[PoscStudent]

I thought it would be interesting to find out how the provincial economies are doing after the recession, especially now that some provinces are releasing their budgets.

[MTLskyline]

Let's make things interesting.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01138/provinces_1138602a.jpg
SOURCE: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/article1878273.ece

[Architype]

^ Do you have a link for the article to go with that map?

Here's something else you can check out -

http://www.rbc.com/economics/microec.html

[1ajs]

please link the source or this image will have to be removed

[PoscStudent]

Do you have any other information on the map? Did an article or a report accompany it? And when is it from?

Here's an interesting linking on growth and momentum.
http://www.bmonesbittburns.com/economics/pemi/2010q4/pemi.pdf

[Acajack]

Let's make things interesting.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01138/provinces_1138602a.jpg
(The Globe and Mail)

What does this represent exactly? Total GDP I presume. It can't be per capita...

[thurmas]

how are ontario and quebec denmark and swiss when they are almost broke compared to western canada?

[Waterlooson]

^^ That map is about GDP... so it doesn't consider debt.

[MTLskyline]

Yeah its total GDP. I got it from mtlurb. The guy who posted it on Mtlurb didn't provide a link.

[shreddog]

Yeah its total GDP. I got it from mtlurb. The guy who posted it on Mtlurb didn't provide a link.
About 10 key strokes on the google search page brings this. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/article1878273.ece)

[PoscStudent]

I tried to look for BMO's release on the map but I'm having trouble.

[1ajs]

someone posted that map last summer on here no?

[MTLskyline]

About 10 key strokes on the google search page brings this. (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/quebec-meet-denmark-if-the-provinces-were-countries/article1878273/?service=mobile)

I looked, I couldn't find it at all (although that page you found doesn't show the map itself). What did you search under? I searched for "How Provincial Economies Stack Up".

[shreddog]

I looked, I couldn't find it at all (although that page you found doesn't show the map itself). What did you search under? I searched for "How Provincial Economies Stack Up".Sorry I originally posted the link from their mobile page, fixed the link and now it points to the full article.

Also, it appears I lied about the key strokes, it was 17 not 10 .... "quebec denmark gdp"

[Winnipegger]

So is this supposed to start a debate, or be educational, or both? Because the way I see it, we should all be happy to see all our provinces doing economically well (on a global scale). We are truly blessed with an abundance of resources and healthy, smart, human capital, making us one of the richest nations on earth. So to me, this map just highlights how productive and lucky we all really are. Although props to Alberta for having the GDP output equivalent to that of the UAE. Impressive.

Oh but just to put things in perspective, California has the same GDP output equivalent as all of Canada. :banana:

[shreddog]

Not quite sure where the OP meant this thread to end up, however there is a blog I follow with some very interesting economic entries and contributors. I am not pushing an agenda here, but the latest entry about the economic role of Ontario within Canada is very interesting to say the least.

The premise is that Ontario is in the midst of a major challenge - it's share of the Canadian population is increasing (from roughly 37% to about 40%) in the past 30 years whereas it's share of the Canadian GDP over the same time (from about 42% to about 37%). Especially interesting is that it's current GDP-to-population is in a negative trend with no signs of changing.

I'll leave any conclusions to the reader.

Link (http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/03/is-ontario-in-decline.html#more).

Two key graphs:

GDP
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e2014e86a10135970d-pi
Population
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e2014e5fc5fd31970c-pi

[caltrane74]

Oil and Gas are playing a big role in redistributing wealth in the country. (Never mind the fact that GDP is where it's produced, not whom that GDP is owned by ) Also, Ontario still gets the Majority of immigrants into Canada. Add the two together and it looks like this will be the demographic fact of life for the next generation. Once, the baby boomers start dying off in the next 20 or so years from now, you might see some equalization/ or balance in the falling GDP per capita numbers for Ontario relative to the rest of the country.

[PoscStudent]

I remember seeing a chart a while ago and only a few provinces have a higher share of Canada's GDP then their share of the Canadian population. I know Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador and maybe Saskatchewan don't know if there were any other provinces if it was it would be BC I guess.

[shreddog]

Oil and Gas are playing a big role in redistributing wealth in the country. (Never mind the fact that GDP is where it's produced, not whom that GDP is owned by ) Also, Ontario still gets the Majority of immigrants into Canada. Add the two together and it looks like this will be the demographic fact of life for the next generation. Once, the baby boomers start dying off in the next 20 or so years from now, you might see some equalization/ or balance in the falling GDP per capita numbers for Ontario relative to the rest of the country.
Hmmm, not sure I agree with your perspective on this. First off, O&G - and commodities in general - are not the only driver of this since the role they are playing a smaller overal share in the BC/AB/SK economies. As a percentage of their GDP, the impact of O&G has actually been dropping the past 20 years.

Secondly, what do you mean by "whom the GDP is owned by"? I think you are confusing the fact that if Teachers owns a company in the oil patch that by inference the Ontario government can tax that GDP which belongs to that company? Economies don't work that way. If they did a good chunk of Ontario's GDP would belong outside the country since a good chuck of the economy is foreign owned, branch plants.

The driver for GDP wrt to a government is the impact it plays on a government's ability for taxation. As the per capita GDP drops in Ontario wrt Canada as a whole, it means that Ontario tax rates will be impacted accordingly meaning that while all those baby boomers in Ontario start dying off over the next 20 years (likely 30 BTW) they will be putting an incredible burden on the Ontario health care system driving costs through the roof. Since health care is the biggest line item in the Ontario budget, this too will either drive overall taxation rates in Ontario up or impact the ability to provide other services. Lastly, this does impact all the other provinces since this may keep Ontario below the national average line wrt equalization payments and thus on the recieving end. Since equalization is capped, whatever Ontario gets is money the tradiational have-nots don't get.

