Jump to content

Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts


The release of Statistics Canada’s monthly labour force report is always keenly awaited by economists and policy-makers as a key indicator of Canada’s economic direction. But this month’s release will naturally attract more attention than normal, as it is the last jobs report before the federal election.

This latest report, based on the Labour Force Survey (LFS) conducted in September, showed a strong increase in employment (up 54,000 from the previous month), an even stronger increase in full-time jobs (up 70,000), a 0.2 point decline in the unemployment rate (to 5.5%), and an acceleration in hourly wage growth (up 4.3% over year earlier levels).

Despite that positive news, not too much significance should be ascribed to swings in the monthly jobs numbers: LFS data are notoriously prone to significant month-to-month volatility, which does not necessarily indicate a reliable trend. However, this final pre-election release does provide a convenient opportunity to review Canada’s longer-term labour market performance under respective federal governments. This report disaggregates the full Statistics Canada labour force series (going back to 1976) to compare how Canada’s labour market has fared under the current federal government, in comparison to those that held office previously during the 43-year covered by the Statistics Canada database.

By several indicators, Canada’s labour market has strengthened considerably in the four years since the last federal election. This positive outcome reflects many factors, and cannot be ascribed solely to the actions of the federal government (which has an important but limited impact on Canada’s economy). Nevertheless, having been achieved in the face of several significant economic headwinds (including international trade tensions and uncertainty, and fluctuations in world prices for Canadian commodities), this labour market improvement is a notable and positive development.


Statistics Canada’s LFS provides a consistent and comprehensive monthly database on labour market outcomes dating back to January 1976. (Earlier data are also available, but incorporate different definitions and methodologies, and hence are not strictly comparable.) This report analyses the evolution of several core labour market variables, through eight consecutive Prime Ministerial terms in office, as defined in the table below. 

Prime Ministerial Terms
PM Came to Power Months in Office
P.Trudeau 1 (Jan.76)¹ (40)¹ 
Clark May 79 9
P.Trudeau 2 Feb 80 55
Mulroney Sept 84 109
Chrétien Oct 93 122
Martin Dec 03 25
Harper Jan 06 117
J.Trudeau Oct 15 47²
¹ Calculations begin with earliest Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey data in January 1976. ² To September 2019 (most recent LFS data).

Seven different Prime Ministers were elected to office during this period (Pierre Elliot Trudeau had two distinct terms, interrupted by the short tenure of Joe Clark in 1979-80). We exclude the two very short terms in office of John Turner and Kim Campbell: both of whom became Prime Minister solely via internal leadership convention (and were defeated in subsequent federal elections), and neither of whom served in office long enough to meaningfully impact economic policy or conditions. (In our comparisons, their tenures have been appended to those of the elected Prime Ministers they replaced: Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney, respectively.) Since the LFS data began partway through Pierre Trudeau’s 1974-1979 term as Prime Minister, only the latter part of that period is captured in the following comparisons.


Our analysis considers five key indicators reported by the monthly LFS:

  • Growth in total employment.
  • Unemployment rate.
  • Share of part-time jobs in job-creation.
  • Employment rate.
  • Participation rate.

In every case data are considered for the entire working age populationdefined by Statistics Canada to include all Canadians 15 and over. For the unemployment rate, data are also provided for the youth labour market (comprising Canadians aged 15 to 24), which is often considered separately due to the particular challenges faced by young workers. Our comparisons use seasonally adjusted data (to control for the seasonal timing of respective changes in government). Average annual growth rates (for employment), and cumulative changes (for part-time employment, the employment rate, and the participation rate), are calculated  by comparing the first and last months of each Prime Minister’s time in office. Average levels (for unemployment rates) are computed over the entire period of each Prime Minister’s tenure (including the first and last months).


Job Creation:


Total employment grew at an average annual rate of 1.6% during the current government’s term. That’s significantly faster than growth under either the Harper or Martin governments, but slower than under the Chrétien government. Full-time employment increased slightly faster than total employment since October 2015: recording an average annual increase of 1.65% per year, two-thirds faster than under the previous government.

Unemployment Rate:


The unemployment rate averaged 6.3% during the current government’s term in office. That’s lower than any of the governments since the 1970s, and an improvement of 0.8 percentage point compared to the Harper government. By mid-2019, the unemployment rate declined to its lowest point in the history of the LFS data.

Youth Unemployment Rate:


The decline in the average unemployment rate for young people (aged 15-24) under the current government was larger than the overall decline in unemployment: the youth rate fell by 1.6 percentage points, compared to the average under the Harper government. It has averaged 11.8% since October 2015also the lowest rate of any government since the 1970s.

