border. That means preserving a balance in our economic strategy between getting big things done quickly, and making sure we are doing the right kinds of big things, and doing them properly – including with due attention to sustainability, Indigenous consultation and consent, and basic social and labour values and rights. In that regard, it is more important than ever for Senators to play their full oversight role, to ensure that the federal government’s response to this dangerous moment does not dismiss those values and priorities in a rush to sign deals and accelerate projects.

Thank you again for your attention, and I look forward to your questions or discussion.

The post How Canada is Surviving Trump’s Trade War appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

The Build-Big Agenda in B.C. Should Include Long-Term Care Homes

Jim Stanford — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 03:00:21 +0000

British Columbia should make long-term care part of its big-project building agenda and commit to a construction timetable for seven deferred public care projects, says a new report from the Centre for Future Work.

The report examines the economic benefits of building public long-term care facilities, and the dangers and costs of relying on for-profit operators. It argues that full accounting of the costs and benefits of long-term care construction needs to include financing charges (which are much lower for public builds), broader economic spin-offs from new construction, and a range of savings resulting from superior health outcomes demonstrated in public facilities.

Projections indicate the province needs 16,000 additional subsidized long-term care beds over the next decade—about 1,600 a year. But over the last six years, B.C. added an average of only about 240 net new beds annually.

Despite that gap, seven public long-term care construction and redevelopment projects were deferred in the province’s 2026 budget. The provincial government continues to list the projects in its long-term capital plan, but without firm timelines for construction.

The report challenges exaggerated stereotypes about the cost of building public long-term care facilities, and called for more transparent and systematic comparisons of cost estimates. Many public projects include services such as child care, hospice spaces and other services, often accessible to the broader community – making simple per-bed comparisons misleading.

Financing is an important cost advantage for public builds. In an illustrative comparison, the higher cost of private borrowing increases cumulative interest costs by 41 per cent, adding $49 million to a $200 million project over 25 years.

Most long-term care in B.C. receives provincial government funding, regardless of whether a facility is publicly owned, non-profit, or for-profit. Those payments help cover building and financing expenses as well as operating costs. Data published by the B.C. Senior’s Advocate indicates that building costs in private facilities (ultimately charged to the public purse) are much higher than non-profit facilities.

Outsourcing new builds to private operators does not make the public cost disappear. Government still pays for those facilities through decades of care funding.

The report calls for a transparent comparison of construction costs across public, non-profit and for-profit facilities. It identifies ways to improve value in future projects, including using public land, sharing sites with other health services, standardizing designs and coordinating procurement.

It recommends that the provincial government quickly complete its review of the deferred projects, and publish a reliable construction timetable by the next provincial budget. It also calls for capital funding and development support for non-profit providers, alongside a longer-term plan to meet projected demand.

Please see the full report, Economic Benefits from Construction of Public Long Term Care Capacity in British Columbia, authored by Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

The post The Build-Big Agenda in B.C. Should Include Long-Term Care Homes appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

B.C. Missed an Economic Opportunity by Importing New Ferries From China, Rather than Building them Here

Jim Stanford — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 01:19:14 +0000

BC Ferries recently announced a purchase of four major new vessels from a shipyard in China. This decision has sparked criticism from trade unions and others, who argue the ferries should have been commissioned from domestic shipyards.

New research from the Centre for Future Work confirms that the decision to import the ferries, rather than domestic procurement, imposed a significant foregone economic cost on the province.

Sourcing an equivalent value of shipbuilding from domestic yards would generate $1.5 billion in additional GDP in Canada (85% of that in B.C.), over 10,000 person-years of employment, and would return over $400 million in additional revenue to government coffers (providing a financial basis for public support for future procurement).

The report reviewed the current scale of shipbuilding in B.C. and Canada, highlighting the strong employment growth in the sector over the past 15 years (largely due to a pro-active procurement strategy for Navy and Coast Guard ships from the federal government). It reviewed the role of active industrial policy in supporting shipbuilding in other major producers – including the U.S., China, and Europe.

It also surveyed the current capabilities of B.C.’s shipbuilding sector, identifying gaps that should be addressed in order to ensure the industry can source future ferry procurement from the provincial ferry operator.

The report concluded with several recommendations, including:

Establish a Ministerial-level task force to coordinate the development and implementation of a robust provincial shipbuilding strategy.
Amend contractual and fiscal arrangements with BC Ferries to require the firm to maximize economic benefits from domestic procurement of future vessels.
Commitment to accelerate the electrification of ferries, and development of B.C. technological and industrial expertise in electric vessels.
Formation of a consortium of firms to organize and plan the expansion of future shipbuilding capacity in B.C.
The provincial government should be prepared to take equity stakes in future ventures.

