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.

Health Care is an Economic Engine, not Just a Cost Item

Jim Stanford — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 18:56:42 +0000

Canada’s public health care system, which provides essential health services without regard to ability to pay, is one of our most cherished social achievements. Indeed, public opinion polls consistently show that medicare is the single feature Canadians most associate with our national identity. Support for universal public health care is thus an important element of Canadians’ response to the challenges to our economy and sovereignty posed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

However, the medicare system is under threat from inadequate funding, long wait times for some services, and ongoing pressure from investors to privatize services. In Alberta, new laws allow parallel private provision of key health care services (including diagnostic tests and some surgeries). Other provinces (such as Ontario) are also pushing privatization. Always underlying privatization efforts is the claim that Canada simply cannot ‘afford’ the big costs of the public health care system.

At the recent summit meeting of Canadian premiers held in Charlottetown, P.E.I. in July, premiers discussed the challenges of financing health care and called on the federal government to hold a national summit on future health funding. At the summit, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford made a presentation to the premiers on the economic benefits of public health care. He stressed that health care ranks as one of the most important industries in Canada: it creates jobs, generates incomes, supports widespread economic spillovers, and is one of Canada’s leading sources of innovation and new technology. These benefits have to be considered alongside the costs of providing essential health services.

Here is the presentation which Stanford gave to the premiers. It drew on findings from a recent report Stanford prepared for the Canadian Federation of Nurses’ Unions, titled The Economic Benefits of Canada’s Public Health Care System. The report quantified the important ways in which public health care supports employment, incomes, economic growth, and government revenues. Seen this way, health care should be redefined as an investment—not just a cost item on provincial budgets.

Key findings from the report include:

Health care is one of Canada’s largest and most dynamic industries.
It employs 1.9 million waged or salaried employees, and hundreds of thousands more self-employed practitioners, specialists, and contractors.
Health care production accounts for about 8% of Canada’s total value-added (GDP), and over 10% of total employment.
Health care workers earn $120 billion per year in wages and salaries.
The health care system purchases $51 billion worth of supplies and inputs from a complex and far-reaching supply chain (composed mostly of private businesses).
Health care accounts for over $7 billion in annual research spending, the second highest of any Canadian industry.
Because health care is not highly integrated in international trade, it is relatively protected from global disruptions and shocks (like the effects of U.S. trade policies).
Universal access to quality health care unlocks many other economic benefits including: more flexible labour markets (workers are able to change jobs without fear of losing health coverage), enhanced longevity and well-being (supporting more labour force participation and higher productivity), and improved ‘social capital’ (safe and inclusive communities where interactions can occur more securely and efficiently).

In sum, health care cannot be understood solely as a ‘cost.’ It is also a powerful economic engine: a source of growth, jobs, incomes, tax revenues, and well-being. Understanding and appreciating the economic benefits of the universal public health care system can reinforce public and fiscal support for its maintenance and improvement.

Please see the full report here.

The post Health Care is an Economic Engine, not Just a Cost Item appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Canada-U.S. Employment Contrast Shows Trump’s Tariffs are not Working

James — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 18:32:14 +0000

On August 7 both Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released their monthly labour force reports (for July). The stark contrast in the two trends certainly strengthens Canada’s hand in ongoing trade talks with Trump. Canada created 75,000 jobs in July. The U.S. lost 23,000 jobs by one measure (the payroll survey of employers), 87,000 by another (the household survey of workers).

But the longer-term trends also refute Trump’s chaotic economic and geopolitical policies. Since January 2025 (his second inauguration), US employment has declined by 1.0% (by the household survey), the unemployment rate has grown, and the participation rate (which has been much lower than Canada’s for years) has fallen much more.

In Canada, employment rose 1% in the same time, the unemployment rate fell, and the participation rate (which reflects both demographic and cyclical factors) declined 0.4 percentage points (one third as much as in the US). Even in manufacturing, the target for Trump’s tariffs, the US has lost more jobs than Canada since Trump returned to office. This is also true in the high-profile auto sector, which Trump claims should completely relocate to the US: it is losing jobs much faster in the US than in Canada.

