Scott Bessent, US treasury secretary, speaks during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026.
Kent Nishimura | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The U.S. on Thursday launched new trade investigations into 60 economies to determine whether they failed to curb imports of goods made with forced labor.
The probes, conducted under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, include China, the European Union, India and Mexico, according to a statement from the United States Trade Representative.
“Despite the international consensus against forced labor, governments have failed to impose and effectively enforce measures banning goods produced with forced labor from entering their markets,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said.
“These investigations will determine whether foreign governments have taken sufficient steps to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor and how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts U.S. workers and businesses,” he said.
Section 301 permits the U.S. to impose tariffs on countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices without congressional authorization — legal authority that Trump had used during his first term to levy duties on Chinese goods.
The new investigations could ultimately replace at least some of the reciprocal tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down last month.
The forced-labor probes follow Section 301 investigations launched on Wednesday, targeting excess industrial capacity across more than a dozen economies that also included China, the EU and Mexico.
The investigation come as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is expected to meet with his Chinese counterpart He Lifeng in Paris this weekend to continue bilateral trade and economic talks, and weeks ahead of a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.
Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.
The industrial carbon price will cost Alberta’s oilsands producers on average the equivalent of about a Timbit per barrel of oil, according to a climate think tank’s new analysis intended to serve as a reality check on provincial-federal pipeline talks.
The analysis published by the Canadian Climate Institute indicates oilsands producers will pay an average of about 50 cents per oil barrel, if the minimum carbon price rises to $130 per tonne.
That’s compared to about nine cents per barrel in today’s market, the institute says.
The $130 price is the target laid out in the recent Ottawa-Alberta memorandum deal to explore a new export oil pipeline.
The calculator is intended to “interject some reality” into those talks as a deadline approaches for the two sides to come to a carbon pricing agreement, said the institute’s executive vice-president Dale Beugin.
Story continues below advertisement
“If (companies) have concerns about their competitiveness, let’s have that conversation,” he said in an interview.
“But let’s do that based on spreadsheets, not based on vibes.”
‘It feels like Groundhog Day’: Carney rebukes Poilievre question on industrial carbon tax
The calculator, based on government compliance data, is lower than other carbon price estimates; one pundit told the National Post last month it could cost producers $20 per barrel.
That’s because other estimates either overweigh the worst performers or apply the price to a facility’s entire emissions, when it only applies above a certain threshold, the Canadian Climate Institute said.
The calculator shows a wide range in costs for the 29 oilsands facilities analyzed. The hardest-hit facility is Strathcona’s Tucker Thermal, with almost $4 per barrel in estimated costs by 2030. On the other end of the ledger, Canadian Natural Resources’ Peace River project would be awarded with carbon credits equivalent to about $2.23 per barrel of oil.
Story continues below advertisement
The public analysis notes some key limitations in its methodology. Among them, it doesn’t account for changes to production or to the emissions benchmark applied to producers.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you’ll never miss the day’s top stories.
Critics of the policy have suggested it’s a serious drag on the industry’s competitiveness. Slashing the industrial carbon price is a key pillar of the federal Conservatives’ energy plan. Some analysts have said any cost, even as small as what the Canadian Climate Institute’s calculator comes up with, will lead to a flight of investment.
Energy economist Andrew Leach says that argument may leave Canadians with a contradictory view of the sector.
“It’s … both the engine of Canada’s economy and incredibly precarious, and if you sneeze at it, it might all go away, right? These things are not compatible,” said Leach, a professor of economics and law at the University of Alberta.
Strengthening the industrial carbon price was a key plank of a November pipeline memorandum of understanding between Alberta and Ottawa. Alberta secured concessions to federal climate policy but, among other things, agreed to reach a carbon pricing deal with Ottawa by April 1.
Carney rejects ‘hypocrisy’ claim on Alberta pipelines, defends low-carbon energy
The concessions, including a retreat on methane and clean electricity regulations, are part of a wider rollback of Trudeau-era climate policies under Prime Minister Mark Carney. Canada’s climate ambition is now more tied up than before in the industrial carbon price, underlining the “high stakes” of getting the deal right, said Beugin.
Story continues below advertisement
“At its best, it can be one of the most impactful policies we’ve got in the tool kit,” he said.
Here’s the basic idea: companies who pollute below a facility-specific emissions benchmark are awarded credits they can sell to those above the benchmark. That benchmark and the government’s carbon price, which acts as a ceiling, ratchet up over time to drive deeper cuts to planet-warming emissions.
