Economy Headed For Tougher Times

[Fido]

Get the numbers correct.

There has been a net gain in 100,000 jobs over the last 12 months

According to StatsCan the average wage has also increased

The 13 billion in cuts has been primarily in one time expenditures during the crisis and not to ongoing programs

[mrlupin]

So, now the article that you pasted a link to. I read it. While I don't claim to understand the details of all this stuff, I do note that you are basing your post and further claims of economic problems in this country on what the article calls a "Contrarian". The article says "His opinion contrasts with those of his peers, many of whom argued Tuesday that the data they look at simply does not give them reason to be overly worried.". So basically, the majority expert view(if that means anything) is not what you have been saying. So your argument about how Harper is basically ruining the economy is based on one contrarian in a sea of other experts saying that this is not a worry. Perhaps a little more analysis is required

I don't mind credible criticism against my "beloved PM" but it should be credible and not based on what I suspect is partisan thinking based on a dislike of other policies(perhaps in the union area). This in my opinion leads to an non-credible statement of poor economic handling based on an individual contrarian in the hope of influencing for a desired change in government. This individual in the article could be correct as contrarians have been correct before, but I don't think you or I have the economic background to be able to credibly analyze such theory. When that is the case, I go with the vast majority.

I'll break that down for you.

You perceive that I quoted a contrarian and that as such, the idea I am putting forward has little value or credibility. If you read the article, you will notice that the reporter isn't doing you any favors. On one hand you have a respected bank CEO saying that he believes the real estate market is in bubble land. On the other hand the journalist reports that the also respected CEO of Scotia and National Bank says their bank retail loan book has little exposure to downside risk in real estate. Notice those two statement aren't saying the same thing? One says the real estate market is likely in bubble land and the others are saying we aren't exposed to it if it is in bubble land.... Why aren't they exposed you might ask? Your inspirational leader of the Conservatives has backstopped most of their real estate transactions (at least the housing stuff). If you bought a condo last year in YVR and a market correct and you decide to bail and leave the bank with the loss, well CHMC takes the loss and the bank keeps the profit. Cool system isn't it? The banks love it. Under harper the aggregate amount (total mortgages) insured by CHMC has more than doubled to roughly 600 billion.

That part I am hoping you grasp now... If you do not, we can blame it on a frenchman having trouble vulgarizing macroeconomics...

Related to the same topic, I presented what the Harper government has done to fuel this real estate bubble. Again, you can research all the increases to mortgage amortization periods up to 40 years, the backs step taken when they realized they screwed up, the removal of the upper limit for CHMC insurance and the re-institution of that limit after, again, they realized they srewed up. If you want to go further, they also allowed banks to sell subprime loans for a period of approx 6 month just like the US banks did in the US but they put an end to that in short order. (2007 if memory serves me right). That is what the Harper governement deserves credit for. You can dispute that all you want. If you research it you will find I did not pull out these Flaherty accomplishments by out of my dérière...

The only opinion part I am throwing in this is that the real estate market is likely due for a correction. Because of the way Canadian law is structured, it will not happen like it did in the US. It will not be as quick, but it will be twice as long as what we saw in the US. If it blows up during the Harper governement term, their chances of re-election are nil as citizens will associate them with taking an economy in surplus and blowing it up. It isn't that simple yet people will see the easy conclusion and shoot the messenger. Now that is opinion and loaded with jugement...

An you have no idea what my background in economics is...

For the 13 billion dollars, I have no clue where that came from and frankly, as a number taken in a vacuum, it means little to me. Governements (all of them), have that wonderfull tendency of getting the numbers to say what they want their electoral base to hear... How many time have you seen the 300 billion increase in liability that the CHMC has taken on? Is that 13 billion in savings taking that into consideration or is it just promoting fluff to make the right wing electors drool?

[Mizar]

First, I would like to emphasize the original portions of this thread which had nothing to do with real estate but with the economy heading downhill due to layoffs in certain areas(Sears, Best Buy and CRA auditors was part of your evidence). So, I think I have posted enough that this stuff is not evidence of bad economic times.

But the thread has moved on and that is normal and now we are into real estate stuff which we know was a big part of the great recession.

For the real estate stuff, I won't pretend to be qualified as to what is a reasonable amount for the CMHC to be backing. But, all I can say is that you have made your prediction. We will wait and see what happens with the real estate market and if it "Blows up" as you say or makes a nice controlled correction which does not blow up the economy.

