Talk:Economy of Canada

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economy of Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada Top‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business High‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV

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

I second that, too much Heritage gospel, actually as with most economy sections in the English wikipedia to countries 84.56.66.64 (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

only representative democracy in the western hemisphere ?

The article opens with that. I don't understand it. The prime meridian goes through Greenwich in the UK. I'm not sure if there is something special in the use of the word "representative democracy" but as far as I can tell: The UK itself, Iceland, Portugal, France, Spain, and Ireland all fit the bill as well. I could understand 'in the Americas' I guess... but somehow, I don't understand why the U.S. is left out. Some political point? Doesn't seem NPOV, or even factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.133.128 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty Line

The current poverty line statistic used by this page is the basic needs measure published by the Fraser Institute. The main 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

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'.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Someone keeps changing the government public debt from about 33% to about 86%. Without getting into details, the reason for this difference has to do with how accounting standard calculate public debt. It doesn't matter if you disagree with this standard, it is the official standard and created in a transparent manner by qualified people. Stop trying to make a point by playing with the numbers and using weird sources.24.222.225.164 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above manipulation is still happening with no explanation. I just updated the stat from 86% back to 33.8%, this is the number as shown on the reference on this page: http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2012/report-rapport-eng.asp as seen in the table titled, "Net Debt and the Federal Debt at March 31, 2012". I suspect someone who doesn't understand finance and accounting is trying to show a more bleak assessment of the government's financial position to try and make a point. 24.222.225.164 (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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.

Barbados: CANADA INVESTING BILLIONS - July 10, 2006: Barbados Advocate daily newspaper

CaribDigita 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, the heritage spin.... Grrr. Come on Canadians, do something against that crap. 84.56.66.64 (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quantification requests

It would be nice to quantify the economic contribution of energy, oil, logging, etc. -- Beland 21:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What fraction of Canada's energy comes from hydro, oil, etc. and imports vs. domestic? -- Beland 21:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kinda late, but the Northwest Territories should be put on that table, too. After all, it has the highest GDP per capita in the world (C$97 000), far outshining number 1 Luxembourg (C$83 000). Canationalist (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to put Switzerland 'after taxes and health insurance' you might as well identify that the US is 'before taxes and health insurance' in your uneditable table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.136.147 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also problems with the definition of household used. The link to StatCan shows that the figure given for Canada only includes households of two or more people, single person households have a median income of under C$25,000 post tax. This differs from the treatment of other countries such as the UK which include all households regardless of size in the figures. This obviously boost the Canadian figure relative to other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.198 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture

Is it true that Canada is largely free of subsidies? Because I read a news article not long ago that said very much the opposite, that most farms would not survive without subsidies and import tariffs. Is there a source for this claim? TastyCakes (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further internet poking has come up with these links: urban renaissance, witiger.com, both of which state Canadian farmers receive significant subsidies, something on the order of $3 for every $1 profit from the farmer. TastyCakes (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This government of Canada site seems to provide the bottom line: [12], subsidies do exist and are significant in Canada, so I'm gonna change the article. TastyCakes (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too early?

Is it too early to add this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090305.weufreetrad0305/BNStory/politics/home ? Canationalist (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The intro to this article is far too long and includes minute details such as the recent change in NL's unemployment rate that really belong down below. Anyone care to tackle the cleanup? phreakydancin (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have problems reading the first sentance? "Canada has A is B, and C and D and E." Shouldn't it either "Canada has A. Canada is B, C, D, and E." or else "Canada has A and is B, C, D, and E." Bw022 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT MAKES CANADA A LEADING CHEAP ENERGY PRODUCER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.124.202 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Industry contribution to GDP

Here is a citation showing the GDP contribution of resource industries is roughly 6%:

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/gdps04a-eng.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.8.149 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2010 GDP be shown in USD or just Canadian dollars ?

the exchange rate changes every day and the gdp listed is an estimate for 2010 (the year isn't finished). According to cnn money Canada's gdp is $1.6 trillion in US dollars. Should the gdp just be left in Canadian dollars (1.6 trillion) since the 2 currencies are at almost the same rate ?Grmike (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

budget figures

Lets add budget surplus/deficit data. :) We could then perhaps add it to when which party was in power? Or hey, any kind of graph would be fine :)