But the floor price has fallen out from under Alberta’s carbon market.
The market has been flooded with credits that are trading at a major discount to the current headline price of $95 per tonne, which Alberta froze last year. Some reports last year indicated credit prices had dipped below $20 per tonne, rebounding only slightly since then. Companies, meanwhile, had banked three years’ worth of credits to buttress against future price hikes, and the market was expected to take years to balance out, the financial research firm S&P Global reported last year.
With credit prices low, there’s little incentive for companies to cut their emissions.
The MOU between Alberta and Ottawa says the two sides will work toward raising that credit price floor to $130 per tonne, though it attaches no timeline to the target.
Poilievre, Carney spar during spirited debate ahead of Conservatives’ Alberta-B.C. pipeline vote
The federal government’s headline price is expected to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030. Ottawa sets a minimum benchmark for the policy, but it’s up to provinces to design their own system.
Story continues below advertisement
Oilsands production accounts for about 13 per cent Canada’s total emissions, according to federal data. Although those companies have cut into how much pollution they release per barrel of oil produced, skyrocketing production has resulted in a nearly 150 per cent increase in absolute emission since 2005.
Those production totals don’t account for the much larger share of planet-warming emissions released from downstream oil combustion, from powering cars to fighter jets.
Alberta’s economy is deeply tied to the oil and gas sector. Royalties alone accounted for around a quarter of the province’s revenue in recent years. With each dollar oil prices drop, about $680 million is wiped out from Alberta’s bottom line, the province’s finance minister has said.
Beugin, with the Climate Institute, says the goal of the MOU appears to “stop some of the whiplash” in carbon pricing policy.
“It’s to entrench a strong incentive not just now but into the future as well and that will allow firms to make long-term investments with some certainty,” he said.
Questions about the future of carbon pricing also extend well beyond the oilsands, said Leach, the energy economist. Carbon credits regularly trade at a major discount in other provinces too and Saskatchewan moved to scrap its price altogether.
“I think everyone’s focused on Alberta, but the federal government actually has a broader national question to answer,” he said.
Story continues below advertisement
“Do we have a federal carbon pricing regime or don’t we?”
Experts say the war in Iran is driving up the cost of jet fuel, which will drive up the cost of flying.
“I think what you’re seeing happening now is a volatility in jet fuel that hasn’t been seen in years,” John Gradek, a former Air Canada executive and McGill University faculty lecturer in aviation management, told Global News.
“I think that the volatility starts with the price of oil, where it was up to 110 [a barrel] last week, or earlier this week, down to 89 yesterday and up to 98 again today. So it’s bouncing up and down. The impact of that on jet fuel is significant.”
Story continues below advertisement
Gradek said that the price of jet fuel is up about 30 per cent and the cost of fuel represents about 30 per cent of an airline’s operating costs.
“The airline’s margins that you typically have is about a three or four per cent margin on their sales,” he said. “So right now, with the cost of the fuel as we see it, they’re losing money on every flight. So what’s happening is that the airlines are trying, are scrambling to figure out how much of a fuel surcharge to put in.”
Gradek said Air Transat has already started adding a fuel surcharge to tickets and British Airways and Qantas are introducing some on Thursday.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you’ll never miss the day’s top stories.
“The world is starting to recognize that jet fuel is more expensive and fares are going up,” he said.
Canada’s role in historic emergency oil reserve release
Gradek said that other airlines are trying to figure out what to do to keep costs manageable, but also profitable.
Story continues below advertisement
He said that WestJet made a statement on Wednesday that there is a significant cost increase in fuel, while Air Canada and Porter are contemplating what to do.
“At what level do you set your surcharge based on the price of oil?” he said.
“And the price of oil is bouncing all over the place. So it is a moving target for them to, in fact, set a fuel surcharge on. But the longer they wait, the more money they lose. So they’ve really got to come to grips with this pretty quickly.”
Wayne Smith, a professor and director of the Institute for Hospitality and Tourism Research, said fuel surcharges are inevitable at this point.
“We’ve seen the fuel price basically go from the equivalent of about 76 cents a litre to over $1.30 a litre for them just from December till now,” he said.
“People don’t realize that fuel is a big, big part of an airline. So let me just give you a quick example here. A Boeing 777, just to take off, burns 2,200 litres of fuel. So if you’re looking at that, that’s $2,800, almost $2 900, just to take off and fuel alone. So that’s a big part.”