Part-Time Work:


83% of the net new jobs created under the Justin Trudeau government have been full-time; just one-sixth were part-time jobs. That compares favourably to the Harper government, for which over one-quarter of all new jobs created were part-time. Reduced reliance on new part-time jobs resulted in a leveling off of the part-time share of total employment. The part-time share had been increasing fairly steadily for several decades, but has remained stable at just under 19% of employment under the current government.

Employment Rate:


The employment rate can be a more accurate indicator of labour market conditions than the unemployment rate. This is because jobless people may give up looking for work (or may not even start looking) when they don’t think jobs are available. They then disappear from labour market statistics (since they are considered “inactive”), which artificially reduces the official unemployment rate. The employment rate increased decently during the current government’s term, by 0.8 percentage point. That was in sharp contrast to a substantial decline in the employment rate (of 1.2 percentage points) under Stephen Harper. The biggest improvement in the employment rate of any Prime Minister in this period was recorded during the three Chrétien terms (when the employment rate increased almost 5 percentage points, driven by the long economic recovery after the 1991-92 recession).

Labour Force Participation:


Another sign of job market well-being is a higher rate of labour force participation: that is, the proportion of working-age Canadians who are either working, or actively seeking work. Changes in participation can reflect demographic changes (such as women’s increased paid work or an aging population). Participation also responds to the perceived strength of job opportunities: it typically declines during periods of labour market weakness, and in turn can lead to long-term non-employment and exclusion. After several years of falling participation (including a full percentage-point drop under the Harper governmentthe worst of any Prime Minister considered), the decline in participation slowed markedly after October 2015. It declined by 0.16 percentage point under the current government. This was despite the underlying downward pressure on participation resulting from continuing ageing of the populationand hence is another indicator of improving labour market opportunities.

Summary and Evaluation:

By the indicators surveyed here, Canada’s labour market has strengthened considerably in the last four years. Job-creation accelerated; the unemployment rate fell to multi-decade lows; the decline in labour force participation slowed; and reliance on part-time work declined slightly. For the first time since the 1990s, a larger share of adult Canadians was employed.

There are many factors, of course, contributing to this improvement in labour market performance under the current governmentmany of which have little to do with specific federal government policies. After all, in a mostly private-sector economy, government actions have an important but limited impact: driven both by direct government activity (public sector employment, public investment, etc.) and by the indirect impact of government policies (like taxes, spending, trade policies, etc.) on private-sector spending and activity. Given several negative factors affecting Canada’s global economic relations over this period (including deep uncertainty in trade; the application of U.S. tariffs on key Canadian exports; and the decline of world prices for key resources), the post-2015 improvement in labour markets is clearly attributable to domestic conditions. In this regard, the federal government’s willingness to increase program spending (rather than prioritizing deficit reduction), and the impact of its targeted income supports (such as the Canada Child Benefit) on the spending capacity of low-income households, will certainly have contributed to the notable improvement in labour market performance.

The strengthening of Canada’s labour market also provides some context for discussions of “affordability” that have played an important role in this election campaign so far. To be sure, many Canadians face a crisis of affordability, arising particularly from key components of living expenses (such as housing, child care, and prescription drugs) whose costs have increased far faster than overall consumer prices. However, measured by labour incomes, Canadians on average have clearly made progress over the last four years: a larger share of Canadians is working, and at the same time average real wages have increased modestly. Average hourly wages grew at an annual rate of about 2.7% since the last election: about three-quarters of a percentage point faster than average consumer prices; and more recently, hourly wages are growing by over 4% per year. Addressing the continuing and genuine challenges of affordability faced by so many Canadians, will require a multi-pronged approach:

  • A future federal government must commit to continuing strong expansion in employment: making job-priority the top macroeconomic priority; bringing the unemployment rate down furtherand keeping it there for an extended period to allow workers to win better wages and working conditions.
  • Government must also proactively strengthen institutional supports for faster wage growth: a key priority in this regard should include implementing a $15 minimum wage in the federal jurisdiction, as advocated in the CCPA’s Alternative Federal Budget.
  • It must also address crucial affordability challenges with targeted policy interventions in high priority areas: such as housing, child care, and prescription drugs. Again, details of how to implement and fund these programs can be found in the Alternative Federal Budget.

The improvement in labour market outcomes since 2015 has obviously not solved all the problems faced by working Canadians and their families. But it has been important in expanding the opportunity to work, and modestly enhancing workers’ bargaining power to win better incomes and conditions. Over the last year, for example, with the unemployment rate at historic lows, the incidence of temporary work declined, average wage growth accelerated, and union density increased. This confirms the importance of expansive macroeconomic policy to both the quantity and quality of jobs. Tightening fiscal and labour policies, to once again prioritize deficit reduction and program spending restraint (rather than job-creation, stronger income supports, and new program spending), would likely lead to a reversal of this progress.


Jim Stanford is Harold Innis Industry Professor of Economics at McMaster University, Director of the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute, and a Research Associate of the CCPA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

LOL..of course job numbers will go up. That’s what happens when you stop paying them with Canada’s new currency..monopoly money…to stay home. They are forced to get a JOB and fill one of the many help wanted ads.