A strong marine sector workforce development strategy to ensure a steady and adequate supply of skilled workers for the shipbuilding and marine sectors.

Please see the full report, The Economic Benefits of Ferry Construction in B.C., by Jim Stanford, Blair Redlin, and David Fairey.

A video reviewing the main findings of the report, recorded during a public launch event, is available on the Centre for Future Work’s YouTube channel.

The report generated numerous media articles, including:

Newspaper articles in the Vancouver Sun, the Toronto Star, and numerous other outlets.
Television coverage on CHEK TV and other stations.
A feature interview on the Jas Johal Show on CKNW Radio.

The post B.C. Missed an Economic Opportunity by Importing New Ferries From China, Rather than Building them Here appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Workers are Especially Exposed to the Economic Risks of Alberta Separation

Jim Stanford — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 01:13:33 +0000

Albertans will vote on October 19 in an unusual ‘referendum on a referendum’, initiated by the Alberta government of Premier Danielle Smith. The referendum asks voters whether they prefer to stay part of Canada, or prefer to initiate a process of negotiation and preparation fo0r a binding referendum on separation some time in the future.

Many economic, business, and civil society leaders have warned of the economic risks and costs of even a significant threat of Alberta independence, let alone outright separation. But working people are especially exposed to those risks, for several reasons: they need employment, they depend disproportionately on federal income supports (like CPP, EI, and the Canada Child Benefit), they depend on unions and labour standards to negotiate their wages, and they are less mobile across borders than investors or high-income households.

The Centre for Future Work has explored the particular risks facing Alberta workers from the separatist movement, in a new report published in conjunction with the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The report challenges several of the myths propagated by the separatist movement – in particular, claims that an independent Alberta would be richer, have lower taxes, and more opportunity to sell products to other countries.

It also reviews several statistical indicators of declining living standards for Alberta workers in recent years. It finds that Alberta workers are quite right to be angry about stagnant wages, falling purchasing power, and growing insecurity in the province – but those problems should not be blamed on a distant federal government. Rather, they result from problems right at home in Alberta, in particular the distorted playing field of labour relations, which has undermined the bargaining power of Alberta workers to negotiate better jobs and wages.

The economic pie in Alberta has been growing: oil and gas production and export set new records every year, and output per worker is the highest in Canada. But labour’s share of that economic pie (in wages, salaries, and benefits) has been shrinking faster than in any other province, and average wages now barely match the Canadian national average.

The report concludes that by defeating the false hopes of separation, workers in Alberta can refocus their rightful anger on the task of reforming Alberta’s labour and economic policies, so that the province’s abundant wealth can be shared more fairly.

Please see the full report, False Promises, Big Dangers: How Separation Would Hurt Alberta Workers, by Jim Stanford, Economist and Director of the Centre for Future Work.

The report generated abundant media coverage, including:

Newspaper articles in the Calgary Herald and the Lethbridge Herald.
Interviews on CBC Radio and 880 CHED.
A feature interview with Ryan Jesperson’s Real Talk video podcast.
A commentary in The Tyee, targeting the myth that Alberta ‘subsidizes’ the rest of Canada.

The post Workers are Especially Exposed to the Economic Risks of Alberta Separation appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Trump Launches New Attack Against Canada’s Currency

Jim Stanford — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 18:37:01 +0000

U.S. President Donald Trump has opened another front in his trade war against Canada, suggesting that Canada is taking advantage of the U.S. through its currency. Both currencies are called the dollar, but Canada’s trades for less than the U.S. currency, and Trump argues this creates an unfair advantage.

More than 25 countries in the world have a currency called “the dollar”. Apparently, according to Donald Trump, 24 of them must be taking advantage of America because their dollars are different from his.

Canada has had a flexible exchange rate since 1970 (and also had a flexible rate between 1950 and 1962). It was one of the first industrial countries to abandon fixed exchange rates as the Bretton Woods financial system was dismantled in the early 1970s. The exchange rate is determined by numerous factors, including financial capital flows, comparative interest rates, comparative inflation, and investor expectations. The present exchange rate (about 72 cents U.S.) is well within the range of its historical fluctuations, and is in fact slightly stronger than when Trump took office for the second time in January 2025.

Of course, the fact that America’s dollar is used (for now, anyway) as a global reserve currency, hence allowing the US to run trade deficits every year for 50 years, is a unique privilege, not a sign of victimisation. America consumes far more than it produces, year after year. But inflows of capital from other countries, and holdings of U.S. dollars by foreign investors and institutions, allow the U.S. to maintain this ongoing trade deficit.