Smith said airlines are trying to keep their prices down, but travellers can expect to see a fuel surcharge on their bill.
Story continues below advertisement
“If you don’t see it in the price, you’ll see it in the surcharge afterwards,” he added.
Ashley Harold, a travel consultant with the Flight Centre Travel Group, told Global News that travellers will see a wide range of prices, depending on the destination, timing and competition on a route.
“At the moment, we’re seeing Canadians having more of a focus on the travel plans themselves and where their dollar can be stretched further,” she said.
“That’s what we’re seeing. And for folks that have a particular budget that they’re hoping to stay within, we encourage them to seek out an expert, such as a travel agent, to see where their budget can get them further, where the Canadian dollar stretches further.”
Gradek said that he thinks people will choose to fly within Canada and North America now, but the future is uncertain.
“The surcharges they’re looking for in Canadian traffic is probably somewhere between $50 and $100 one way as a surcharge,” he said.
“Once I get to Europe, probably $100 to $200 one way. And by the time I get to Asia, it’s probably around $300 to $400 one way, so that’s a typical distribution of how these fuel surcharges have been dealt with in the past. So I don’t expect any different actions coming up on this one.”
Travelers wait in line at a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint at William P. Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas, US, on Monday, March 9, 2026.
Mark Felix | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The surge in fuel prices since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran nearly two weeks ago is already driving up airfare. Consumers’ appetite for travel this year will dictate just how much.
Cathay Pacific on Thursday said it would roughly double fuel surcharges on tickets starting March 18.
Earlier this week, Australia’s Qantas said it israising fares to help cover its costs, Scandinavian Airlines said the “unusually rapid and substantial increase” in fuel prompted it to raise prices, and Air New Zealand pulled its financial outlook “until fuel markets and operating conditions stabilise,” adding that it has made “initial fare adjustments.”
“If the conflict leads to continued elevated jet fuel costs, the airline may need to take further pricing action and adjust its network and schedule as required,” Air New Zealand said.
U.S. airline CEOs and other executives will update investors on Tuesday at the J.P. Morgan Industrials Conference in Washington, D.C.
Analysts expect an earnings hit at least in the first quarter if not the first half of the year, though the impact will depend on how long higher fuel prices last.
“We think a hit to 1Q EPS appears almost certain at this point,” UBS airline analysts Atul Maheswari and Thomas Wadewitz wrote in a note last week.
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said last week on the sidelines of an event at Harvard University that higher fares were likely on the way because of the surge in fuel prices.
Kirby said travel demand is still strong, however. Two other senior airline executives at U.S. carriers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to media, also said travel demand has held up. If those trends persist, it could give airlines more pricing power, but that will depend on the war’s duration.
“Airlines never met a higher fare they didn’t want,” said Scott Keyes, founder of flight deal company Going, previously known as Scott’s Cheap Flights.
So what should consumers do?
Keyes said travelers can’t lose by booking early, as long as they’re not buying restrictive basic economy tickets. That way, customers can try to exchange or cancel their tickets and buy cheaper ones if airfare ends up falling.
“If you book a $500 summer flight today, and two weeks from now the price drops to $350, you can call up the airline and get the $150 difference back as a credit. Heads you win; tails the airlines lose,” he said.
Read more about the Middle East conflict’s travel impact
Fuel costs
Jet fuel is airlines’ biggest cost after labor, accounting for about a fifth or more of expenses, depending on the airline.
United alone spent $11.4 billion last year on fuel, at an average price of $2.44 a gallon, according to a securities filing. U.S. jet fuel on Wednesday was going for $3.78 a gallon, according to Platts.
Jefferies airline analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu said in a note Thursday that she expects “the most acute financial impact to airlines from surging oil prices to be in the next 30-90 days as airlines have been booking yields for close-in flights assuming a much lower fuel price and carriers cannot retroactively raise fares.”
She said Delta Air Lines and United, which produce most U.S. airline profits, are better positioned than other carriers because of their high-end demand. Risks to demand, particularly for more price-sensitive customers, include the recent jump in gasoline prices.
Jet fuel has more than doubled in some regions since the first U.S.–Israel attacks on Iran on Feb. 28.
Oil prices surged to roughly four-year highs after the initial strikes. Energy prices have swung wildly since then as traders assess just how long the war — and all the logistics headaches — could last.