Real wages are growing in Canada, but falling in the US. This reflects both strong wage growth here, and slower inflation.

Trump’s policies were never about protecting American workers. They are about weaponizing popular discontent and misdirecting it against foreigners—rather than against the billionaires whose interests he promotes. The longer he’s in power, the weaker the US economy becomes, the worse off are American workers, and the more dismal do his mid-term prospects appear.

Also, the worse the US economy gets, the weaker is Trump’s bargaining position in trade talks (including with Canada and Mexico). With Republicans down badly in the polls as mid-term elections approach, Trump’s tariff war is losing credibility at home quickly.

In short, Trump’s pledge to use “economic force” to annex Canada is backfiring badly. Labour market trends show both that Canada’s economy is more resilient than most expected, but also that Trump’s bargaining position will weaken as more US jobs are lost to his misguided tariffs.

Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discussed the July employment numbers, and the contrast between Canada and the U.S., on CBC News Network with host Lien Yeung.

One nerdy data note: The US releases its payroll and household surveys the same day. The series differ for various reasons, such as self-employment & agriculture (not counted in the payroll data), and multiple job-holding (which inflates payroll employment). US household data has been weaker than payroll data under Trump’s second term, in part because it does count agricultural employment (which has been hurt badly by Trump’s repressive immigration policies).

Canada’s payroll data (from the SEPH series) comes out a few weeks later than the household survey data discussed above, so we can’t make a direct Canada-US comparison for payroll employment in July yet. For May (the most recent Canadian payroll data), Canadian payroll employment was up 0.5% from January 2025, vs a 0.4% increase in the US (both seasonally adjusted). That gap will have widened since May, which will be confirmed when the July data comes out for Canada.

The post Canada-U.S. Employment Contrast Shows Trump’s Tariffs are not Working appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Iran War, Soaring Prices Drive Record Oil Profits

Jim Stanford — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 20:20:42 +0000

U.S. President Donald Trump’s misguided war against Iran has caused another shock in global oil prices – the 14^th such shock in the last half-century. World oil prices rose 50% or more after the war started, and have stayed high despite Trump’s repeated promises to stop the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. These price increases are is driving massive increases in profits for petroleum companies around the world – including Canada.

Canada produces three times more oil than it consumes. And while Canada imports small amounts of oil to the eastern provinces, almost none of that is sourced from the Persian Gulf. Hence there is no significant impact of the war on our domestic supply volumes or costs.

Nevertheless, because of a policy choice to tie domestic oil and petroleum product prices to global benchmarks (allowing oil producers to charge Canadians world prices for their own oil, on pain of diverting supply to more lucrative foreign markets), Canadian petroleum prices have soared in tandem.

The combination of sky-high prices with stable production costs is producing a profit windfall for Canadian petroleum companies. This is confirmed by the recent release of financial reports by publicly-traded Canadian oil companies for the second quarter of 2026.

The table below summarizes after-tax earnings and other metrics for the four largest publicly-traded Canadian producers. Their combined revenues (net of royalty payments) grew almost 50% in the April-June period, compared to the year-earlier period, thanks to the effect of Trump’s war on world prices.

After-tax profits rose more dramatically, since production costs remained largely unchanged. After-tax profits at the big four more than doubled: rising 144% compared to the second quarter of 2025, reaching a combined total of $13.3 billion. That’s almost $150 million per day in after-tax profit over the three-month period.

These four companies represent only a portion of the Canadian petroleum sector. Financial results for many companies (including wholly-owned subsidiaries of foreign oil companies) are never publicly reported. However, Statistics Canada publishes helpful financial data on an industry-wide basis. That data for the second quarter of 2026 will be released later in August.