Again, I am not saying it is doom and gloom for Ontario, rather that this could have significant impacts on all Canadians.

BTW, your statement "Ontario still gets the Majority of immigrants into Canada." is not true at all. Since the mid-2000's, Ontario has been getting less than 50% all immigrants to Canada, with an overall downward trend. Last quarter Ontario took in 41% of all immigrants to Canada (links to SC (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-002-x/2010003/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm)), which has been typical for the past 8 quarters. Ontario used to get the majority and while it still gets the lion share, the majority now land elsewhere in Canada - and given that this is longstanding trend, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[caltrane74]

Hmmm, not sure I agree with your perspective on this. First off, O&G - and commodities in general - are not the only driver of this since the role they are playing a smaller overal share in the BC/AB/SK economies, as a percentage of their GDP, since their share of the local economies GDP has actually been dropping the past 20 years. When you look at GDP numbers for AB, manufacturing actually has a higher share of the GDP - though the bulk of that is related to energy, but not just O&G.

Secondly, what do you mean by "whom the GDP is owned by"? I think you are confusing the fact that if Teachers owns a company in the oil patch that by inference the Ontario government can tax that GDP which belongs to that company? Economies don't work that way. If they did a good chunk of Ontario's GDP would belong outside the country since a good chuck of the economy is foreign owned, branch plants.

The driver for GDP wrt to a government is the impact it plays on a government's ability for taxation. As the per capita GDP drops in Ontario wrt Canada as a whole, it means that Ontario tax rates will be impacted accordingly meaning that while all those baby boomers in Ontario start dying off over the next 20 years (likely 30 BTW) they will be putting an incredible burden on the Ontario health care system driving costs through the roof. Since health care is the biggest line item in the Ontario budget, this too will either drive overall taxation rates in Ontario up or impact the ability to provide other services. Lastly, this does impact all the other provinces since this may keep Ontario below the national average line wrt equalization payments and thus on the recieving end. Since equalization is capped, whatever Ontario gets is money the tradiational have-nots don't get.

Again, I am not saying it is doom and gloom for Ontario, rather that this could have significant impacts on all Canadians.

BTW, your statement "Ontario still gets the Majority of immigrants into Canada." is not true at all. Since the mid-2000's, Ontario has been getting less than 50% all immigrants to Canada, with an overall downward trend. Last quarter Ontario took in 41% of all immigrants to Canada (links to SC (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-002-x/2010003/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm)), which has been typical for the past 8 quarters. Ontario used to get the majority and while it still gets the lion share, the majority now land elsewhere in Canada - and given that this is longstanding trend, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

How about, Ontario gets the most immigrants of any of the Canadian provinces?

[Bassic Lab]

Hmmm, not sure I agree with your perspective on this. First off, O&G - and commodities in general - are not the only driver of this since the role they are playing a smaller overal share in the BC/AB/SK economies. As a percentage of their GDP, the impact of O&G has actually been dropping the past 20 years.

Secondly, what do you mean by "whom the GDP is owned by"? I think you are confusing the fact that if Teachers owns a company in the oil patch that by inference the Ontario government can tax that GDP which belongs to that company? Economies don't work that way. If they did a good chunk of Ontario's GDP would belong outside the country since a good chuck of the economy is foreign owned, branch plants.

The driver for GDP wrt to a government is the impact it plays on a government's ability for taxation. As the per capita GDP drops in Ontario wrt Canada as a whole, it means that Ontario tax rates will be impacted accordingly meaning that while all those baby boomers in Ontario start dying off over the next 20 years (likely 30 BTW) they will be putting an incredible burden on the Ontario health care system driving costs through the roof. Since health care is the biggest line item in the Ontario budget, this too will either drive overall taxation rates in Ontario up or impact the ability to provide other services. Lastly, this does impact all the other provinces since this may keep Ontario below the national average line wrt equalization payments and thus on the recieving end. Since equalization is capped, whatever Ontario gets is money the tradiational have-nots don't get.

Again, I am not saying it is doom and gloom for Ontario, rather that this could have significant impacts on all Canadians.

BTW, your statement "Ontario still gets the Majority of immigrants into Canada." is not true at all. Since the mid-2000's, Ontario has been getting less than 50% all immigrants to Canada, with an overall downward trend. Last quarter Ontario took in 41% of all immigrants to Canada (links to SC (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-002-x/2010003/tablesectlist-listetableauxsect-eng.htm)), which has been typical for the past 8 quarters. Ontario used to get the majority and while it still gets the lion share, the majority now land elsewhere in Canada - and given that this is longstanding trend, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Commodities really do look like a major driver there. It is hard to look at both of those dips in Ontario's share of the national GDP and not see Dutch Disease as a primary cause. Both drops correspond with commodity booms, especially in the price of oil and gas.

If commodity prices decline then Ontario's problem is largely solved for it. If we actually enter a period of sustained high commodity prices, as we very well might for key resources like oil, then Ontario will have to adapt. It might be painful for a time but some kind of equilibrium should eventually form.

[caltrane74]

Yes, high commodity prices, and high rates of immigration are bringing down our per capita GDP. No reasonable person would say, that a worker in Ontario is less productive than one in any other part of the country.

[LeftCoaster]

^absolutely not, but that isnt the key issue at hand here, the key issue at hand is whether Ontario's immigration is outstripping its economy's ability to create jobs, which is in fact a major problem and might necessitate a rethinking of Ontario and Canada's policy with regards to levels of sustainable immigration.

It is also important to note that Ontario is a massive province, and that much of the drop in GDP can be attributable to areas that are not seeing the growth displayed in the data. Whether this is a good thing or in fact exacerbates the problem I do not know, as it means some areas (Toronto mainly) is not being hit as hard while other areas are just decimated.