U.S. jet fuel prices were up more than 60% from before the attacks to a peak last week, according to pricing data assessed by Platts. Jet fuel can rise by a greater degree than crude because it includes the price of processing and ever-more difficult and costly transportation from oil fields to refineries to airplane fuel tanks.
On Feb. 27, the day before the before the attacks, the cost to fill the fuel tanks of a Boeing 737-800 would have would have been about $17,000 based on average prices in New York, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles, compiled by Argus. Less than a week later, on March 5, it would have cost more than $27,000, based on Argus prices. On Tuesday, after oil prices fell following President Donald Trump’s comment that the Iran war could end “very soon,” it would have cost around $23,000.
Line Service Technician Austin Beadles refuels a plane using a Federal Aviation Administration approved unleaded aviation fuel at Sheltair at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport in Broomfield on Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2026. Sheltair, a fixed-base operator, will offer the Swift UL94 unleaded aviation alternative gas to pilots. (Photo by Matthew Jonas/MediaNews Group/Boulder Daily Camera via Getty Images)
Matthew Jonas | Boulder Daily Camera | MediaNews Group | Getty Images
After prior fuel price surges, airlines started making customers pay for bags — or charging them more. Even seemingly minor changes in weight can save airlines hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, a year in fuel. United in 2018 changed to a lighter paper stock for its in-flight magazine. In 2014, American Airlines said it would switch to digital manuals for flight attendants, following changes for pilots. It said at the time that it would save $650,000 in fuel a year.
All about capacity
High fuel prices don’t automatically mean higher fares. The ongoing strong demand for travel is a key factor and so is capacity, or the amount that carriers fly.
If airlines raise fares and passengers balk, then capacity will likely go down in the form of fewer frequencies on a route or broader cuts, in more severe cases.
“Airlines love to say fuel is expensive so you have to pay more. What they’re doing is they’re setting the expectation,” said Courtney Miller, founder of Visual Approach Analytics, an airline industry advisory firm. “They price to prevent empty seats.”
If fuel prices come down, “they’re not suddenly saying ‘We’re making too much money,'” Miller added. “But they are likely to add another flight.”
Capacity, especially to and from the Middle East, is constrained because of airspace closures and other stop-and-start flights. More than 46,000 flights have been canceled to and from the region since the Feb. 28 attacks began, aviation data firm Cirium said.
Those constraints are driving up fares as well as demand, as United’s Kirby said, from regions where customers are looking for alterative routes.
Airspace closures are also requiring airlines to take longer, more fuel-guzzling routes, but many have strong demand, too.
Qantas, for example, told CNBC that its flight from Perth, Australia, to London is temporarily stopping in Singapore to refuel, allowing it to pick up another 60 customers, and that its Perth-London and Perth-Paris routes are more than 90% full this month, 15 percentage points higher than normal for this time of year.
Finnair said the increased demand for travel to Asia from Helsinki has pushed up its prices by 15% on average.
“The impact of higher fuel prices will be reflected in market fares with a delay, as airlines typically hedge at least part of their fuel purchases,” it said.
Airlines have been grappling with airspace closures for years, including from on-and-off conflict in the Middle East and since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, that have left a large swath of airspace out of use for many carriers.
‘You can’t dry up an airport’
Most U.S. airlines no longer hedge fuel costs, or lock in prices using futures and other securities. Southwest Airlines was one of the last holdouts, and it quit last year. A spokesman for the Dallas-based airline told CNBC that Southwest currently has “no plans” to resume hedging.
That leaves U.S. carriers more susceptible to price swings.
Travelers at William P. Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas, US, on Monday, March 9, 2026.
Mark Felix | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Kirby said there would likely be an impact to United’s first-quarter results and to the second quarter if the war — and blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping channel — persists. However, he said demand was increasing sharply from regions that have been affected by the thousands of flight cancellations and airspace closures in the Middle East.
Because of airlines’ upbeat outlooks on demand to start the year, “the environment is conducive for passing along fare increases. Further, should jet fuel stay higher for longer, it should help push off-peak capacity lower,” supporting unit revenues, UBS analysts said.
Rick Joswick, who heads of near-term oil research and analytics at S&P Global Energy, told CNBC that “demand for jet fuel is inelastic. You cannot shortchange an airport. If the cost of jet fuel goes up, it’s not like the plane will choose not to fly that day.
“You can’t dry up an airport,” he said.
