Talk:Economy of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Economy of Canada as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.

Contents


What a load of "spin." I can see that here too, I shall have to write the facts with a NPOV....DW

[edit] Poverty Line

The current poverty line statistic used by this page is the basic needs measure published by the Fraser Institute. The previous statistic used was the low-income cut off published by Statistics Canada. The LICO is widely used as a poverty line indicator by relavent groups (and identified as one), though its intent is not to serve this purpose.

Information available here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2001/07/23/poverty010723.html

The basic needs measure does not have a similar level of usage as a poverty line measure. I have reverted the statistic used to the LICO, because this is more widely used, until further debate and analysis can be done to decide which metric is more appropriate for this article.

As explained in the poverty in Canada article, Statistics Canada has abdicated the role of producing any poverty measure.[1] The Fraser Institute does produce a poverty threshold metric. It is quite common for left-wing groups in Canada to misquote a statistic produced by Statistics Canada, called the low-income cut-off rate, as a poverty measure because it is quite high relative to the poverty threshold approach.[2] To exaggerate the point further, groups also quote StatsCan's pre-tax measure rather the after-tax measure, even though StatsCan favours the use of the after-tax measure for obvious reasons.[3] All-in-all, this results in more than tripling the figure from the poverty threshold approach to the pre-tax relative income StatsCan measure. An IP address is now trying to reinsert the pre-tax LICO figure into this article, even though they are aware of the dynamics above as they have also edited the Poverty in Canada article, thus implying that Canada (a wealthy country with many social programs) has more poverty than countries like Columbia, Syria, and Thailand in the Wikipedia poverty list. Of course the Fraser Institute can't compete with StatsCan, but the extent of use is less relevant than whether the measure is on point or not. StatsCan itself says their measure is not. Deet (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please do not dismiss my concerns by the fact I am not a registered user.

To continue:

The concern here arises from what constitutes a "poverty measure". The European Union, for example, uses a relative measure. This contrasts with the U.S. which uses an absolute measure. The Fraser Institute's basic needs measure constitutes an absolute measure. I am not here to argue which form of measurement is correct, but moreso, which in practice is used more commonly to measure or indicate poverty, regardless of their intent or designation. I am not here to further a "left-wing" agenda, nor do I belong to a "left-wing group". My edits to poverty in Canada, which I fully stand by, is designed to accurately capture the debate about which measure to use, as opposed to propose an argument itself. Wikipedia's role is not to create argumentative essays on a topic, but rather to accurately summarize debate. There is a debate in this country about what to use as a poverty measure, and what is accurate.

This article clearly identifies such: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/poverty-line.html

To quote directly from this article by the CBC: "In Canada, there isn't a standard measure of poverty. The most accepted one, however, is the LICO."

You are correct in stating the after-tax measure is more relavent. I have reverted the figure to that measure. However, as it stands, the LICO (whether we like it or not) is used more widely as a poverty measure, far more widely, than the basic needs measure. It therefore, until further debate and analysis by other parties, should be used as the poverty measure in this article. 24.85.222.215 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Using a metric designed by StatsCan that StatsCan itself is not a poverty measure is just plain wrong. The CBC article you quote is incomplete and does not even compare the two measures. According to the Statistics Canada article they are possibly the best statistical orgianization in the world and their opinions on their own metric should trump that of the CBC hands down. Deet (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please continue debate at this location to centralize the discussion: Talk:List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty#Canada

[edit] Broken down into provinces

The economy of each province is very very different. This article should be broken down into provinces eventually. There is already an article on the Economy of Quebec. Are there articles for the other regions? -- Mathieugp 15:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Useful information!

The information herein is of utmost difficulty to procure on any other site. Very accurate and informative! I am very pleased with what I have learned! -----CANADA

Excuse me, same-sex marriage legislation has had an effect on Canada-US trade? What a load of crap.

No kidding. This article needs some work, there are sentences that go nowhere and sentences that repeat and sentences that are just stupid or are flaky unbased opinions. 128.62.91.81 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Much of this articles information should be taken carefully, with much of it being misinterpreted and misquoted (many of the G8 references, for example). This article might as well be called 'Canada, my favourite country'.

[edit] Softwood lumber dispute incredibly US-biased

The lumber dispute between the countries is not based on Canadian subsidies. The dispute is about higher quality Canadian lumber being slapped with a 29% tariff by the US government [4] in order to prop up or (yes!) subsidize their own lumber industry. That Canadian lumber is subsidized is also a very well-known myth north of the border [5]. There is also an American group who recognizes that US consumers are the ones getting a raw deal for this [6] and the ones profitting at their expense is the US lumber industry.

I agree Jacknife737 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Softwood lumber dispute

Since the softwood lumber dispute has been settled (at least legally), I do not think it should say current or ongoing or that the US industry is claiming anything. Better to say something like, "Past disputes such as the softwood lumber dispute have caused tension between the countries." Bw022 17:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Whose values, and how does it relate to the economy?

From the U.S. relations section: "The two countries also seem to be heading in different directions where values are concerned, and this could begin to provide problems with relations in the future."

Where is there evidence for this diverging of values? Is this claim meant to argue that the governments are enacting laws that differ from one another, or the people themselves are beginning to change their minds on social issues? This seems to be a statement meant to emiliorate sentiment spread by mass media rather than reflect data gathered from independent research. Unless someone can back this claim up, I would suggest that the U.S.-Canadian economic relations section be reworked. Perhaps a new title for the section would help, since this is an article on the economy of Canada, not its latest breaks from U.S. political policy campaigning.

