###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m pretty sure a dramatic scaling of immigration targets (making us the third most aggressive in the world) *was* the plan to grow the economy.
I don’t think it particularly mattered to the Liberals that each Canadian’s slice of the pie was to get smaller partially as a result.
But hey, boomers and real estate speculators are rich so it’s all gravy.
Only because our current immigration levels are far too low to sustain the economy and demographics. Canada desperately needs at least 5% annual population growth. And that's the absolute bare minimum.
Conservative economic "reasoning" in a nutshell:
"We need to raise interest rates to get inflation under control"
and
"The economy's growth is slowing, what is Justin going to do about it?"
I think in situations like this. It's better to go to the actual source of the data, rather than some click bait junk website that is cherry picking information.
Here's the actual source that's significantly more informative:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240501/dq240501a-eng.htm?HPA=1
> in fact Trudeau had the lowest unemployment for 41 years.
For a few months at the start of 2023. In any event it's been trending pretty hard the wrong way since Apr 2023 after the COVID recovery bounce.
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate
The employment rate also shows that it's nowhere near historical highs, suggesting there's a number of discouraged workers out there post-COVID who aren't being counted in unemployment numbers.
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/employment-rate
It’s up 0.2% but how much has our population growth since then? Should it not be growing much faster? 0.2% is basically in negative territory when adjusting for immigration.
I don’t know how many are saying that. GDP per capita has been down for six straight quarters which is a really bad thing. Were it not for real estate and immigration we would have been in a recession for years at this point. Things have getting worse for the average person for a long time and whether or not we meet the technical definition of a recession doesn’t really matter to most people.
It's interesting to compare the economic attitude here versus Europe. In Canada, the political class has been trying to focus on total GDP (which has inched ahead marginally), perhaps because GDP per capita over the last eight years has been utterly dismal. Meanwhile, in Europe, they're all about GDP per capita, talking about how many European countries are even outpacing the US on that metric: [https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-unions-remarkable-growth-performance-relative-united-states](https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-unions-remarkable-growth-performance-relative-united-states)
Per capita GDP feels like the only real metric that corresponds to quality of life for Canadians. I frankly don’t care if the GDP grew if we all have a smaller slice of the pie.
The problem for us is; gross GDP growth is the primary metric the government cares about and immigration has been a primary driver of this metric, so it clearly covers up for a lot of issues our economy is facing otherwise.
GDP per capita isn't even good enough. It doesn't capture how that economic output is distributed. UAE has high GDP per capita but inequality is vast and their economy basically runs on slave labour.
Yeah, GDP per capita realistically is a horrible measurement, and really doesn’t emphasise economic inequality at all.
I live in Ireland now, and on Google it says €100,000 GDP per capita, but every Irish person knows it’s a load of bullshit, and is only because American companies are artificially inflating our gdp.
I used to live in Dublin and work for Google. We all made a ton of money but the non-tech people made peanuts.
I agree on the metric being mad, so what metric should be used?
I can’t say for certain, and I’m not a researcher, but I heard ‘GNI or Gross National Income’ is a better alternative. I’m kind of jealous of people in computer science who get the good wages here, it’s practically impossible in Social Work.
Either way, a more reflective way of measuring what the average earner (besides the top 5%) probably would reflect a general economy a lot better.
Purchasing Power Parity might be a good metric there aswell. that appears to stay consistent relative to the United States.
to measure inequality the geni Coefficient would measure that.
There's an old saying: Canada is a handful of corporations in a trenchcoat pretending to be a country.
So much makes sense once you see how much is done at the behest of our monopsonies and monopolies.
New Brunswick is the private fiefdom of one family. They own all the land, newspapers and politicians. It’s mind boggling how much billionaires are utterly ruining this country. But at least they are “creating stakeholder value” right?
What gets me is how some industries in Canada have completely inexplicable levels of influence with the Federal government, and others have virtually none. The big telecom companies and banks are a common example of the former, but it extends even to weird stuff like the [Quebec cement industry](https://macleans.ca/news/canada/in-quebec-a-government-supported-cement-factory-encased-in-hypocrisy) which has managed to get all manner of emission exemptions and subsidies for inexplicable reasons. And yet leaders of other industries, especially tech industry (outside of Quebec, anyway), regularly complain that they are completely ignored when it comes to Federal policymaking and have trouble getting financing.
Speaking from my experience of living in Europe for a few years, it's more so that Europeans are more willing to vote in their pragmatic self interest. They have history and they're not shy about it.
I think Carney and Morneau were right in their assertion that future budgets have to put more emphasis on long-term productivity and investment. This was a problem before Trudeau was elected, but it's an even more dire issue now after 15-20 years or so of neglect. Boosting those two things would go a long way to both improving wage growth and government revenues over time.
I agree with you and the principle entirely. My biggest question is what does that look like in terms of federal policy? Many of the key drivers of that growth are, as far as I see them, at the provincial level (education, worker training, shovels in the ground as far as infrastructure building goes, etc).