Read more CNBC airline news
Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.
Most Canadians are paying higher insurance premiums overall for their home and car, a new report by Rates.ca shows.
Three in four Canadians (75 per cent) say their insurance premiums, for all types of insurance, have gone up in the last two years, the Leger survey conducted for Rates.ca has found.
This figure refers to Canadians who have at least one insurance policy on a home, apartment, condo and/or vehicle.
Canadians over 35 — who are more likely to own a car and home —experienced a higher rate (78 per cent) compared to Canadians aged 18-34 (64 per cent).
Six out of 10 (63 per cent) insured Canadians said they took steps to lower insurance costs, including shopping around (40 per cent), asking for discounts (30 per cent), changing or removing parts of coverage (21 per cent), the report said.
Story continues below advertisement
Home insurance costs rose steadily from 2022 to 2025 across six Ontario cities —Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa, Windsor, London and Ottawa — with the sharpest increases in 2024 before easing off in 2025, it added.
Aside from severe weather events, from fires to floods, home insurance costs were also impacted by construction costs going up because of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada.
Quebec auto insurance board lied about growing costs for digital platform, inquiry finds
A look at local data reveals that car insurance premiums have been rising rapidly, accounting for most household expenditure on insurance.
Get weekly money news
Get expert insights, Q&A on markets, housing, inflation, and personal finance information delivered to you every Saturday.
Between 2022 and 2025, the average auto premium increased from $3,453 to $3,997 in Toronto, accounting for 70 per cent of all household insurance costs in Canada’s most populous city.
Across six major cities in Ontario, auto insurance consistently makes up the majority of the average household’s insurance cost burden, ranging from 60 per cent to 70 per cent of total premiums.
Story continues below advertisement
Alberta auto insurers lose $1.2 billion in 2024: report
This is, in part, because repair costs have risen sharply since 2022, owing to labour shortages and parts delays caused by supply chain disruptions.
“If insurance companies have to pay more money than anticipated … premiums will go up,” said Daniel Ivans, Rates.ca insurance expert and licensed insurance broker, who authored the report.
Every stage of a repair, including diagnostics, parts, and labour, costs more than it did just a few years ago, Ivans said.
“As incomes inflate, the cost of living, goods, parts, and labour inflate. Insurance premiums have to match the cost of losses,” he added.
Ontario home insurance rates ‘snowballing,’ and flood claims are to blame: report
The kind of car you buy can also determine your insurance premium, said Dan Park, CEO of Clutch Canada, a platform that facilitates the sale and purchase of pre-owned vehicles.
Story continues below advertisement
If a car is “fancier,” it is not only more likely to be a target for thieves, but also more likely to cost more to repair, Park said.
“We’ve had customers cancel purchases on CR-Vs and Civics specifically because their premiums spiked when they quoted a high-theft model,” he said.
“One customer saw their premium nearly double and walked away entirely.”
Just a few weeks ago, the Historical Society of Alberta (HSA) was discussing its upcoming plans as though it was an ordinary meeting.
However, the entire future of the organization now seems in doubt. Alberta’s 2026 budget is set to remove all provincial funding for the HSA.
“As part of Budget 2026, the funding for the HSA is being completely eliminated — not just reduced, not just as a temporary measure, but completely eliminated and highly unlikely to ever be restored,” said HSA president Lorien Johansen.
It really was a blindside for the volunteer-run organization.
“There was no indication that the phone call I was going to get was, ‘Yeah, sorry, no more money.’”
The HSA was founded in 1907 by Alberta’s first premier, Alexander Rutherford. Since then, it has persevered through some of the most trying times in recent human history.
Story continues below advertisement
“The HSA has survived both world wars, it has survived pandemics, it has survived recessions,” said Johansen.
Get breaking National news
Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won’t miss a trending story.
The group was expecting to receive $76,000 from the province this year, but now that number is zero.
Johansen says the amount would have been microscopic when added to the multi-billion-dollar deficit, yet it would have gone a long way toward history-keeping in Alberta.
“It’s not just the articles, it’s not just the publications — it’s the filmmaking, it’s the preservation of ethnic stories of people who built the province.”
Beyond history, there is concern this may even snowball and negatively affect an industry that brought in more than $15 billion last year.
“When things like the HSA start to fall away, we will start to see the impacts to that,” said Erin Crane, CEO of Tourism Lethbridge.
The HSA says tourists come to Alberta for the culture, history, stories and more. That view is shared by industry experts like Crane.