As for the spending cuts not meaning anything to you as they came from a vacuum, here is the quote from the National post which would appear to not be one time expenditures as Fido suggests. I stand corrected as this 13.6 billion is a number to be reached at a future date.

"A look at the government’s fiscal update from November shows that it is spending restraint, rather than revenue growth, that is biggest contributor to the improved budget landscape."

"The results are quite astonishing. By 2017/18, after successive years of restraint, the government will have cut $13.6-billion from direct program spending — $3.4-billion this year alone. That’s 10% of all the money Ottawa spends directly. Program spending as a proportion of GDP was 9% in 1983 — by 2018/19 the government forecasts it will be 5.5%."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/31/john-ivison-the-conservatives-have-cut-13-6b-in-program-spending-but-only-veterans-have-noticed/

[mrlupin]

When looking at the economy, here are some of the main things to loo for.

-GDP

-Employment

-Unemployment

-Labor participation rate

-Government debt (at all levels, federal, provincial and even municipal in some cases)

-consumption

-inflation

-output

-price indices

-savings

-Trade

-Debt

-and more....

If Canadians are deep into debt, if their salaries aren't moving at the same pace as inflation, and they are putting a huge percentrage of their net worth into one asset (ie a house) some consequences are to be expected. (ie to the economy) In this case, a housing bubble. If you own a 500000$ condo bought with 5% down and the market correct by 20 percent, your home just lost 100000 in value. The bank wouldn't even renew your mortgage in those conditions unless you antied upan amout so that they aren't taking all the risk. Another scenario, interest rates go up by 2%, try a calculation to see how that would affect the monthly payment. Maybe then you will see how the economy would be affected... If no one can spend due to excessive debt, then they cut vacation, restaurants, airline travel, luxuries, etc...

I could go on but by your posts, either you think I am out to lunch or don't understand any of what I have written.

Cheers

[Mizar]

I will come back in 6 months and look to see how good our forum's new economist is with his prediction. Perhaps CRA will be hiring new tax inspectors by then as a small example of an improving economy .

Until then, I'll just publish this article about a country named Canada that sailed through the great recession in a way that was the envy of the world. Of course, that is the past now. The article does mention concern about the real estate market. A contrarian(whose opinions you like) mentions a small real estate market correction affecting construction and then the economy moving on. But I'll wait to see if the doom and gloom scenario happens. Then we'll see if I was able to understand anything you were posting.

I think that it all depends on the world economy , especially America, as always will be the big effect. Keep in mind that the 2013 economy, that missed expectations(according to the title of the article) had and still has sectors crying out for workers with certain skills.

Canadian economy missed expectations in 2013. Will 2014 perform better?

OTTAWA — Wait until next year.

It’s a familiar refrain for sports teams, but the premise is getting old for Canadians awaiting the return of an economy that can be counted on for jobs, solid incomes and financial security.

As far back as 2010, the Bank of Canada held out the prospect of better times in the year ahead. But unexpected events — whether it was a tsunami in Japan, a debt crisis in Europe, or political shenanigans in Washington — always took the shine off the optimism.

“If you were looking for a theme song for the Canadian economy, it would either be ’With a Little Help from my Friends,’ or, alternatively, Led Zeppelin’s ’The Song Remains the Same,’ ” says Craig Alexander, TD Bank’s chief economist.

He says we’re still waiting for a hand-off from consumer-driven growth.

“We are going to eventually get this rotation toward exports and business investment and away from real estate and consumer spending. We said that would happen in 2013. It didn’t happen. Now we’re saying it is going to start next year,” Alexander said.

He’s not predicting eye-popping growth.

TD, like the Bank of Canada and a consensus of economists, is estimating growth will rebound to about 2.3% in 2014. That would follow two years of sub-par growth at 1.7% in 2012 and an estimated 1.7% growth this year.

The improvement foreseen for 2014 is not much of a bump and won’t lead to massive job creation and steep income growth. But the difference between 1.7% and 2.3% is important.

The Bank of Canada believes economy has the “potential” to grow about two%. At 1.7%, the economy has underachieved its potential whereas, at 2.3%, the economy can eliminate slack and head toward full recovery.