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The federal government is thinking about taxing YOUR HOME with a new home equity tax, and they don’t want you to know about it.

Politicians deny they’re planning on taxing the sale of your home, but you deserve to know what’s going on so you can stand up and stop this new Home Equity Tax before it happens.
Here’s the latest: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation paid academics at the University of British Columbia about $250,000 for a study that’s pushing a brand new home equity tax on YOUR HOUSE.

Here’s one example. The academics suggest a surtax of 0.5 per cent PER YEAR on the value of a home above $1 million. If you’re an averagehomeowner in Toronto or Vancouver, that could mean a bill of about $1,000 per year. There’s a catch: the bill would just grow until you sell the home, then it would come due.

After just 10 years that would cost you about $10,000!

The study says a home equity tax should target the “housing wealth windfalls gained by many home owners while they sleep and watch TV.”
Is that what you think of when you think of how hard you’ve worked to own your home and to take care of it? That you’re laying around and watching TV?
When you sell your home or give it to your children, do you think Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government should take some of your family’s money?
Even if your house isn’t valued at $1 million right now, you know that it won’t 


Home Surtax in the Works from Trudeau 


CMHC-funded group proposes surtax on homes over $1 million to address housing inequality 

Generation Squeeze argues that the surtax could raise between $4.54 billion and $5.83 billion to go toward other housing projects

In a report released on Wednesday, the research organization Generation Squeeze argues that such a surtax would hit nine per cent of homes across the country and could raise between $4.54 billion and $5.83 billion to go toward other housing projects.

The proposed surtax rates would range from 0.2 per cent on homes valued between $1 million to $1.5 million and up to one per cent tax on homes valued at over $2 million. The tax would only apply to the value in excess of the $1 million threshold.




  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Trudeau’s “diversity” picks in charge of the Military.


Joly won't rule out sending weapons to Ukraine over Russian military offensive, says Ottawa 'actively' engaged

Pressed repeatedly on whether Canada would send weaponry to help defend Ukrainian troops in the circumstance of a Russian invasion, Joly said only that her team is actively engaged in the issue.

“The most important thing right now is really to work with Ukrainians to deal with their security threats. That's what we'll be doing. My colleague Anita Anand, the defence minister, is actively on this file as well with allies…Ukraine's security is Europe's security and therefore it is the world and Canada's security,” she said.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably brings a tear to Justin’s eyes that this poor downtrodden man is being harassed by the Police so much !


Judge hands refugee 44th conviction, asks why he has not been deported

A Niagara area judge is questioning why a violent refugee who has received more than 40 convictions since arriving from Syria has not been deported, according to the Niagara Falls Review. 

“He has lived a life in Canada of persistent criminality,” said Judge Joseph De Filippis in the Ontario Court of Justice in St. Catharines on Thursday. “As an aside, and respectfully, I don’t understand why he’s still in Canada.” 

Mohammed Al-Samaneh, a 32-year-old man who came to Canada as a Syrian refugee, has 44 convictions for multiple violent crimes such as assault and forcible confinement. Al-Samaneh had been placed on the National Flagging System, which identifies high-risk, violent criminals. 

Al-Samaneh most recently pleaded guilty to committing an indecent act and failing to comply with probation. He had been charged with criminal harassment. 

The court heard that a young woman was cleaning a Niagara Falls, Ont., restaurant in 2020 when she was approached in the reception area by an unknown male. The woman told the man that the restaurant was closed and asked him to leave. 

He ignored the request and followed her around the restaurant. He told her that she was “cute,” asked for a hug and masturbated in front of her. 

The woman attempted to walk away but he kept following her while continuing to masturbate. 

Al-Samaneh was arrested later that day. 



Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP…nothing ever changes….the wheels on the bus go round and round. How long before the US does the same thing in this tit for tat diplomacy.


Canadian truckers crossing U.S. border now exempt from new COVID-19 rules, feds say

The federal government is backing down from mandating COVID-19vaccinations for cross-border Canadian truckers just days before the new rule was set to take effect.


A spokesperson for the Canadian Border Services Agency told Global News Wednesday that unvaccinated Canadian truckers crossing from the United States will remain exempt from testing and quarantine requirements after arriving in the country.

Those requirements will, however, still apply to unvaccinated or partially vaccinated foreign nationals, including American truck drivers starting this Saturday, spokesperson Rebecca Purdy said.

Those truckers will be forced to turn back to the U.S. until they are fully inoculated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. will not descend into civil war or dictatorship, but it will become increasingly volatile and Canada must prepare 

The U.S. is going through a once-in-a-generation political crisis that will fester for the next several years

In the wake of the first anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, there has been much discussion in the media about what the next couple of years may portend for American democracy, with some predicting civil war or the rise of autocracy. More likely, we will see worsening political deadlock, increasing political violence and a country that is more inward-looking and less focused on projecting its influence abroad. That’s the future that should worry Canada.