“The stories (the HSA) tells, the information they provide, it is imperative to us being able to tell those stories to visitors and bring them into our community.”
Alberta’s Ministry of Arts, Culture and the Status of Women sent a statement to Global News saying they aren’t going to abandon history, but the budget was a challenge this year.
Story continues below advertisement
“Although we face a tough budget, Alberta’s government is committing more than $55 million to support the provincial archives, historic sites and heritage grants,” said Juliana Rodriguez, press secretary for the Ministry of Arts, Culture and the Status of Women.
The statement continues, saying several organizations will continue to be supported and the HSA can still apply for grant funds.
“This includes maintaining annual funding for the Alberta Museums Association and the Archives Association of Alberta — supporting training, programs and services for heritage organizations across the province. Other heritage non-profit organizations, including the Historical Society of Alberta, are welcome to apply for grants of up to $75,000 through the Community Initiatives Program.”
However, the HSA says this could truly be the end if funding isn’t restored.
“History and the collection and preservation of it is not something you can defer for a year and hope the momentum is there when you pick it up in a year.”
Canada’s jobs minister says the federal government is working on agreements with every province and territory to fund retraining for unemployed workers impacted by U.S. tariffs, after announcing a $228.8-million infusion for Ontario on Tuesday.
Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu said the three-year agreement will help over 27,000 workers across Ontario, with a focus on industries that have been targeted by U.S. President Donald Trump, and comes on top of nearly $1 billion that Ottawa contributes annually to employment programs in the province.
“As of January this year, Ontario’s unemployment rate stood at 7.3 per cent, and this is a red flag,” Hajdu told reporters in Ottawa alongside her provincial counterpart David Piccini, Ontario’s minister of labour, immigration, training and skills development.
“This means that tariffs actually have caused labour market challenges, and in particular in the automotive, steel and softwood lumber sectors have really taken the largest hit.”
Story continues below advertisement
Statistics Canada data shows Ontario’s unemployment rate is down slightly from the month prior and from January 2025, before Trump began imposing tariffs on Canada and particular sectors like autos and steel.
The provincial rate is higher than the national rate of 6.5 per cent in January — itself down from 6.8 per cent the previous month — but lower than Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, which tops the list.
Get breaking National news
Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won’t miss a trending story.
Hajdu noted the agreement with Ontario comes days after a similar one was announced in British Columbia, where tariffs have hurt the already-struggling softwood lumber sector.
“Each province and territory is in the process of signing an agreement with Canada,” she said.
“Ultimately, I think it’s about ensuring that the money is going towards specifically tariff-affected workers in the most efficient way and making sure that we have good agreements around sharing data so that we can also learn from what we’re doing and make sure that what we’re doing is effective.”
The federal government in September committed an additional $450 million over three years to retrain and upskill up to 50,000 workers through provincial and territorial labour market development agreements.
The announcement was part of a suite of measures designed to respond to U.S. tariffs, including a $5-billion strategic response fund and a $50-million workforce innovation fund to help businesses retain their workforces.
Story continues below advertisement
Carney unveils ‘Buy Canadian’ multi-billion-dollar package to combat tariffs
The Ontario funding will be provided through the Canada–Ontario Workforce Tariff Response and the Canada–Ontario Labour Market Development Agreement, which supports free employment services and training programs for job-seekers.
Funds will also be distributed by Skills Advance Ontario to retrain unemployed workers for in-demand jobs, and for employed workers to gain new skills.
The government’s announcement said employment opportunities will be created through national initiatives like the Major Projects Office — which is currently considering two Ontario projects, including a new nuclear energy project — and the defence industrial strategy.
Hajdu was in B.C. last Friday to announce almost $71 million of joint retraining funding over three years through the new Canada-British Columbia Workforce Tariff Response.
She said then that “no worker will be left behind” as global trade evolves.
The Ford government will table its annual budget at the end of March, a financial document the premier has promised will not feature cuts.
During an appearance at the Empire Club in Toronto, Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy revealed he would publish the budget on Thursday, March 26.
The budget confirms the government’s spending plans for the year ahead, along with economic indicators ranging from growth to new housing or spending on vices like alcohol.
Bethlenfalvy has recently vocally complained about how much money Ontario is pouring into the health-care sector, the single largest line in its operating plan, calling it “unsustainable” at an event in Mississauga.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you’ll never miss the day’s top stories.