The central bank thinks 2015 will see the gap close further with 2.6% growth, enabling the economy to return to health by the middle or the end of that year.

The other important distinction is the composition of growth.

According to the central bank and others, 2014 will be the year the economy finally enters the zone of what Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz calls self-generating, self-sustaining “natural growth.”

That is critical because Canada, for the past three years, has experienced a kind of un-natural recovery.

Yes, it has recouped all it lost during the recession in terms of output and jobs, but a persistently low inflation reading and continuing slack in production capacity suggest something has not been quite right.

Growth was achieved primarily at first because federal and provincial governments pumped tens of billions of dollars into the economy — all of it borrowed.

The Bank of Canada — as well as its U.S. counterpart — has also kept interest rates at or near rock bottom, encouraging businesses and households to borrow money and spend.

Snatch away the stimulus measures and Canada, some say, would most likely still be in recession.

CIBC chief economist Avery Shenfeld there was nothing fundamentally amiss about Canada’s domestic economy before 2008 when the world’s financial system was dealt a severe blow by a meltdown in the U.S. real estate, which spread to banking and other industries.

While Canada’s economy initially emerged from the 2008-9 global recession in relatively good shape, it has limped along more recently amid weakened demand for many of the country’s major exports.

“Part of the reason Canada hasn’t seen the lift in capital business spending is because the rest of the world has disappointed us,” Shenfeld said.

“Interest rates have been low, financing has been available, but unless you are sure the product demand is going to be there, it’s hard to trigger a boom in capital spending. So a brighter global economy could see a return in capital spending in the resource in sector, which is part of that rotation that’s been missing.”

That’s where a little help from our friends, particularly the United States where 75% of exports end up, will go along way to curing Canada’s ills, say analysts.

Optimism for 2014 is tied to how quickly the U.S. recovers and how much that boosts Canadian exports. The Royal Bank is among the most optimistic, pencilling in a 2.6% expansion next year, and 2.7 the year after that, which will more quickly close the output gap and get the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates in 2015.

Exporters will also benefit from a swooning loonie, analysts say, because, by comparison, the U.S. economy will outperform Canada’s. The loonie has already lost about six% in value in the past year and now hovers around 94 cents US. By many estimates, it could be at least as low as 90 cents by the end of 2014.

With all these factors in Canada’s favour, it’s a wonder the economy won’t do better. But the Bank of Canada has noted that exporters haven’t kept pace, given the rebound in the United States, so they won’t likely benefit as much in 2014 as they have historically.

Part of the reason, says governor Poloz, is that the country lost about 9,000 exporting companies in the aftermath of the 2008-09 recession.

Alexander, TD’s chief economist, lists other factors: an increase in the number of right-to-work states in the U.S. that have brought down labour costs; a shale oil and gas revolution; and low gas prices that have decreased energy input costs for a lot of U.S. manufacturers.

“And we’ve had really strong productivity growth in the U.S.,” Alexander added. “So U.S. manufacturing is far more competitive than it was before and that makes it much tougher for Canadian exporters.”

The consensus view assumes that the modest pick up in exports, which will lead to companies investing in machinery and equipment in order to become more competitive exporters, won’t be counterbalanced by a retrenchment in the household sector and in housing.

Taking the contrary view, as does David Madani, the chief analyst at Capital Economics, leads one to the conclusion that 2014 won’t be any different from 2012 and 2013 in terms of aggregate economic growth — even if the composition is healthier.

With the housing market overbuilt and household debt at record levels — 164% of annual aftertax income — Madani expects a bad year for the construction industry and a slowdown in consumer spending, which makes up the majority of the economy.

“So you have a situation where weakness in housing and slower household consumption growth is now offsetting the improvement in exports and perhaps business investment,” Madani says.

Rather than improving, Madani thinks the economy will deteriorate further to 1.5% growth, which may cause the Bank of Canada to cut interest rates further and even push Finance Minister Jim Flaherty off his austerity drive — although he admits that’s a long shot.

Madani’s advice. Wait till next year and, by next year, he means 2015 or even 2016. By then there will have been a correction in housing and global demand may be strong enough to make more of a difference to Canada.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/01/01/canadian-economy-missed-expectations-in-2013-will-2014-perform-better/

[Mitch Cronin]

But I'll wait to see if the doom and gloom scenario happens. Then we'll see if I was able to understand anything you were posting.