And, as an above commentator mentioned, where is the evidence for same-sex marriage having any impact on trade relations with Canada? All of these claims are highly dubious unless backed up with credible, independent research.

[edit] Governmental Debt

I'm planning to add a section under political issues about the Canadian governmental debt, because it really is a major political/economic topic. Any feedback? I'll add it as soon as possible. Theonlyedge 12:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


We need to Change the debt figures they are 2 years out of Date. We have data for the last fiscal year end (2005) and at that point in time the debt stood at 481.2 Billion dollars. Thats 20 billion less than the stated figure. Huston we have a problem, all the latest numbers are out (IE to yaer end 2005, and this article is out of date.) so its time to put em up.--134.117.157.189 05:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exports

I have not done it this minute, but I will be changing the level of exports to the figure for 2005 as according to stats Canada and cited to the CBC, of $516.4 Billion Dollars.--24.222.65.32 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Okay I dont know how to thouch the pannel so Ill leave it for someone else. Here is the link. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/08/emerson.html

[edit] Fact remains: if the Can. economy sneezes, B'dos catches a cold

The new facts appearently have been released on Canadian Investments around the world.

CaribDigita 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gov't "intervention" in the Economy

The overview states that "Canada is a free market economy with slightly more government intervention than the United States, but much less than most European nations." Can someone tell me how these assessments have been measured? Absent some supporting material rooted in a set of criteria enjoying wide consensus, this sounds to me like one of those things supposedly "everyone knows" but which might prove more complicated than it first appears.

In addition, I'm not sure the word "intervention" isn't inherently POV, inasmuch as it appears to portray an authority or outside agent inserting itself into a sphere of activity in which it is not a natural participant. I agree that this is a widely-held view of government's role in the economy, but it's hardly a neutral one. The term used to describe such activity ought to be, however, and I'd propose "participation" as a less value-laden alternative to "intervention". --Rrburke 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The intro reads like a grade 8 research paper. It should contain only hard facts, not vague observations. TastyCakes 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the numbers out of date

Like why are we using 2003 Debt figures. At the end of the fiscal 2005 the Canadian Government Debt stood at 488 billion. This article is grossly out of date. --Meanie 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

Isn't it ironic that it's only A-class here but FA on Portuguese Wikipedia? After all, a fair bit of us live in Canada. Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You look at any important article related to Canada, and there's always inter-language link to a great Portuguese equivalent. It suspect it's the work a dedicated handful of Portugese-speaking Canadians who love to show off their adopoted land. I belive even Rush (band) was a FA on Portuguese WP. More power to them I say, whish we had more like them on DE, ES, RU, ZH, etc. Kevlar67 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantification requests

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (May 2007)
  • It would be nice to quantify the economic contribution of energy, oil, logging, etc. -- Beland 21:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What fraction of Canada's energy comes from hydro, oil, etc. and imports vs. domestic? -- Beland 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely large discrepancy, CIA world factbook vs OECD & Canadian government

I was curious about Canada's national debt-to-GDP ratio, because I've read before that it was getting better. I have found two references: [7], which claims to be OECD numbers, but are released by the Canadian government (I do not have access to OECD data from their web site), and the CIA World Factbook (direct link by googling it: [8]. The two ratios are 30.2% (OECD, federal+provincial) or 65.4% (CIA).

That is a really large difference. It should be explained in the article, because these are two very important sources. The OECD source concludes that Canada is, by far, the least indebted G7 nation, while CIA concludes that Canada is the most indebted.

If nobody explains it, I'll get the ball rolling by changing the numbers in the article. No doubt some interested party will then rise to the defense of the CIA world factbook.


Loisel 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I dug around some more. There's something funny about the statistics, and so I've updated the article accordingly. At [9], you can clearly see that the OECD claims Canada's debt-to-gdp ratio is ~70%. At [10], you can read the Canadian government claiming that, according to OECD standards, its debt-to-gdp ratio is ~30%. Someone's lying, but I guess this article is not the place to debate that. Loisel 20:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the final result of my looking around is this. Apparently, the Canadian government likes to talk about net financial liability (30.2% per OECD), whereas everyone else talks about gross financial liability (68% per OECD). I think they like the 30.2% figure because then can then claim to be the least indebted G8 country, and the 68% makes them look like one of the worst. [11] Loisel 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


NOMINAL GDP

Being PPP GDP but using up to date exchange rates, nominal gdp should be the first statistic people look to when sizing up an economy. Being the 8th largest economy in the world at current exchange rates is quite an accomplishment. It's surprising to read almost nothing about that on a page people look to for information about Canada's economy.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Loonie reverse view.png

Image:Loonie reverse view.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.



Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Comparison Table

Why is the economic comparison table in a template? I can't figure out how to edit it... I'd like to edit it because I don't like it much. Why is California shown? Shouldn't it be the richest (New Jersey) and the poorest (Mississippi) household income states shown? And shouldn't the richest and poorest province income be shown for comparison? Also, the exchange rates seem wrong. Bank of Canada lists the average 2006 exchange rate to have been 1.134 CAD/USD. Can only guess how screwed up the other countries ones are. I'm also not a huge fan of doing it by PPP, I think nominal is less subjective... But perhaps the table could have both? Anyway, can someone tell me how to edit a template? Otherwise I'm going to delete the whole thing and insert my own table. TastyCakes (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)