Extrapolated to apply to the broad Canadian petroleum sector (upstream and downstream), the big four’s results suggest that second-quarter industry-wide profits could reach $30 billion (up from $12.6 billion in the second quarter of 2025). Canadian oil profits for the full year could reach $100 billion. That would set a new all-time record, smashing the peak $68 billion after-tax profit the industry recorded in 2022 (when oil prices were similarly shocked following the Russian invasion of Ukraine).

What are the oil companies doing with this record profit flow? There is no robust pattern of reinvestment in new Canadian projects. In fact, excluding acquisitions of other companies and properties (which does not represent an increase in real investment), capital spending by the big four companies actually declined slightly in the second quarter (compared to the year earlier period).

Instead, their main priority is to pay out so-called “excess cash” to company owners, in the form of increased dividend payments and share buy-back programs. Companies buy back their shares as a way of boosting share prices (this benefits company executives, too, through share-based compensation systems). The four majors spent over $6 billion on share purchases and dividend payments in the second quarter, up by almost $2 billion from like period 2026.

Hopes that booming oil profits will lead to new investment and jobs in the petroleum sector are being dashed by the priority these firms are placing on cash payouts, rather than reinvestments.

But the combination of record profits and rapid share buybacks has been great for company owners. Share prices at the big four majors have increased by an average of 45% since the start of the year. Most of those gains are captured by the wealthiest minority of the population. Other Canadians experience only higher costs and declining real incomes.

Research on the distribution of global oil profits during the 2022 price spike confirms that each oil shock further redistributes income upward. Global oil profits almost doubled that year, to nearly $1 trillion (U.S.). In the U.S., 50% of those gains were received by the richest 1% of the population; the bottom 50% of the population got almost none. A less extreme, but similar, pattern prevails in Canada.

In the meantime, oil-fueled inflation remains a threat to living standards and economic performance for most Canadians – those who do not own significant equity holdings in oil companies. Inflation has increased again in Canada since the Iran war started (just as it did in 2022 after the oil shock accompanying the invasion of Ukraine).

Spillover price increases for other goods and services (whose costs of production also increase due to high petroleum prices) will amplify inflationary pressures. And if the Bank of Canada responds with higher interest rates (as it will if above-target inflation persists), Canadians will be punished further with higher interest costs, on top of sky-high gasoline prices and faster broader inflation.

The current oil price shock, just the latest in an ongoing pattern of global price volatility, confirms that fossil fuel prices are the greatest threat to affordability and living standards for Canadian workers and consumers. Please follow the Centre for Future Work’s False Profits project for more details on the impact of oil prices on prices, real wages, and inequality in Canada.

The post Iran War, Soaring Prices Drive Record Oil Profits appeared first on Centre for Future Work.

Trump Hits Canada and Others With Still More Tariffs

Jim Stanford — Tue, 28 Jul 2026 04:43:46 +0000

As negotiations among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico continue over the review and renewal of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), U.S. President Donald Trump has ratcheted up his aggressive tariff threats against Canada and other countries. This follows his usual ‘Art of the Deal’ strategy, which is to create chaos, threaten harm, extract concessions (often marginal), and then claim historic victory.

Two sets of new tariffs have been announced in the last week:

Under Section 338 of U.S. trade law, Trump announced punitive 50% tariffs against over 500 different products from Canada, supposedly in response to ‘discriminatory’ treatment of U.S.-made autos, liquor, and dairy products. His complaints about discriminatory treatment are laughable, since these so-called ‘irritants’ were counter-measures imposed against Trump’s unilateral escalation of tariffs against Canada last year. The tariffs will come into effect August 19, unless some new trade deal between the two countries is reached by then. The products covered by these tariffs constitute about 4-5% of Canada’s exports to the U.S., and there will be no exemption for products qualifying under the existing CUSMA. This will cause an incremental increase in overall weighted-average tariffs on Canadian products. The regional impact of the tariffs is quite diverse: exports from B.C., Ontario,, and Quebec are hit hardest, while exports from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador (concentrated in energy and potash, two products which the U.S. desperately needs). Given U.S. interference in the debate over Alberta separatism, many analysts suspect this regional differentiation is quite deliberate, intended to further inflame tensions between the provinces in how to respond to the U.S. attacks.
Days later, under Section 301 of U.S. trade law, Trump announced new across-the-board tariffs against some 80 countries, including Canada and all other top U.S. trading partners, supposedly to combat the use of forced labour in production of traded products. The affected countries supposedly have not taken adequate measures to prevent use of products made with forced labour in their own supply chains, thus indirectly facilitating the continuation of forced labour. Coming from the country which has by far the weakest protections for labour standards (including the use of prison labour in for-profit companies), this is not believable. In reality, Trump seized on this measure to justify reimposition of the across-the-board ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.