The world (including Canada) supplies the US with trillions of dollars of purchasing power every year, allowing this permanent trade deficit to continue. We explained this relationship in our research report, Who’s Subsidizing Whom? Over the past decade, new purchases of U.S. debt (mostly from the federal government) have almost perfectly offset the cumulative U.S. bilateral trade deficit with Canada over that same period. In short, it is Canada subsidizing America (with transfers of money), not the other way around.

Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford commented on Trump’s arguments about the currency on Global News’ national television broadcast.

The post Trump Launches New Attack Against Canada’s Currency appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Extending Gas Tax Holiday Won’t Fix Fossil Fuel Inflation

Jim Stanford — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 19:56:47 +0000

The federal government has announced it will extend the current holiday on the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for another 4 months, until January 31, 2027. New research from the Centre for Future Work confirms that extension will not solve the underlying problem of oil-fueled inflation that is hurting all Canadians, not just drivers.

The tax holiday first came into effect on April 20, and was originally set to end on Labour Day. It was intended to offset some of the impact of rising oil prices (resulting from the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz) on Canadian consumers.

While the tax holiday may be appreciated by drivers, it has not addressed the underlying inflationary shock arising from this latest global oil price shock. In fact, Canadian gasoline and diesel prices are higher now than they were before the tax holiday came into effect (and have been higher through most of the 18 weeks since it began). The full value of the tax holiday (to fuel consumers) has thus been more than offset by continued increases in the cost of petroleum products.

New national income data released last week by Statistics Canada confirms Canadian consumers are paying billions of dollars extra for petroleum products despite the cushion from the excise tax holiday. There are also signs that the price shock is spreading into other products beyond petroleum, including air travel, other transportation, and food. This raises the spectre of another spike in broader inflation, sparked by petroleum prices. Statistics Canada data also confirms the petroleum industry in Canada has received record profits as a result of the current oil price shock.

The Centre for Future Work has published a new briefing paper analyzing the latest Statistics Canada data on consumer costs, average prices, and petroleum profits. Highlights include:

There was a large increase in consumer expenses for petroleum products, despite the tax holiday. This includes $3 billion in extra consumer costs for motor vehicle fuels in just three months April through June).
There is a growing gap (called the ‘crack spread’) between prices of gasoline and diesel, and underlying prices for crude oil. This has exacerbated the impact of the oil price shock on Canadian consumers.
There are some early signs of spillover from higher petroleum prices into other prices, and hence into broader inflation – enhancing the risk of future interest rate increases.
The price shock has produced a dramatic increase in profitability for the Canadian petroleum industry, a direct result of the extra costs paid by consumers. Combined after-tax profit in the upstream and downstream sectors reached $23 billion in the second-quarter, more than double their profits in the first quarter.
But just 5% of additional profits, and 2% of additional revenues, have been reinvested by the industry in new capital spending.

The paper concludes with several policy recommendations regarding how Canada can better protect itself against repeated cycles of oil-fired inflation, affordability crises, and higher interest rates.

Please see the full briefing paper, Another Band-aid: Extending Gas Tax Holiday Won’t Fix Fossil Fuel Inflation, by Jim Stanford.

The post Extending Gas Tax Holiday Won’t Fix Fossil Fuel Inflation appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Workforce Alliances an Opportunity for Canadian Unions to Shape Future Industrial Strategies

Jim Stanford — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 06:50:25 +0000

A new report co-published by the Centre for Future Work and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reviews six new ‘Workforce Alliances’ being established by the federal government as part of its economic strategy responding to Donald Trump’s trade war. The report concludes that the Alliances have potential to improve training, labour supply, and labour standards – but Canadian unions must be ambitious and assertive to ensure that they fulfil this potential.

The report, Hinge Moment for Canada’s Workforce and Industrial Policy, is based on research presented at the recent Canadian Industrial Relations Association conference at Université Laval in Québec.

The federal government is advancing these new Alliances to strengthen the labour side of major new investment and industrial policies. Somewhat reminiscent of the previous tripartite era of sector councils from the 1990s, unions are once again being invited to participate.

Ottawa has announced six Workforce Alliances, which largely mirror the government’s industry, energy and transportation infrastructure initiatives. On a parallel track, a historic $6 billion funding stream to support Red Seal skilled trades training has also been launched.

Unions have ample experience with supply-side training programs. Too many have focused solely on meeting the labour supply needs of employers, with limited benefits for workers and no opportunity to build union power. Could this iteration of workforce policy be an opportunity for the labour movement to do better? Does it create an opening to influence industrial policy, labour standards and worker rights?