1997-98 budget - $3.5 billion [13] 1998-99 budget - $2.9 billion [14]

2002 budget - CD $7.0 billion surplus
2003 budget - CD $9.1 billion surplus
2004 budget - CD $1.5 billion surplus
2005 budget - CD $13.2 billion surplus [15]
2006 budget - CD $13.8 billion surplus
2007 budget - CD $9.6 billion surplus
2008 budget - CD $1.1 billion deficit
2009 budget - CD $55.6 billion deficit
2010 budget - CD $40.5 billion deficit
2011 budget - CD $29.6 billion deficit

(LAz17 (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

While surplus and deficit data is important you seem to be attempting to make some sort of political message by wishing to include the power. The party in power at the time has much less to do with the surplus or deficit than the economy landscape existing at that particular date. If people wish to know which party was in power during that date they can easily look that information up themselves. Rukaribe (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free Trade Agreements

This information (and the map) looks a bit old. I think some of the trade agreements have now come into force. Does anyone have any references? Akiracee (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Exports Partners

On the sidebar where the Canada's most important export partners are listed both UK and EU is listed. Wouldn't this cause some misunderstanding by listing these two together since someone might think that UK is not part of the EU. Raikutis - 21/10/2013

External links

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC124%7CCanada&source=1%7CITC) to that could lead directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Canada. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Canada by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent vandalism.

"In 2009 9001% of Canada's exports went to the United States, and 420% of Canada's imports were from the United States."

These numbers are not possible (>100%) and the source listed does not back them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:1429:5D65:372C:A6CF:3B2C (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Economy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Economy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate rental is a GDP-contributing industry?

How so? What do landlords produce? It's just reshuffling money among Canadians; how can it be part of the gross domestic product? There is no wealth produced: someone is getting rich at someone else's expense. It's like a tax. The landlord is like a government, and rent is like a tax paid for occupying a space that is under the jurisdiction of the government. Why don't we count the CCRA as an industry? They also "make" money by extracting it from others, like landlords. Your property taxes are like rent; why don't we count city property taxes as part of the GDP? 24.85.175.81 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do accountants produce? What do hairdressers produce? What do janitors produce? What do taxi drivers produce? The answer is, in each case, the same: a valuable service. In the case of landlords, their service is an especially important one: housing. The question is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.56.170 (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/eco/50543310.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928080738/https://ats.agr.ca/stats/4141_e.pdf to http://ats.agr.ca/stats/4141_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/gdps04a-eng.htm does not redirect to a source, you'll need to fix it or find a new source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58A:101:53E4:BCC7:3EEA:AC98:EF24 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's economy

I cant find much about the so called service industry

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130615182548/http://www.quandl.com/canada to http://www.quandl.com/canada

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False advertising language

The Economy of Canada wiki page is obviously biased painting a better picture of Canada than the truth. Be aware that Wikipedia may represent a grossly biased viewpoint.

Some of the false advertising (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising) is obvious:

"one of" the global leaders of the entertainment software industry - One of how many?

"energy superpower" - Canada is 5th largest exporter of oil, however the vast majority of oil comes from the middle east.

"world's third largest proven petroleum reserves" - No mention of the quality or marketability of the oil reserves.

"high standard of living and quality of life" - A relative term. Relative to which countries?

"highly developed mixed economy" - We have a very stilted economy in favor of a few players and only 3 industries.

"political institutions, distinct from most other countries in the world" - How distinct. We are roughly similar politically to many developed nations including Australia, New Zealand, UK and even the USA. Much of our political decisions follow the United States, our largest trading partner.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imseppl (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

APEC Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Government debt gdp.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Canada Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Affordability

Is the statement that housing affordability is among the worst of advanced economies not a normative statement?

The citation [16] links to OECD data but ignores the fact that this is only since 2015. Therefore the base effect (how cheap housing was in 2015 relative to other advanced economies) is not considered rendering the claim normative.

Perhaps this [17] dataset, which the National Post article referenced, could be utilized or cited to improve the claim? 2001:56A:761C:6600:B06B:FBB9:58D3:8C7B (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]