We don't have to wait. That first sentence already demonstrates it.

...boy-ohh-boy... speaking of contrarians... !

[Mizar]

Not sure what you mean Mitch. Clearer explanations needed. Just like when an AME writes down information to be passed on about maintenance..

[mrlupin]

Mizar, you're the one imposing a 6 month sentence to the economy. I would give it up to a year and a half before the real-estate bubble starts deflating and the economy starts sputering in part because of it.

[Mizar]

Thanks Malcolm, I do remember reading about this. Seemed prudent to me but I don't have the expertise to be able to give an overall opinion.

I think Mr. Lupin is saying that the present government shifted the risk to the CMHC. Can that be confirmed by somebody.

[deicer]

How many mortgages of 30 years and over and of what value were signed up for in that time period?

[mrlupin]

How many mortgages of 30 years and over and of what value were signed up for in that time period?

You would need the CHMC statements to find out, but that isn't even the biggest problem. Under the current government, the max value of a home the CHMC would insure was lifted entirely... (and then reset at one million dollars).

Here is a decent snapshot of the CHMC.

http://victoriarealestateexpertblog.com/2012/11/28/cmhcs-600-billion-fiscal-cliff/

[conehead]

I think Mr. Lupin is saying that the present government shifted the risk to the CMHC. Can that be confirmed by somebody.

I was under the impression that CMHC has always borne the risk... It's not something new. Am I wrong?

[mrlupin]

The CHMC bears the risk. Who is the CHMC? It's a federal government institution so it is backstopped by it.

You could also say Canadians are the one bearing the risks...

[J.O.]

I was under the impression that CMHC has always borne the risk... It's not something new. Am I wrong?

At the risk of getting shot at for having a personal opinion ...

While that is true, the loosening of the rules had the effect of increasing CMHC's actual exposure significantly. In the old days when CMHC wouldn't insure a mortgage without a 25% down payment, their exposure to a major economic downturn was significantly less than when that number was reduced to 10%. Changing the rules also resulted in the CHMC having many more insured loans at the high end of their exposure limit as more folks could "afford" to enter the market. Having more folks able to enter the market also put pressure on real estate inventory, thus driving up prices - especially in large centres. All of these factors have taken us away from our former "conservative" approach to real estate. It became more about short term gain and created a false bump to the economy. The wider the pendulum swings, the farther it has to swing on the other side to counterbalance it. Unfortunately, unlike an insurance company that raises premiums as exposure increases, CMHCs premiums weren't increased enough to cover their exposure (IMHO). Meaning we will be left holding the bag.

The rule changes may have seemed like a great idea at the time, but the fact that they were largely reversed tells us all we need to know about how it actually turned out. We can only hope that they pulled back in time. Personally, I don't think they did.

[conehead]

The CHMC bears the risk. Who is the CHMC? It's a federal government institution so it is backstopped by it.

You could also say Canadians are the one bearing the risks...

This is correct. It is the Canadian taxpayers bearing the risk, always has been. NOT the banks. Mortgage financing is a great gig for the big banks, it's guaranteed profits and very little risk. If a borrower defaults, the CMHC (you and me) ponies up and pays the bank. The game is rigged in favour of the banksters.

[mrlupin]

If you do more research on the CHMC and the Harper governement, you will find that way back when they got into power, they had a "conservative" idea and were to seek the privatisation of the CHMC. That isn't a bad idea, Australia did the same thing and then the rates you pay for insurance actually vary depending on each individual case (like normal insurance). Such a system would have prevented the runoff in house prices as prices would have been higher for zero down borrowing.

Instead, through their policy, the Harper governement has blown up a housing bubble. Although you can blame consumers for getting deeper into dept, the conservatives made policies that made it easier for many Canadians to become debt serfs.

The other side of the coin is that getting Canadians additional credit through increase values of their homes, easier borrowing etc, saved the Canadian Economy from experiencing a US style recession at the same time as our neighboors to the south. That was possible through increased spending from the consumer (via credit) and a strong housing market. (Our exportations certainly didn't increase during that time, if anything the trade deficit just kept growing... It's been negative for 23 consecutive months. We import more than we export. ) Now that the average consumer is deep into debt, he will have to pay his way out and that takes time and austerity. Those aren't the conditions to fuel a growing economy... just bank profits.