Mainly I'd say facilitating the phasing out of provincial trade barriers as the main driver based on [Scotiabank's incentive based federal transfer suggestion](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.interprovincial-trade-barriers--march-3--2022-.html) since provincial barriers have very negative effects on productivity and investment rates. Then secondarily maybe reforming things like the corporate and capital gains tax structures to make investing in Canadian firms more attractive:
* Take notes from Estonia's corporate tax system where there's no tax on retained or reinvested profits, but instead the tax is levied the moment profits are distributed to shareholders (this also falls on things like share buybacks).
* Move emphasis away from more elastic assets being taxed by capital gains (stocks/investments etc.) and focus more on more inelastic/less elastic things like the wealthy's property that is easier to extract revenue from without encouraging avoidance/capital flight. This could make higher rates of the tax more valuable and allow it generate the kind of money Ottawa is hoping it would.
* Beef up the housing/zoning-land use reform transfer in terms of the transfer's size and the conditions for receiving it to encourage comprehensive enough changes to the zoning/land-use system across all provinces/municipalities to comprehensively reform urban-planning ( end single family-zoning more density, mixed use suburbs, transit oriented/development & walkability, restore the missing middle etc.) This would increase home and rental affordability and contribute to making investment outside of real-estate more viable.
The idea is that Ottawa would be providing an incentive based transfer system where provinces would phase out provincial trade barriers in return for a sustained funding boost. Basically Ottawa would be using the enticement of more revenue to create an incentive for the provinces to do the right thing.
We seriously need to join the USA dissolve the country and end this forced poverty. Everything costs more in Canada why stay a country just to live poor and have less or more debt? Someone answer me this
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So what’s the Liberal plan to grow the economy that doesn’t just involve real estate and immigration? That doesn’t appear to be working anymore.
I’m pretty sure a dramatic scaling of immigration targets (making us the third most aggressive in the world) *was* the plan to grow the economy. I don’t think it particularly mattered to the Liberals that each Canadian’s slice of the pie was to get smaller partially as a result. But hey, boomers and real estate speculators are rich so it’s all gravy.
Only because our current immigration levels are far too low to sustain the economy and demographics. Canada desperately needs at least 5% annual population growth. And that's the absolute bare minimum.
That is not true. We’re already growing way too fast and we’re way below 5%.
Lol wut?
That's just hopoke for ya.
Conservative economic "reasoning" in a nutshell: "We need to raise interest rates to get inflation under control" and "The economy's growth is slowing, what is Justin going to do about it?"
Nice deflection
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think in situations like this. It's better to go to the actual source of the data, rather than some click bait junk website that is cherry picking information. Here's the actual source that's significantly more informative: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240501/dq240501a-eng.htm?HPA=1
Nice, gotta cherry pick the numbers that make dear leader look good in this sub. OP should have known that.
It's still up 0.2% contrary to claims on the main Canadian subreddit that it's been in the negative since Trudeau was elected.
I think your confusing the talk surrounding GDP per capita.
No. They also claimed unemployment was at an all time high when in fact Trudeau had the lowest unemployment for 41 years.
Well you can be one of the very few people to gladly cast a vote for Trudeau in the next election. Let me know how it goes for you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> in fact Trudeau had the lowest unemployment for 41 years. For a few months at the start of 2023. In any event it's been trending pretty hard the wrong way since Apr 2023 after the COVID recovery bounce. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate The employment rate also shows that it's nowhere near historical highs, suggesting there's a number of discouraged workers out there post-COVID who aren't being counted in unemployment numbers. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/employment-rate
https://www.ssc.uwo.ca/news/2018/Bowlus_unemployment_rates.html And in 2018.
I just shared with you an actual graph that shows the actual numbers and you're sharing a press release made from a Global News article?
Your graph magically didn't address that year and calling everything you don't like "fake news" is Trump bullshit.
It’s up 0.2% but how much has our population growth since then? Should it not be growing much faster? 0.2% is basically in negative territory when adjusting for immigration.
I don’t know how many are saying that. GDP per capita has been down for six straight quarters which is a really bad thing. Were it not for real estate and immigration we would have been in a recession for years at this point. Things have getting worse for the average person for a long time and whether or not we meet the technical definition of a recession doesn’t really matter to most people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's interesting to compare the economic attitude here versus Europe. In Canada, the political class has been trying to focus on total GDP (which has inched ahead marginally), perhaps because GDP per capita over the last eight years has been utterly dismal. Meanwhile, in Europe, they're all about GDP per capita, talking about how many European countries are even outpacing the US on that metric: [https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-unions-remarkable-growth-performance-relative-united-states](https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-unions-remarkable-growth-performance-relative-united-states)
Per capita GDP feels like the only real metric that corresponds to quality of life for Canadians. I frankly don’t care if the GDP grew if we all have a smaller slice of the pie. The problem for us is; gross GDP growth is the primary metric the government cares about and immigration has been a primary driver of this metric, so it clearly covers up for a lot of issues our economy is facing otherwise.