[caltrane74]

^absolutely not, but that isnt the key issue at hand here, the key issue at hand is whether Ontario's immigration is outstripping its economy's ability to create jobs, which is in fact a major problem and might necessitate a rethinking of Ontario and Canada's policy with regards to levels of sustainable immigration.

It is also important to note that Ontario is a massive province, and that much of the drop in GDP can be attributable to areas that are not seeing the growth displayed in the data. Whether this is a good thing or in fact exacerbates the problem I do not know, as it means some areas (Toronto mainly) is not being hit as hard while other areas are just decimated.

Our GDP per capita is still growing, even though we take in the population of Manitoba and Nova Scotia combined, every ten years. Also the unemployment rate in Ontario is right at the national average, we are doing no better no worst than the country as a whole, again, even accounting for the fact we take in the population of Calgary and Winnipeg combined every 10 years. What is falling off is our share of GDP relative to other provinces. This is mainly being driven my growth in commodity prices which are boosting incomes in the western provinces and driving down our share of the national income relative to the other provinces.

For Ontario to maintain and grow it's standard of living, we need to create around 100,000 jobs per year. This is something we have been able to do now without fail for the past few years. And we will continue to do into the forseeable feature. If we can't create 100,000 to 120,000 jobs a year, then you will see some complaints about Ontario not keeping up with the rest of the country.

[PoscStudent]

Provinces

Canada's national unemployment rate was 7.8 per cent in February. Here's what happened provincially (previous month in brackets):

••Newfoundland 12.8 (12.4)
••Prince Edward Island 11.7 (11.3)
••Nova Scotia 9.5 (9.5)
••New Brunswick 9.8 (9.1)
••Quebec 7.7 (7.9)
••Ontario 8.0 (8.1)
••Manitoba 5.3 (5.0)
••Saskatchewan 5.7 (5.4)
••Alberta 5.7 (5.9)
••British Columbia 8.8 (8.2)

Cities

Statistics Canada also released seasonally adjusted, three-month moving average unemployment rates for major cities but cautions the figures may fluctuate widely because they are based on small statistical samples. (Previous month in brackets.)

••St. John's, N.L. 6.7 (7.1)
••Halifax 6.7 (6.7)
••Moncton, N.B. 8.1 (8.4)
••Saint John, N.B. 6.6 (6.1)
••Saguenay, Que. 8.2 (8.1)
••Quebec 5.2 (5.0)
••Trois-Rivieres, Que. 8.4 (9.0)
••Sherbrooke, Que. 7.2 (7.4)
••Montreal 8.1 (8.3)
••Gatineau, Que. 6.4 (6.1)
••Ottawa 6.7 (6.6)
••Kingston, Ont. 6.3 (6.2)
••Peterborough, Ont. 9.2 (8.5)
••Toronto 8.3 (8.3)
••Hamilton 6.7 (6.6)
••Kitchener, Ont. 6.6 (7.0)
••Brantford, Ont. 9.2 (9.2)
••Guelph, Ont. 6.7 (7.5)
••London, Ont. 8.4 (8.3)
••Oshawa, Ont. 8.9 (8.9)
••St. Catharines-Niagara, Ont. 9.6 (9.7)
••Sudbury, Ont. 7.4 (7.8)
••Thunder Bay, Ont. 6.5 (6.8)
••Windsor, Ont. 9.6 (9.7)
••Barrie, Ont. 8.3 (8.1)
••Winnipeg 5.6 (5.4)
••Regina 5.1 (4.5)
••Saskatoon 5.5 (5.3)
••Calgary 6.3 (6.0)
••Edmonton 5.8 (5.8)
••Abbotsford, B.C. 10.1 (9.7)
••Vancouver 8.1 (7.4)
••Victoria 6.2 (6.2)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/where-the-jobs-are/article1938231/

[Highinthesky]

Other provinces had to eventually catch up and deminish Ontario's dominance to some degree eventually. But to say that western provinces, more so Alberta and Sask, aren't at the whim of commodity prices isn't true. Just look at the latest financial crisis, Alberta saw it's immigration rate drop significantly and if I'm not mistaken there was actually a quarter where more people left Alberta than moved to it.
Look the Alberta Economic Development Authority said that in 2008 just over 30% of Alberta's GDP was tied directly to energy which was the single largest component by nearly 18%. Then when you consider that Real Estate is second at 13.1%, construction close behind 8.3%, and transportion coming in at 6.4% all sectors which benefit substantially from higher energy prices you kinda see the truth of the matter.

Good on the west though, a strong west makes for a stronger Canada as a whole.

[shreddog]

Commodities really do look like a major driver there. It is hard to look at both of those dips in Ontario's share of the national GDP and not see Dutch Disease as a primary cause. Both drops correspond with commodity booms, especially in the price of oil and gas.

If commodity prices decline then Ontario's problem is largely solved for it. If we actually enter a period of sustained high commodity prices, as we very well might for key resources like oil, then Ontario will have to adapt. It might be painful for a time but some kind of equilibrium should eventually form.Not sure I agree with your statements. Looking at AB (the largest GDP in the west, #3 in the country) all energy related activites comprised 31% of the total GDP in 2010, as compared to 44% in 1980. While energy prices are higher today, overall their contribution to the overall GDP in AB is less. And as for Dutch disease, personally I think that this is really much ado about nothing. Two key things on that: Ontario and east get a good chunk of their oil externally. For ever 2 barrels of oil we export to the US, Canada imports 1 barrel from the Brits/Norway/Algeria. And secondly, while Canada exports $6B of oil every month, Canada also does over $50B of total financial clearing every day - including the money related to oil exports. At the end of the day, oil prices impact the Canadian economy less than many believe.