“We’re in unprecedented territory in terms of the concerns of people. People are scared, they’re worried, they are concerned,” Bethlenfalvy previously said of the current geopolitical and economic climate fuelled, in part, by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Story continues below advertisement
At the same time, the finance minister warned that the province was facing a “big headwind, on top of the uncertainty” that threatens to squeeze Ontario even further.
“The economic environment is slowing down, there’s just no question,” the minister said. “We’re growing at the slowest rate we’ve grown post-COVID.”
Ford, however, promised that those pressures wouldn’t result in spending cuts when the budget is unveiled in a few weeks.
“I’ll tell you right now: no, there won’t be,” he said Tuesday when asked about cuts.
“My finance minister is the best finance minister I’ve ever seen. He’s a proven fiscal manager with taxpayers’ money.”
Ford acknowledged that the growth in health-care spending was on his mind, but said he didn’t plan to cut back.
“And yes, when you see the amount that we’re investing into health care, it’s concerning,” he added. “He’s doing his job. But we’re going to continue to invest, continue to increase the funding.”
A new public opinion poll shows that B.C. Premier David Eby and his NDP government have taken a hit from the recent provincial budget.
The poll, from Innovative Research Group, found that this budget was the most unpopular since former premier Gordon Campbell’s budget in 2010.
That was the budget that introduced the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), which he did not mention during this re-election campaign.
The poll also found that the February 2026 budget “is the most damaging to NDP government favourability under Premier (David) Eby.
“Among 41% of those who read, saw, or heard (RSH) about the budget, 67% report that it left them less favourable towards the provincial BC NDP government, with net favourability collapsing to -61, a 43-point drop from Mar ’25 (-18). Only 7% feel more favourable,” the key findings read.
Story continues below advertisement
The budget also “drives deeply negative expectations” that it “has overtaken all other news about Premier Eby and leaving people feeling worse about him and government,” and “Conservatives have opened a clear lead in B.C. vote intention.”
B.C. businesses criticize PST changes
Greg Lyle, president of Innovative Research Group, told Global News that reaction to the budget crosses the entire political spectrum.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
“So it’s not like it’s got right-wing people upset, but left-wing people are fine with it, even people that wake up in the morning and feel like New Democrats tell us they don’t like the budget,” he said.
Polling found that of the people who paid attention to the budget, 72 per cent expect higher taxes, more than half say this budget will make health care worse and lead to more unemployment and 70 per cent of respondents think we will be paying more user fees.
Story continues below advertisement
Just over half of respondents are now dissatisfied with the provincial government, and 60 per cent say it is time for a change. Twelve per cent of those people are considered strong supporters of the NDP.
“One of the hopeful things for the NDP is, is that there’s a lot of people in that somewhat dissatisfied category, and there’s a lot of people in what we call the time for change New Democrat category,” Lyle added.
“So these are people that say it’s time for changing government in B.C., but also say the NDP are the best of a bad lot.”
Political scientists say governing in this climate is challenging and governments around the world are in the same fiscal situation as B.C.
“If it was just the B.C. government running massive deficits, then we would have to look closely at what they’re doing wrong,” Hamish Telford, a political scientist with the University of the Fraser Valley, said.
“But when we see that Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, the federal government, are all running massive deficits, then we begin to see that this is a structural problem.”
This online survey was from Feb. 6 to March 3, conducted using INNOVATIVE’s Canada 20/20 national research panel with additional respondents from Lucid, a leading provider of online samples.
Story continues below advertisement
Sample Size: n=991 BC citizens, 18 years or older. The results are nationally weighted to n=700 based on Census data from Statistics Canada.
While vote intention tracking was conducted through the full month of February among n=700 BC residents, budget-related questions were only asked in the second half of the month (February 20 to March 3, 2026). Those results are weighted to n= 500.
U.S. President Donald Trump points his finger as he arrives to deliver remarks on the U.S. economy and affordability at the Mount Airy Casino Resort in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, U.S. December 9, 2025.
Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
November’s midterm was always supposed to be about affordability. Then, the bombs began falling in Iran.
The expanding U.S. war in the Middle East threatens to scramble the cost-of-living narrative that has so far defined the contest for control of Congress. The election, now less than eight months away, will determine whether President Donald Trump retains his iron grip on Washington or spends his last two years in office fending off Democratic congressional majorities.