In online commentary, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford highlighted the hypocrisy of the U.S. invoking fake concern over labour freedoms to justify these new Section 301 trade attacks:

“The U.S. uses prison labour (incl. for private firms) more than any other country, hasn’t raised its min. wage ($7.25/hr) since 2009, and violates dozens of international labour standards every day. So Trump’s new Section 301 tariffs have nothing to do with concern for labour. They are a laughably transparent effort to replace the Liberation Day tariffs struck down by his own (stacked ) Supreme Court. They apply to all of the U.S.’s top trading partners–INCLUDING those who signed ‘deals’ with him, and those with whom the U.S. runs trade SURPLUSES. So if misery loves company, Canada should feel better. These new tariffs will hurt other U.S. trading partners as badly as the new Section 338 tariffs he announced this week will hurt Canada. But the biggest loser from this entire clown show is the U.S. Inflation, manufacturing job loss, declining real incomes, and general uncertainty will get worse. His war in the Persian Gulf is still going badly. And his mid-term prospects are grimmer than ever (hence his trying to rekindle trade wars).”

Stanford also appeared on CBC News Network’s show Ian Hanomansing Tonight to discuss the new tariffs, and how Canada should respond. He pointed out that at least 80 of the products targeted by Trump’s new Section 388 tariffs against Canada are items that Canada does not export to the U.S. They are thus ‘tariffs on nothing’, reinforcing that the threats are mostly about the theatre of negotiations more than any genuine economic goals. These ‘tariffs on nothing’ are the equivalent for Canada of the ridiculous ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs that Trump imposed in April 2025 on over 100 countries around the world – including uninhabited Antarctic islands!

Stanford also warned that even if Canada reaches a new trade deal with the U.S., we can have no confidence that he would live up to its terms. After all, many of the so-called ‘deals’ which Trump reached with various countries in the last year have been reneged on, or superseded by his new tariffs (such as the new Section 301 tariffs, which apply to all top trading partners of the U.S. – including those, like Australia, with which the U.S. runs trade surpluses). The CUSMA itself we negotiated by Trump himself during his first term, and lauded by him at the time as the greatest trade deal in history, yet he has violated its terms without hesitation in his second term. And U.S. demands to rewrite the contractual terms of the Gordie Howe Bridge (paid for my Canada under an agreement with the U.S. signed ) is further proof that any ‘deal’ with the U.S. is very fragile.

Given the unreliability of U.S. commitments on any trade issue, therefore, it is all the more important for Canadian negotiators to proceed with caution in negotiations around a revised trade deal. Complaints that Canada has not reached a quick deal with the U.S. are misplaced. Other countries which hoped they could avoid the impacts of Trump’s tariffs by giving up concessions in a ‘deal’ (like the EU, Japan, the UK, or India) have been victimized by subsequent U.S. trade actions as badly (or worse) than Canada. As our Centre argued a year ago (in the research paper, A Bad Deal with Trump is Worse then No Deal at All), Canada’s negotiators need to hold firm on the requirement that U.S. tariffs (especially the targeted sectoral tariffs that are traumatizing key industries like auto, steel, and forestry) are removed as part of any comprehensive deal.

The post Trump Hits Canada and Others With Still More Tariffs appeared first on Centre for Future Work.