That said, you are correct that Ontario will have to adapt going forward as energy gets more expensive. Mind you that applies to most jurisdictions.

[shreddog]

Other provinces had to eventually catch up and deminish Ontario's dominance to some degree eventually. But to say that western provinces, more so Alberta and Sask, aren't at the whim of commodity prices isn't true. Just look at the latest financial crisis, Alberta saw it's immigration rate drop significantly and if I'm not mistaken there was actually a quarter where more people left Alberta than moved to it.
Look the Alberta Economic Development Authority said that in 2008 just over 30% of Alberta's GDP was tied directly to energy ...
Umm, no one said that AB/SK economies weren't tied to O&G. The statement was that that was why their GDP has gone through the roof, which is not true. Yes O&G was 31% of the GDP in 2010, wihch is one third less than it was 30 years ago, meaning that other elements of the economy grew faster as part of the overall GDP.

Anyway, the point of my post wasn't to paint Ontario as a welfare handout (though that is what some seemed to have infered) but rather to point out that going forward Ontario's GDP is growing slower than it's population relative to Canada as a whole.

The two key takeaways from the population growing faster than the GDP (as compared to other provinces) is that this impacts the gov'ts ability to provide services as taxation is directly related to GDP. If the population is growing faster than the GDP either tax rates have to go up OR services have to be cut. If Ontario does this, it will have an impact across Canada.

As for it ability to generate those taxes, remember that is what is used to determine where a province sits regarding equalization. If Ontario continues to get equalization, that means the other have-nots get less (total is capped).

So again while it doesn't matter why Ontario's share of the national GDP is declining while it's share of the population is increasing, what does matter is that it is happening. Again, it doesn't matter if Alberta's GDP is 100% based on energy, we have the situation whereby Ontario's financial situation will impact the other provinces.

The second point is

[caltrane74]

Umm, no one said that AB/SK economies weren't tied to O&G. The statement was that that was why their GDP has gone through the roof, which is not true. Yes O&G was 31% of the GDP in 2010, wihch is one third less than it was 30 years ago, meaning that other elements of the economy grew faster as part of the overall GDP.

Anyway, the point of my post wasn't to paint Ontario as a welfare handout (though that is what some seemed to have infered) but rather to point out that going forward Ontario's GDP is growing slower than it's population relative to Canada as a whole.

The two key takeaways from the population growing faster than the GDP (as compared to other provinces) is that this impacts the gov'ts ability to provide services as taxation is directly related to GDP. If the population is growing faster than the GDP either tax rates have to go up OR services have to be cut. If Ontario does this, it will have an impact across Canada.

As for it ability to generate those taxes, remember that is what is used to determine where a province sits regarding equalization. If Ontario continues to get equalization, that means the other have-nots get less (total is capped).

So again while it doesn't matter why Ontario's share of the national GDP is declining while it's share of the population is increasing, what does matter is that it is happening. Again, it doesn't matter if Alberta's GDP is 100% based on energy, we have the situation whereby Ontario's financial situation will impact the other provinces.

The second point is

Ontario's GDP is growing slower relative to the other provinces. It is not growing slower than our population growth. Otherwise we would fall into a hole.


Ontario's economy grows between 2.5 to 3% per year.

Ontario's population grows between 1 to 1.5% per year.

Our share of GDP relative to the other provinces is decreasing, this is not going to impact how we deliver services to the people that live here in the future. What will do that however is our demographic bulge that is pushing the average age of this province up, thus pushing more of our resources into healthcare rather than education.

[shreddog]

Our GDP per capita is still growing
As is every other province. The issue is that the national rate - which is also growing - is growing faster than Ontario's, and that is the issue.

What is falling off is our share of GDP relative to other provinces. This is mainly being driven my growth in commodity prices which are boosting incomes in the western provinces and driving down our share of the national income relative to the other provinces.
I'm just wondering ... did you even read the article I linked to or did you immediately run into a defence mode?? I wasn't trying to diminish Ontario, but rather highlight the fact that Ontario no longer is able to carry the economy like it used to. The fact that other provinces have stepped in is actually good, but since Ontario has the lion's share of population in the country any downward trend impacts everyone.

[caltrane74]

I'm just wondering ... did you even read the article I linked to or did you immediately run into a defence mode?? I wasn't trying to diminish Ontario, but rather highlight the fact that Ontario no longer is able to carry the economy like it used to. The fact that other provinces have stepped in is actually good, but since Ontario has the lion's share of population in the country any downward trend impacts everyone.

Of course I read the article, and I believe the author of the article in question, eventually relented and stated the obvious. That the reason for the decline in Ontario's share of GDP is very much related to spikes in Energy Prices.



Relatively more people are producing relatively less output. The productivity implications are disturbing.

Also

The author's analysis in his final summation is false. - How can Ontario have a growing economy, with a growing GDP per capita, and yet be producing relatively less? However if you put this statement in the context of Ontario and the other provinces which have enjoyed Greater GDP Growth over the past few years due to increased pricing for commodities, then it becomes true. Only because relative to the other provinces Ontario's share of the GDP has gone down, as the value of the goods which they (other provinces) produce has increased. Not because Ontario is producing less, or because it's workers are less productive.

[shreddog]

Ontario's GDP is growing slower relative to the other provinces. It is not growing slower than our population growth. Otherwise we would fall into a hole.
Ummm, that is why I said:

The two key takeaways from the population growing faster than the GDP (as compared to other provinces)

Our share of GDP relative to the other provinces is decreasing, this is not going to impact how we deliver services to the people that live here in the future. What will do that however is our demographic bulge that is pushing the average age of this province up, thus pushing more of our resources into healthcare rather than education.Actually it will since to offer the same services as the provinces with GDP/per capita above the national average, Ontario have to increase it's taxes or reduce services or get more money from equalization which - and I am saying this for the third time - will mean less equalization for the other have-not provinces. As such, changes to Ontario's share of the national GDP do impact other Canadians since it means that either cap will have to be raised with the other Have provinces paying more into it, the calculation formula will need to be amended or the other have-nots sharing a smaller pie and thus being less able to offer services themselves.