[Mizar]

The other side of the coin is that getting Canadians additional credit through increase values of their homes, easier borrowing etc, saved the Canadian Economy from experiencing a US style recession at the same time as our neighboors to the south. That was possible through increased spending from the consumer (via credit) and a strong housing market. (Our exportations certainly didn't increase during that time, if anything the trade deficit just kept growing... It's been negative for 23 consecutive months. We import more than we export. ) Now that the average consumer is deep into debt, he will have to pay his way out and that takes time and austerity. Those aren't the conditions to fuel a growing economy... just bank profits.

So there you go. I was wondering what the reason may have been for the government to do all this and as you say, they "saved the Canadian Economy from experiencing a US style recession at the same time as our neighboors to the south"

By the way, they are not "Boors"(neighboors? )

If they had not "saved the economy, the same posters would likely be criticizing. So at worst, if things do blow up as you suggested they might, at least it was delayed and at a time of improving economies elsewhere to help us. But if things work out relatively smoothly, which they very well might, then I would call it good stewardship of the economy either way.

Trade deficit does not equate to bad economy. But as you say there might be some austerity to pay off debts. I think the real effect on us will be the world and especially the US economy. As always.

I do thank you for emphasizing this important issue and its relevence .

[mrlupin]

So there you go. I was wondering what the reason may have been for the government to do all this and as you say, they "saved the Canadian Economy from experiencing a US style recession at the same time as our neighboors to the south"

By the way, they are not "Boors"(neighboors? )

If they had not "saved the economy, the same posters would likely be criticizing. So at worst, if things do blow up as you suggested they might, at least it was delayed and at a time of improving economies elsewhere to help us. But if things work out relatively smoothly, which they very well might, then I would call it good stewardship of the economy either way.

Trade deficit does not equate to bad economy. But as you say there might be some austerity to pay off debts. I think the real effect on us will be the world and especially the US economy. As always.

I do thank you for emphasizing this important issue and its relevence .

I didn't know I was dealing with the spelling police...

If that is all you grasped out of all I wrote, I suppose, I just have to accept that. One doesn't choose his public. This thread hasn't attracted much of an audience,(except you of course) and you've just tried to prove me wrong at every point until I said something good about your estimed conservatives. Even when a point is well documented, you fail to grasp even the faintest of idea or concept since you just adhere to ideology instead of ideas. Enjoy the rest of the thread, I plan to update it as I get more info.

Cheers,

[Mizar]

I didn't know I was dealing with the spelling police...

If that is all you grasped out of all I wrote, I suppose, I just have to accept that. One doesn't choose his public. This thread hasn't attracted much of an audience,(except you of course) and you've just tried to prove me wrong at every point until I said something good about your estimed conservatives. Even when a point is well documented, you fail to grasp even the faintest of idea or concept since you just adhere to ideology instead of ideas. Enjoy the rest of the thread, I plan to update it as I get more info.

Cheers,

I think it might be you that fails to grasp what I am saying. You say that I tried to prove you wrong at every point when on my very last post I said to you and I quote "I do thank you for emphasizing this important issue and its relevance ."

So that you understand, this means that I felt that you had brought up a good and important point. Now you are complaining. On top of your good point, you followed up with a general statement that it was done to pretty much save the economy. Well, that is a good thing I'd say and deserving of kudos..

But I think there are two separate issues here. The first one that you stated about the economy now going downhill, Then the separate second one which is that there about the future possible consequences of the real estate situation. On the first, I'd say and have said that the layoffs you mentioned don't necessarily mean anything. Overall, I think a relatively good economy has been stagnant and as I have continued to say, most depends on outside the country influences for the near future but that the government is doing a good job in reducing deficits(good stewardship). On the second, you have basically said that there is risk to the economy based on CMHC but that it was done for the right reasons by the present government. I agree,

As for the Neighboor thing, I just found it kind of funny. Thought it might be intentional on your part. Sorry. By the way it is esteemed not estimed.

[chockalicious]

Nothing like taking a dump on a discussion by getting all pissy to take a shot at spelling or typo.

FWIW I have a feeling that Mr Lupin probably has skills in more than one language.

[FA@AC]

FWIW I have a feeling that Mr Lupin probably has skills in more than one language.

Yes, and under the same screen name, unlike Woxof/Alkaid/Mizar.