Let’s look at why neither a civil war nor an American dictatorship is on the horizon. The debate around civil war suffers two shortcomings. First, it’s not clear what people mean when they say the United States is on the brink of a civil war, as this could mean anything from increases in low-level political violence (e.g., violent clashes between rival groups) to full-fledged clashes between paramilitaries and security forces loyal to rival authorities.

Second, these warnings lack a sense of the probability of such events occurring. Without knowing what probabilities are attached to those warnings, one cannot decide what resources need to be allocated to such a contingency and to what degree they should be prioritized. After all, strategy is about prioritization among competing interests and matching limited resources to them.


My own rough calculations suggest no more than a couple percent probability that the U.S. will experience a civil war, as commonly defined, in the next three years. The U.S. has experienced one civil war in 246 years (albeit with numerous instances of political turmoil) and almost no country with as advanced an economy as the United States has been plunged into a civil war. The high degree of political polarization in the U.S. is unlikely to overwhelm these historical precedents.

In the next three to five years, the probability of the U.S. slipping into autocracy or “illiberal democracy,” à la Viktor Orbán’s Hungary or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey, is also quite low. Both Orbán and Erdoğan took around a decade to consolidate their power in countries with fragile democratic traditions, weak institutions and highly centralized political systems. Both initially came to power with strong public support and no clear social polarization. In contrast, the U.S. is a federal system with strong separation of powers, an old democratic tradition and currently high levels of political and social polarization.

Let’s be frank here: what most people worry about is former president Donald Trump or a Trump-like figure winning the 2024 presidential election and a Trumpian GOP gaining and keeping control of both houses of Congress. But the probability of such a sequence of events is still low. Assuming a 50/50 chance of each of the three events happening gives us a probability of 12.5 per cent of all three happening, and even that won’t be sufficient to turn the U.S. into an autocracy. Thus, the actual starting probability is even lower.

If neither civil war nor autocracy are in the books, what can we expect? As I have argued elsewhere , the U.S. is going through a once-in-a-generationpolitical crisis that will fester for the next several years. High levels of demographically and geographically concentrated polarization combined with the checks and balances of the American political system mean the current political deadlock and turmoil will continue unabated. This will only lead to further frustration among the highly polarized public.

Individuals and groups will start seeing violence as the only way to break this vicious cycle. We’ll likely see an increase in low-level violence across the political spectrum, particularly targeting politicians, local officials and judges, as well as violent clashes between opposing groups.

The upshot is that the country’s leadership — regardless of the party in power — will likely be inward-looking, as it will be consumed with efforts to put out domestic fires. The U.S. will also be increasingly transactional in its foreign policy, adopting a narrowly defined national interest.

How can Canada prepare for such a future? While Canada is limited in its ability to change the direction of the U.S., it can avail itself to some measures to better prepare for this scenario.

First, the federal government should undertake a comprehensive and inclusive foreign policy review that lays out Canadian interests, how we should prioritize them and what resources need to be allocated to defend and promote them.

Second, we need greater investment in Canadian defence to meet the security challenges in a world where the U.S. is increasingly self-interested and aloof towards its allies. Robust defence capabilities are needed to protect Canada’s core security interests (without excessively relying on the U.S.) and to make meaningful contributions to the security needs of our allies.

Third, Canada must forge enhanced and deepened multilateral and bilateral relations with its democratic allies and partners around the world. This would not only provide increased leverage in dealing with the U.S., but also reduce our over-reliance on the Americans in protecting and promoting Canadian interests abroad.

Lastly, Canada should take a proactive and anticipatory approach towards relations with the United States. Canada should identify key issues and vital interests vis-à-vis the U.S., monitor executive, legislative and judicial developments, and maintain working relations with politicians across the political spectrum.

While unlikely to descend into civil war or turn into a dictatorship, an America adrift is dangerous enough and we have to be ready for it.

National Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jaydee said:

the wheels on the bus go round and round

I can't imagine the US won't enforce quid pro quo measures rendering the flip flop moot. Even if it becomes bilateral, there's lot's of freshly retired drivers willing to wait for the signing bonuses sure to come. Actually I'll be watching too... make em good.

The Goddess of unintended consequences is working overtime here.


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

I can't imagine the US won't enforce quid pro quo measures rendering the flip flop moot. Even if it becomes bilateral, there's lot's of freshly retired drivers willing to wait for the signing bonuses sure to come. 

The Goddess of unintended consequences is working overtime here.


It's cheaper to move stuff by train anyways - it just takes a little longer.  If we (society) had any brains we'd use rail for all inter-city and longer transport, keep the trucks off the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...