At a special panel during the 2026 conference of the Canadian Industrial Relations Association (CIRA) at Université Laval in June, union experts and labour studies academics came together to review the Workforce Alliances and their associated training initiatives, and examine the opportunities for genuine trade union engagement.

The presentations to the CIRA conference are collected in this compendium. The goal is to start a bigger discussion among trade unionists and progressive researchers about a labour strategy that links workforce policy with labour standards and conditionalities across the industries and sectors receiving federal funding, including a larger role for unions in shaping industrial policy.

Several common themes emerge from the contributions collected here. First, workforce policy cannot be reduced to labour supply measures aimed solely at meeting employers’ skills needs. Second, sectoral institutions and public investments must be linked to stronger labour standards, worker retention and equitable employment outcomes. Finally, the Workforce Alliances raise broader questions about industrial governance and whether unions can use these new institutions to exercise meaningful influence over economic strategy and democratic decision-making.

Fred Wilson’s introduction traces the evolution of workforce policies from the old sector councils, to industry-led labour market information programs and now back to partial joint governance in the Workforce Alliances. In each case, the primary purpose has been to provide “labour market information,” or LMI, and training programs to meet employer needs. Yet, in this latest version of workforce policy, to meet the government’s promise of “not just jobs, but careers” will require going well beyond the LMI model. Labour’s goals in the new workforce policies must address sector and industry-based standards and industrial policies that create and sustain high-quality, value-added jobs.

Ken Delaney, the managing director of the Canadian Skilled Trades Employment Coalition (CSTEC), Canada’s longest-standing “sector council” model, speaks to the limits of the former sector councils that were confined by government agendas. CSTEC’s work highlights the promise of workforce programs to address worker transition, equity and inclusion, especially if workers are allowed to maintain EI benefits in training. The organization’s programs also demonstrate how the career-building potential of Red Seal training can be adapted to meet the needs of skilled workers in manufacturing and other sectors. Delaney encourages unions to seize the opportunity in the Workforce Alliances to integrate industrial policy with labour market policy.

Professor Evelyn Dionne’s study of the construction sector in Quebec warns that sector programs to increase labour force supply and speed up construction can lead to “a downward spiral marked by declining skill levels, lower-quality housing, inefficient green buildings and high turnover.” Dionne calls for project labour agreements (PLAs) to be incorporated into housing and construction projects in order to establish common and high-quality terms and conditions governing all workers and contractors. “By embedding training, equity and labour standards into procurement processes,” she writes, “PLAs can help ensure that accelerated construction does not come at the expense of quality or working conditions.”

After pressure from within the Liberal caucus, reinforced by advocacy from social policy and feminist advocates, the federal government agreed to establish a Workforce Alliance for the care economy. Laurell Ritchie, a member of the Care Economy Initiative, emphasizes that in the care economy, worker retention is as important as recruitment. Like industrial sectors, meeting workforce goals in the care economy will require sector-based programs and standards, and strong government leadership. The inclusion of the care economy among the Workforce Alliances is itself recognition that industry and workforce policy can be influenced by advocacy from unions and women’s organizations.

Unifor Research Director Angelo DiCaro’s contribution on the interrelationship between industrial policy and workforce policy underscores the need for the state to act as a “conductor” of a complex orchestra involving multiple public and private players. A weak state role leaves the government as a passive enabler of the private sector, resulting in “industrial improvisation” rather than industrial strategy. For the Workforce Alliances to make a real difference, they must go beyond workforce development—filling vacancies, and sponsoring training—to become well-rounded tables for “peak-level social dialogue” with “a whole-of-supply-chain approach” to labour standards and industrial growth.

As DiCaro aptly puts it, the Workforce Alliances could be “a vital cog in the wheel of industrial growth and rising workplace standards.” Alternatively, they could become an “unambitious and burdensome exercise, simply facilitating training fund transfers, and entirely delinked from future-facing industrial strategy.”

Prime Minister Carney has described this as a “hinge moment” for Canada, as Canadians collectively face up to the unprecedented threat posed by Donald Trump and aggression from Washington. It is also a hinge moment for labour. The potential reorientation of Canada’s economy away from deep dependence on U.S. export markets, with a greater role for active industrial policy and public investment, carries both opportunities and risks for unions and the workers they represent.

The Workforce Alliances are an opportunity for unions to shape this historic economic moment, leveraging workers’ position at the point of production to demand both material progress and democratic power as this pivot unfolds. Canada’s unions must demonstrate that they have the organizational capacity and political leverage to bring a working-class agenda to the Workforce Alliances, and help to shape this new era of industrial policy in favour of workers.

Please see the full paper here.

The post Workforce Alliances an Opportunity for Canadian Unions to Shape Future Industrial Strategies appeared first on Centre for Future Work.