[Mizar]

Sorry, I had thought he was putting some humour in when he said neighboors. I guess it was just not knowing what the squiggly red line means. Anyways, good stewardship. Mind you, at my location, I have a red squiggly under neighbours.

Woxof? Alkaid? Sound like interesting handles that others have had. Will have to read their posts to see if we think alike.

The second one sounds like a NEIGHBOUR of mine. Mitch might get it . Maybe not.

[conehead]

So, the moral of the story is...... Buy banks.

True. If you can't beat 'em, join'em. I've made some money from banks and oil companies, evil as they may be.

[thor]

So, the moral of the story is...... Buy banks.

Absolutly. ~ 3% dividends.

[Mizar]

First update:

Part A is real estate - waiting 1.5 years.

Part B is jobs - see article below for those all worried. As stated, for the last few years the trend has been good. Numbers for 1 month cannot be relied upon. Should be good news for all to hear.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/canadas-labour-market-perks-up/article16745841/

Canada sees slight bump to job numbers

More workers marched into self-employment and the public sector in January as the labour market returned to its months-long trend of modest job gains.

Employment rose by 29,400 jobs, recouping some of December’s losses. The jobs gain, along with a drop in the number of people looking for work, lowered Canada’s jobless rate to 7 per cent, the same level as a year ago.

Jobs numbers have see-sawed lately but the six-month average shows increases of about 15,000 a month. The services side of the economy continues to lead employment growth, while wage growth picked up last month, a good sign for household finances.

“Jobs data, over all, remain consistent with an economy that is expanding at a moderate pace,” said David Watt, chief economist at HSBC Bank Canada.

Details of Friday’s Statistics Canada report were mixed. Full-time positions rebounded from a month-earlier decline, though over the past year part-time positions have increased 2.3 per cent, outstripping a 0.5-per-cent gain in full-time work.

Self-employment accounted for much of last month’s job growth, increasing by 28,300. Small gains in public-sector employment offset a drop in the private sector, which has now shed jobs for two straight months.

Sahil Zaman is among those who have jumped into self-employment. He’s a lawyer in Toronto but left the field last summer because he felt his former job, articling in mergers and acquisitions, wasn’t for him.

The 28-year-old now develops cloud-based work-flow software for law firms. “I’m making much less now,” he said.

Economists tend to view self-employment as being of less quality, though Mr. Zaman says he feels more fulfilled as an entrepreneur and expects steady pay will come within a year.

“I definitely see a lot of people start to consider entrepreneurship as a valid option, even compared with a couple of years ago,” Mr. Zaman added.

Over the past year, the private sector has led gains, growing 1 per cent, while public-sector employment is up 0.5 per cent and self-employment has risen 0.3 per cent.

More people are dropping out of the labour market altogether. The participation rate fell one notch to 66.3 per cent, its lowest level in nearly 12 years as 20,900 workers left.

“There are certainly signs that some workers are getting discouraged, but the drop is no doubt also being fostered by the increasing impact of population aging,” noted Benoit Durocher, senior economist at Desjardins.

More men ages 25 and over landed jobs last month. The greying of the work force continues, with more than 70 per cent of the total employment increase in the past half-year among the 65-and-over crowd, noted HSBC’s Mr. Watt.

Wages firmed. Average hourly wages accelerated to 2.6 per cent from a year ago, the fastest rate since last April and stronger than the pace of inflation.

Canada’s labour market is tilting toward the services sector, which has grown at more than twice the pace of the goods-producing side in the past year.

Most job gains in the past year have been in professional, scientific and technical services, finance, insurance and real estate along with health care and social assistance.

Professional services and health care continue to be an area of growth. Professional, scientific and technical services added another 16,600 positions, bringing the sector’s one-year job gains to 80,100.

SAS Canada is among those planning to expand. The business analytics firm will add about 30 permanent, full-time positions this year, boosting its Canadian work force by 9 per cent. It’s looking for account executives, software consultants and marketing executives.

The economy “has been steady and predictable” in the past few years, said president Carl Farrell in an interview, “and our market segment is growing much faster than the Canadian economy, which helps us then plan going forward.”

Statscan’s labour force survey is based on a sample size of about 56,000 households. The standard error is 28,900, meaning there is a two-thirds likelihood last month’s employment gains ranged between 500 and 58,300.