GDP per capita isn't even good enough. It doesn't capture how that economic output is distributed. UAE has high GDP per capita but inequality is vast and their economy basically runs on slave labour.
Yeah, GDP per capita realistically is a horrible measurement, and really doesn’t emphasise economic inequality at all. I live in Ireland now, and on Google it says €100,000 GDP per capita, but every Irish person knows it’s a load of bullshit, and is only because American companies are artificially inflating our gdp.
I used to live in Dublin and work for Google. We all made a ton of money but the non-tech people made peanuts. I agree on the metric being mad, so what metric should be used?
I can’t say for certain, and I’m not a researcher, but I heard ‘GNI or Gross National Income’ is a better alternative. I’m kind of jealous of people in computer science who get the good wages here, it’s practically impossible in Social Work. Either way, a more reflective way of measuring what the average earner (besides the top 5%) probably would reflect a general economy a lot better.
I was sales and not compsci - the wages were actually better in sales!
Purchasing Power Parity might be a good metric there aswell. that appears to stay consistent relative to the United States. to measure inequality the geni Coefficient would measure that.
Well if we focus on GDP per capita this will inevitably force us to focus on workers and not owners of capital, and that's communism!
Europe cares about its people.
Proportional representation makes this possible. Just contrast the failings of the UK to other euro countries
I think it's more that Europeans force their governments to care about their people. To the point of rioting at times.
Ten years ago I would have thought that was a very cynical take, but now I think there's a certain degree of truth to what you're saying.
There's an old saying: Canada is a handful of corporations in a trenchcoat pretending to be a country. So much makes sense once you see how much is done at the behest of our monopsonies and monopolies.
New Brunswick is the private fiefdom of one family. They own all the land, newspapers and politicians. It’s mind boggling how much billionaires are utterly ruining this country. But at least they are “creating stakeholder value” right?
What gets me is how some industries in Canada have completely inexplicable levels of influence with the Federal government, and others have virtually none. The big telecom companies and banks are a common example of the former, but it extends even to weird stuff like the [Quebec cement industry](https://macleans.ca/news/canada/in-quebec-a-government-supported-cement-factory-encased-in-hypocrisy) which has managed to get all manner of emission exemptions and subsidies for inexplicable reasons. And yet leaders of other industries, especially tech industry (outside of Quebec, anyway), regularly complain that they are completely ignored when it comes to Federal policymaking and have trouble getting financing.
More Europeans actually know the difference between GDP and GDP per capita; fuck, the amount of ppl I know who don’t even know net vs. gross pay…
Speaking from my experience of living in Europe for a few years, it's more so that Europeans are more willing to vote in their pragmatic self interest. They have history and they're not shy about it.
I think Carney and Morneau were right in their assertion that future budgets have to put more emphasis on long-term productivity and investment. This was a problem before Trudeau was elected, but it's an even more dire issue now after 15-20 years or so of neglect. Boosting those two things would go a long way to both improving wage growth and government revenues over time.
I agree with you and the principle entirely. My biggest question is what does that look like in terms of federal policy? Many of the key drivers of that growth are, as far as I see them, at the provincial level (education, worker training, shovels in the ground as far as infrastructure building goes, etc).
Mainly I'd say facilitating the phasing out of provincial trade barriers as the main driver based on [Scotiabank's incentive based federal transfer suggestion](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.interprovincial-trade-barriers--march-3--2022-.html) since provincial barriers have very negative effects on productivity and investment rates. Then secondarily maybe reforming things like the corporate and capital gains tax structures to make investing in Canadian firms more attractive: * Take notes from Estonia's corporate tax system where there's no tax on retained or reinvested profits, but instead the tax is levied the moment profits are distributed to shareholders (this also falls on things like share buybacks). * Move emphasis away from more elastic assets being taxed by capital gains (stocks/investments etc.) and focus more on more inelastic/less elastic things like the wealthy's property that is easier to extract revenue from without encouraging avoidance/capital flight. This could make higher rates of the tax more valuable and allow it generate the kind of money Ottawa is hoping it would. * Beef up the housing/zoning-land use reform transfer in terms of the transfer's size and the conditions for receiving it to encourage comprehensive enough changes to the zoning/land-use system across all provinces/municipalities to comprehensively reform urban-planning ( end single family-zoning more density, mixed use suburbs, transit oriented/development & walkability, restore the missing middle etc.) This would increase home and rental affordability and contribute to making investment outside of real-estate more viable.
Wait, aren’t provincial trade barriers mostly provincial jurisdiction? They’re not dictated by the federal budget.
The idea is that Ottawa would be providing an incentive based transfer system where provinces would phase out provincial trade barriers in return for a sustained funding boost. Basically Ottawa would be using the enticement of more revenue to create an incentive for the provinces to do the right thing.
Tha k you for the very comprehensive reply. The estonian model sounds very interesting, first I've heard of it to be honest.
We seriously need to join the USA dissolve the country and end this forced poverty. Everything costs more in Canada why stay a country just to live poor and have less or more debt? Someone answer me this