And thus it does impact the other parts of Canada.

[shreddog]

Of course I read the article, and I believe the author of the article in question, eventually relented and stated the obvious. That the reason for the decline in Ontario's share of GDP is very much related to spikes in Energy Prices.The last three sentences from the article

The recent trends are more troubling if one realizes that since 1990, Ontario’s decline in the relative share of Canada’s GDP has been accompanied by an increase in its share of Canada’s population. Relatively more people are producing relatively less output. The productivity implications are disturbing.

[SFUVancouver]

If BC's GDP is approximately the same as the Czech Republic, that's pretty amazing.

BC's population is about 4.5 million while the Czech Republic has about 10.6 million people. BC's geographic area is approximately 945,000 square kilometres while the Czech Republic is approximately 79,000 square kilometres.

[thurmas]

can someone find the stats on what % of every province's budget comes from equalization or how much they give to other provinces. I have found the amounts each province gets but what about as a percentage of provincial budgets.

[jmt18325]

can someone find the stats on what % of every province's budget comes from equalization or how much they give to other provinces. I have found the amounts each province gets but what about as a percentage of provincial budgets.

Simple google search:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

[thurmas]

From my calculations comparing the 2010 Manitoba and Saskatchewan budgets Manitoba had a budget of 13.2 billion therefore 13.2 billion divided by 1,240000 manitobans which is roughly what the provincial population was in 2010 equals $10,645 spent on each Manitoban. Saskatchewan meanwhile had a budget of $10.1 billion for a population of roughly 1,050000 Saskatchewanians which equals $9,619 spent on each citizen of Saskatchewan. This proves that the equalization program is far too generous. These are total revenue figures including transfers from the feds and the provinces themselves.

[thurmas]

with thses types of numbers there should be a 25% cut in equalization accross the board. The have not provinces actually get more than the have provinces when you divide the dollars spent per citizen.

[mintzilla]

with thses types of numbers there should be a 25% cut in equalization accross the board. The have not provinces actually get more than the have provinces when you divide the dollars spent per citizen.

lol welcome to Canada buddy

[jmt18325]

with thses types of numbers there should be a 25% cut in equalization accross the board. The have not provinces actually get more than the have provinces when you divide the dollars spent per citizen.


That's the entire point. Have not provinces are supposed to get more, as their governments don't have the fiscal capacity to meet the statistical average that is used. The idea is that all Canadians have the ability to enjoy similar services at similar tax rates. The program thinks beyond provincialism, and there's nothing bad about that.

[thurmas]

I agree there should be equalization and it's set in the constitution but right now the HAVE NOT provinces SPEND MORE PER CITIZEN THEN HAVE PROVINCES to me that makes no sense!If a province is struggling to make ends meat they shouldn't spend more than rich provinces you just end up with a welfare dependency on equalization and you give up trying to be innovative and trying to become a have province or atleast rely less on equalization and more on your own revenues.

[jmt18325]

I agree there should be equalization and it's set in the constitution but right now the HAVE NOT provinces SPEND MORE PER CITIZEN THEN HAVE PROVINCES to me that makes no sense!

Well, that isn't a requirement of the program...it's just something that is. Generally, have not provinces have a lager number of poor people though, and so per capita, they have to deliver a larger number of services.

[thurmas]

That's not true we in manitoba have the lowest unemployment in canada.We do have a high aboriginal population but so does sask and they are a have province.

[PoscStudent]

The federal government needs to be responsible for the way equalization money is spent in the provinces if they're going to give it out. Right now they give money to the have nots and they can do whatever the hell they like with it. Have not Quebec has $8 a day childcare but none of the have provinces have such a thing. It's a bit ridiculous to think have not provinces can have better social programs, their public servants could be getting paid more and etc...

[jmt18325]

That's not true we in manitoba have the lowest unemployment in canada.We do have a high aboriginal population but so does sask and they are a have province.

It has very little to do with unemployment and employment rates. There are still a very large number of poor and working poor.

[jmt18325]

The federal government needs to be responsible for the way equalization money is spent in the provinces if they're going to give it out. Right now they give money to the have nots and they can do whatever the hell they like with it. Have not Quebec has $8 a day childcare but none of the have provinces have such a thing. It's a bit ridiculous to think have not provinces can have better social programs, their public servants could be getting paid more and etc...

That has nothing to do with equalization. That program only brings provinces up to average assuming they have an average tax rate. With higher tax rates, they can afford more. With lower tax rates, they can't. Places like Alberta and BC have lower taxes where Quebec has higher taxes.

[PoscStudent]

That has nothing to do with equalization. That program only brings provinces up to average assuming they have an average tax rate. With higher tax rates, they can afford more. With lower tax rates, they can't. Places like Alberta and BC have lower taxes where Quebec has higher taxes.

How does it have nothing to do with equalization? Quebec may have higher taxes but equalization is allowing them to remain as low as they are. If there was no equalization Quebec's taxes would need to increase substantially to offer their citizens what they are currrently offering them.

[Boris2k7]

Results from the StatsCan labour force survey (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110311/dq110311a-eng.htm) are interesting

Quoting the employment figures from the tables...


