To my understanding the Philips curve doesn’t even depict an expected increase in unemployment due to monetary stimulus. It depicts a relationship between (lower) unemployment and (higher) wages, and therefore at some level of (low) unemployment, (higher) inflation, due to people having more money to spend. In the short run. This is in relation to government stimulus (Keyensian policy) that lowers unemployment. It says that stimulus can lower unemployment at expense of higher inflation. Not that stimulus leads to unemployment. In fact rising unemployment during stimulus is an example of the model breaking down over the long run, according to what’s written here.

You expect corporate profits to revert to the mean with cooling inflation, but this year, within our current higher interest rate environment, with inflation near target, corporate profits are at an all time high.. Sorry no data at my fingertips for Canada but the processes are the same. They even say that margins to GDP are at all time high. If prices rose because workers had more money in their pockets chasing the same goods due to stimulus, we wouldn’t see profits rise significantly more than wages. We wouldn’t see margins increase. This therefore can’t be wage-driven inflation. Which also means the Phillips curve doesn’t even apply here. I don’t know what else to tell you, but looking at BoC policy and population, without factoring in the market power of large firms in every consolidated market to set prices is bound to lead to incomplete conclusions and predictions. That’s kinda like considering that (level of) competition doesn’t have real effect on prices, irrespective of other variables.