Both parties have sought to capitalize on kitchen-table issues, as Americans struggle to keep up with the rising costs of ordinary goods and services. The war in Iran now threatens to exacerbate those concerns — and Democrats are seizing on the opportunity to pillory Trump and Republicans for beginning a conflict that could make life even more expensive for ordinary Americans.
“Because there was no plan going in, I think there will be lots of things that are unforeseen consequences of this,” Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in an interview with CNBC. “I mean you saw how much gas has gone up in a day, oil futures have gone up, there are going to be a lot of knock-on effects.”
Read more CNBC politics coverage
Some of those knock-on effects have already been evident. U.S. crude oil has jumped past $90 per barrel, up from $67 the day before the war broke out. The global market index Brent has skyrocketed to more than $90 per barrel. That’s caused gas prices to spike to about $3.38 per gallon, according to a national average from Gasbuddy, up more than 35 cents from the week before the war.
Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, was quick to point out in an interview that liquefied natural gas prices have also spiked. Though U.S. increases have been modest so far, global LNG supply has been squeezed by a shutdown in Qatar — one of the world’s top LNG-producing countries. Natural gas is the largest electricity generator in the U.S., which is critical as the booming data center industry stresses the electric grid and increases utility costs.
“I think what American families have been feeling most acutely for the past year-plus is their energy bills, their utility bills rising,” Huffman said. “A big part of the utility bill increase is that natural gas is getting more and more expensive … a lot of our effort has been pushed into LNG exports instead of strategies that would lower bills for American consumers. That problem is only more amplified by this conflict.”
Wrapping up the Iran war
Some Republicans are banking on the conflict in Iran wrapping up quickly to mitigate economic damage. Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said taming energy prices will depend on the U.S. destroying Iran’s ballistic missiles, drones and nuclear capacity.
“Once we’ve done that, I think you’ll see oil prices start back down because you won’t have that interruption in the Arabian Gulf,” Hoeven said. “But the real key is that we achieve our objectives and then you have oil continue to come out of the Gulf.”
“I’m talking relatively shorter term, I’m talking weeks, not months, and I think that’s going to be the key in terms of oil prices,” he said.
But a quick operation in Iran is far from certain, and any extended conflict could create an election-year quagmire for Republicans, said Brittany Martinez, executive director at Principles First and a former aide to then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.
“If energy prices rise or markets stay volatile, affordability becomes a harder message for Republicans to carry cleanly,” Martinez said. “Republicans will argue that projecting strength abroad prevents greater instability, while Democrats will try to link any sustained price increases to foreign policy decisions. The real question is whether this turns into a prolonged conflict that voters feel in their household budgets.”
Many believe the military intervention in Iran has the potential to drag on, including Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., a national security advisor in the Obama White House.
“This administration doesn’t seem to think about this at all,” Kim said when asked about a potential power vacuum keeping the U.S. in the region longer. “The intelligence community has done a whole range of assessments that very much keep me up at night, and the fact that this White House, I assume, read the same things I read and still went through with this, I just find that to be absolutely reckless.”
Iran offensive unpopular with voters
Complicating matters more for the GOP is that the war in Iran is unpopular. A CNN poll released March 2 found that nearly 60% of those surveyed disapproved of the U.S. taking military action in Iran. That comes as Trump’s economic approval remains underwater: A Fox News poll released March 4 found that 61% of voters disapproved of Trump’s job on the economy.
“We don’t see it as an opportunity, but I do think it’s our responsibility to tell the American people exactly the decision that Donald Trump is making,” said House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. “He’s sending billions of our tax dollars to the Middle East for another war while he’s kicking people off of healthcare and … eliminating nutrition programs.”
Rep. Zach Nunn, an Iowa Republican seeking reelection in a district Cook Political Report with Amy Walter has labeled a “toss up,” said he is not concerned the war could drown out the GOP’s affordability message. He pointed to the sprawling tax and spending bill that was signed into law last year, increased domestic energy production, and housing legislation that advanced out of the House last month as examples of things the party will use to show action on rising costs.
War in the Middle East does not necessarily preclude Republicans from continuing to try to bring prices down, he argued.
“A more fulsome conversation would be, how do we make sure that we still deliver on affordability?” Nunn said in an interview. “I think this is the absolute right spot for us to be in.”
America First
But Trump, the “America First” president who campaigned on ending the U.S.’s foreign entanglements, risks alienating his base with his Iran offensive. Democrats see the war as evidence of what they have been telling voters about Trump all along: he does not care affordability.