Newfoundland and Labrador
Population: +1,300 (+0.3%)
Labour Force: +6,300 (+2.5%)
Participation Rate: 60.8% (+1.3%)
Unemployment Rate: 12.8% (-2.0%)

Prince Edward Island
Population: +2,000 (+1.7%)
Labour Force : +0 (0.0%)
Participation Rate: 67.2% (-1.1%)
Unemployment Rate: 11.7% (+1.5%)

Nova Scotia
Population: +3,100 (+0.4%)
Labour Force : +2,000 (+0.4%)
Participation Rate: 64.2% (0.0%)
Unemployment Rate: 9.5% (+0.3%)

New Brunswick
Population: +3,100 (+0.5%)
Labour Force : -2,800 (0.0%)
Participation Rate: 63.3% (-0.8%)
Unemployment Rate: 9.8% (+0.7%)

Quebec
Population: +69,300 (+1.1%)
Labour Force : +69,400 (+1.6%)
Participation Rate: 65.5% (+0.3%)
Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (-0.5%)

Ontario
Population: +138,300 (+1.3%)
Labour Force : +65,000 (+0.9%)
Participation Rate: 66.8% (-0.3%)
Unemployment Rate: 8.0% (-1.1%)

Manitoba
Population: +13,100 (+1.4%)
Labour Force : +11,600 (+1.8%)
Participation Rate: 69.5% (+0.3%)
Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (-0.1%)

Saskatchewan
Population: +10,100 (+1.3%)
Labour Force : +7,600 (+1.4%)
Participation Rate: 69.5% (+0.3%)
Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (+1.3%)

Alberta
Population: +44,300 (+1.5%)
Labour Force : +47,000 (+2.2%)
Participation Rate: 73.4% (+0.5%)
Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (-1.1%)

British Columbia
Population: +57,400 (+1.5%)
Labour Force : +44,800 (+1.8%)
Participation Rate: 65.8% (+0.1%)
Unemployment Rate: 8.8% (+1.1%)

Quick Analysis



Atlantic Canada continues to trickle upwards or downwards.
Quebec sees strong population growth and job creation.
Ontario continues to lead the nation in population growth, but is massively underperforming on job creation.*
B.C. leads the West in population growth while Alberta leads in job creation. Alberta also has the highest labour force participation nationwide.
Manitoba and Saskatchewan continue to pull respectable numbers. Manitoba maintains the lowest unemployment rate nationwide.

* e.g. For every 10 new people in Ontario, there are only 5 new jobs. For every 10 new people in Alberta, there are 11 new jobs.

[jmt18325]

How does it have nothing to do with equalization? Quebec may have higher taxes but equalization is allowing them to remain as low as they are. If there was no equalization Quebec's taxes would need to increase substantially to offer their citizens what they are currrently offering them.

I'm not sure I see your point. The whole idea of equalization is similar services at similar levels of taxation. If a province chooses to tax more (it's their choice) then it can spend more than the average. Equalization gives all provinces the same starting point (though have provinces, with the same taxes as have not, will still have a fiscal capacity above the average). What they do from there is their own choice.

[Bassic Lab]

Not sure I agree with your statements. Looking at AB (the largest GDP in the west, #3 in the country) all energy related activites comprised 31% of the total GDP in 2010, as compared to 44% in 1980. While energy prices are higher today, overall their contribution to the overall GDP in AB is less. And as for Dutch disease, personally I think that this is really much ado about nothing. Two key things on that: Ontario and east get a good chunk of their oil externally. For ever 2 barrels of oil we export to the US, Canada imports 1 barrel from the Brits/Norway/Algeria. And secondly, while Canada exports $6B of oil every month, Canada also does over $50B of total financial clearing every day - including the money related to oil exports. At the end of the day, oil prices impact the Canadian economy less than many believe.

That said, you are correct that Ontario will have to adapt going forward as energy gets more expensive. Mind you that applies to most jurisdictions.

It doesn't really matter whatsoever how much of Alberta's GDP is based on the energy sector or where Ontario gets its energy. What matters is how the commodity price run up has affected the Canadian Dollar. It is pretty well accepted as fact that our currency's value has climbed because of the rise in commodity prices, oil in particular. This has made manufacturing less competitive internationally while capital has flowed to resource producing regions. When that happens, Ontario gets hammered and certain other provinces boom.

In the event that this becomes a more permanent situation, it isn't high energy prices that Ontario will have to adapt to since, as you point out, it affects everyone. What Ontario will have to adapt to is a higher dollar that makes manufacturing exports more expensive.

[PoscStudent]

Here is RBC's provincial outlook for March 2011. The report shows good news for some of the provinces while not so good news for other provinces.

http://www.rbc.com/economics/market/pdf/provfcst.pdf

[thurmas]

Equalization should be there to provide poorer provinces with revenue to be similar to levels of the have provinces not superior revenue levels to them. This current system rewards wasteful spending in manitoba quebec and the maritimes.The formula for equalization should be based on a per citizen spending limit therefore if have province saskatchewan spends $9600 per person then equalization should be used to bump up manitoba to be able to spend the same amount of services on it's citizens. Right now Manitoba spends $1000 more per person than sask and it's because manitoba gets more than it needs in equalization.

[Me&You]

Equalization should be there to provide poorer provinces with revenue to be similar to levels of the have provinces not superior revenue levels to them. This current system rewards wasteful spending in manitoba quebec and the maritimes.The formula for equalization should be based on a per citizen spending limit therefore if have province saskatchewan spends $9600 per person then equalization should be used to bump up manitoba to be able to spend the same amount of services on it's citizens. Right now Manitoba spends $1000 more per person than sask and it's because manitoba gets more than it needs in equalization.

While I agree that the equalization formula needs major reworking, you cannot simply say each province needs $X per citizen to provide services. I like the idea of that, and it would be a great base for calculations, but it cannot be the only factor as the costs of providing services can vary greatly.

[PoscStudent]

While I agree that the equalization formula needs major reworking, you cannot simply say each province needs $X per citizen to provide services. I like the idea of that, and it would be a great base for calculations, but it cannot be the only factor as the costs of providing services can vary greatly.

Yes different provinces need different ammounts of money to provide the same services. Newfoundland and Labrador ends up spending, or wasting, a lot of money because the population is so spread out. More roads going to know where, more health care facilities etc. etc.

[Nathan]

It doesn't really matter whatsoever how much of Alberta's GDP is based on the energy sector or where Ontario gets its energy. What matters is how the commodity price run up has affected the Canadian Dollar. It is pretty well accepted as fact that our currency's value has climbed because of the rise in commodity prices, oil in particular. This has made manufacturing less competitive internationally while capital has flowed to resource producing regions. When that happens, Ontario gets hammered and certain other provinces boom.

In the event that this becomes a more permanent situation, it isn't high energy prices that Ontario will have to adapt to since, as you point out, it affects everyone. What Ontario will have to adapt to is a higher dollar that makes manufacturing exports more expensive.

Ontario isn't the only place that loses when the dollar goes up. Saskatchewan does too. I can't remember what the exact figure is, but the gain that Saskatchewan gets from higher oil prices, gets clawed right back due to the relatively rising Canadian dollar (since we are known to have a commodity currency). This is because oil is priced in $US, so while we get more $US for oil, we get less $CDN because it costs more $US to get a Canadian Dollar.

So yes, we are booming... but it isn't as purely rosy as you are presenting it.

[PoscStudent]

Ontario isn't the only place that loses when the dollar goes up. Saskatchewan does too. I can't remember what the exact figure is, but the gain that Saskatchewan gets from higher oil prices, gets clawed right back due to the relatively rising Canadian dollar (since we are known to have a commodity currency). This is because oil is priced in $US, so while we get more $US for oil, we get less $CDN because it costs more $US to get a Canadian Dollar.

So yes, we are booming... but it isn't as purely rosy as you are presenting it.

I think I heard a few years ago Newfoundland and Labrador lost $1 million an hour everytime the dollar went up like a cent. I think that's what it was anyways.

[Bassic Lab]

Ontario isn't the only place that loses when the dollar goes up. Saskatchewan does too. I can't remember what the exact figure is, but the gain that Saskatchewan gets from higher oil prices, gets clawed right back due to the relatively rising Canadian dollar (since we are known to have a commodity currency). This is because oil is priced in $US, so while we get more $US for oil, we get less $CDN because it costs more $US to get a Canadian Dollar.

So yes, we are booming... but it isn't as purely rosy as you are presenting it.

That is true but it kind of misses the point. A lower dollar makes all exporting more attractive; oil, wheat, cars, it makes no difference. The issue is that the value of the dollar has climbed, in part, with the price of commodities. Energy is a major driver here. The dollar will only rise as high as oil prices can pull it away from labour prices. It will not price out the development of the resources responsible for the rise. It might price out aspects of a manufacturing economy that were built around a much lower dollar.

[PoscStudent]

Here is an interesting report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business titled: "Restoring Canada’s Fiscal Fitness Tools to reform government spending"

They go through all the provinces and show how they will make out over the next decade with spending, balancing budgets and debt reductions, it's not looking good for the majority of the provinces.

http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/cfib-documents/rr3218.pdf

[Migs]

I thought it would be interesting to find out how the provincial economies are doing after the recession, especially now that some provinces are releasing their budgets.
What recession? I think that tells you how well Saskatchewan is doing.

[North of 49]

Look for more manufacturing activity in Manitoba, especially in aerospace in the next several months, and in 2012. Boeing, Bristol and Standard are picking up contracts.

[Architype]

I think I heard a few years ago Newfoundland and Labrador lost $1 million an hour everytime the dollar went up like a cent. I think that's what it was anyways.

Right now both the dollar and the price of oil are high, so N & L should be doing ok in spite of it.

[Stormer]

Ontario isn't the only place that loses when the dollar goes up. Saskatchewan does too. I can't remember what the exact figure is, but the gain that Saskatchewan gets from higher oil prices, gets clawed right back due to the relatively rising Canadian dollar (since we are known to have a commodity currency). This is because oil is priced in $US, so while we get more $US for oil, we get less $CDN because it costs more $US to get a Canadian Dollar.

So yes, we are booming... but it isn't as purely rosy as you are presenting it.

The Saskatchewan Budget form last week:

The 2011-12 exchange rate assumption is 99.82 US
cents. A one US cent increase/decrease in the value
of the Canadian dollar results in an estimated
$27.2 million decrease/increase in non-renewable
resource revenue, all else equal.

a US$1 per barrel change in the average
annual WTI oil price results in an estimated
$18.5 million change in oil royalties;
and,
a US$50 per KCl tonne (C$83 per K2O tonne)
change in the average 2011 potash mine netback
results in an estimated $96.0 million change in
potash royalties.

Source:http://www.finance.gov.sk.ca/budget2011-12/2011-12BudgetSummary.pdf

So right now 3 cents on the dollar costs $81 million but they are $10/barrel low on their oil price forcast, so if nothing changes they will get an extra $185 million from oil. So they do not exactly cancel out. As for potash it could come in $100 higher than they have predicted which is another $200 million.

[Doug]

Central, eastern Canadians to head west again for jobs: TD



Go west, young man
People from central and eastern Canada are expected to head west in increasing numbers in search of work and better jobs, Toronto-Dominion Bank predicts.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/central-eastern-canadians-to-head-west-again-for-jobs-td/article1969667/

[Acajack]

Central, eastern Canadians to head west again for jobs: TD



Go west, young man
People from central and eastern Canada are expected to head west in increasing numbers in search of work and better jobs, Toronto-Dominion Bank predicts.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/central-eastern-canadians-to-head-west-again-for-jobs-td/article1969667/

Seems like agenda-driving more than anything. With the possible exception of Alberta, none of the province are a cut above all others on all measures. For example, PEI's economic growth is not that far off BC's, and Quebec's jobless rate isn't that far away from BC either.

People may indeed be migrating west for various reasons (a perception of a better job market may be one of them) but things aren't always dramatically better there. Sort of like young people from St. John's or Halifax who still tend to move to Toronto in spite of the fact that both cities have lower unemployment rates than Toronto...

[Doug]

The unemployment rate only tells part of the story. One also has to look at the rate of job creation, which typically correlates strongly to GDP growth.

[PoscStudent]

Seems like agenda-driving more than anything. With the possible exception of Alberta, none of the province are a cut above all others on all measures. For example, PEI's economic growth is not that far off BC's, and Quebec's jobless rate isn't that far away from BC either.

People may indeed be migrating west for various reasons (a perception of a better job market may be one of them) but things aren't always dramatically better there. Sort of like young people from St. John's or Halifax who still tend to move to Toronto in spite of the fact that both cities have lower unemployment rates than Toronto...

I very rarely hear of anyone from Newfoundland and Labrador or St. John's going to Toronto, only Calgary or other places in Alberta. This report also says Newfoundland and Labrador won't see the outmigration to the west like other provinces.

[someone123]

Seems like agenda-driving more than anything. With the possible exception of Alberta, none of the province are a cut above all others on all measures. For example, PEI's economic growth is not that far off BC's, and Quebec's jobless rate isn't that far away from BC either.

I often wonder how the national media would respond if Atlantic Canada were suddenly tops in economic and population growth. The Globe and Mail would probably just step up the fisherman articles and print some pessimistic projections. Regional Atlantic media would play the same game.

The Atlantic region is doing okay, particularly given how the deck tends to be stacked. Its population isn't growing rapidly but so what?

The migration story is also covered in a very slanted way. I am not sure about St. John's but I believe Ontario-Halifax migration has been in favour of Halifax for years. Regardless of the facts, if somebody moves away from Halifax it's still viewed as "going down the road" (despite the fact that it's not at all unusual to want to live in more than one place during one's lifetime). If they move away from Toronto they're just moving away. There is an insidious bias.

[Acajack]

I often wonder how the national media would respond if Atlantic Canada were suddenly tops in economic and population growth. The Globe and Mail would probably just step up the fisherman articles and print some pessimistic projections. Regional Atlantic media would play the same game.

The Atlantic region is doing okay, particularly given how the deck tends to be stacked. Its population isn't growing rapidly but so what?

The migration story is also covered in a very slanted way. I am not sure about St. John's but I believe Ontario-Halifax migration has been in favour of Halifax for years. Regardless of the facts, if somebody moves away from Halifax it's still viewed as "going down the road" (despite the fact that it's not at all unusual to want to live in more than one place during one's lifetime). If they move away from Toronto they're just moving away. There is an insidious bias.


Yippers. This is pretty much what I meant.

[PoscStudent]

I often wonder how the national media would respond if Atlantic Canada were suddenly tops in economic and population growth. The Globe and Mail would probably just step up the fisherman articles and print some pessimistic projections. Regional Atlantic media would play the same game.

The Atlantic region is doing okay, particularly given how the deck tends to be stacked. Its population isn't growing rapidly but so what?

The migration story is also covered in a very slanted way. I am not sure about St. John's but I believe Ontario-Halifax migration has been in favour of Halifax for years. Regardless of the facts, if somebody moves away from Halifax it's still viewed as "going down the road" (despite the fact that it's not at all unusual to want to live in more than one place during one's lifetime). If they move away from Toronto they're just moving away. There is an insidious bias.

This was TD pretty much and not really the Globe and Mail at all. I also don't really see a bias either, the fact is Atlantic Canada isn't doing that great. Newfoundland and Labrador may have positive gdp and employment growth but the unemployment rate is still ridiculously high and the population growth is stagnant. Nova Scotia's population growth is also stagant, gdp growth is quite low, tax rates are very high and unemployment is high. New Brunswick is facing some very troubling debt problems, employment growth is very low and the unemployment rate is high. PEI is also in the same boat as the others.

The fact is the region isn't doing that great, neither are Ontario or Quebec for that matter.

[SFUVancouver]

For example, PEI's economic growth is not that far off BC's...

PEI's population is so small that if a kid gets a paper route, a couple people get hired at Tim's, and someone finds a loonie while going to vote in a federal riding with a quarter of the population of the national norm, then all those things contribute to the provincial economy posting a quarter point bump in its GDP!

[Dmajackson]

^Maybe in the town of Souris but not the entire island! PEI and in particular Charr'town is doing very well for itself. There's a tonne of commercial and residential construction occuring and Charr'town even has a new convention centre on the way.

What I find interesting is people on this forum like to talk about how Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are becoming some sort of "economic hole" where everyone is leaving and no money is being spent to get it fixed up which is the opposite of the truth really and it's all because of two words "urban migration". Like the rest of Canada we are becoming more urban by the day it's just that the migration is occuring at a very high rate here. When a person moves from a small town into a big city (like 90% of my family has done) their initial impact is negative on the economy but over time the move strengthens the economy. Here in the Maritimes the massive migration has showed no signs of slowing down recently which means the people moving are still negatively impacting the economy but as towns disappear and Halifax continues booming we will be in better shape in the long-term. Think of it this way;

I have over 30 cousins (first and second) on the side of my family that is from a small town. Of all of us only a handful remain in the surrounding area. Most of us have moved onto to the green pastures of Calgary, Halifax, Moncton, Freddy or Charr'town. One of my cousins (lets call her 'K') clearly demonstrates my point. She was born on PEI but lived most of her life in the small town. While there she contributed to the economy through her volunteering and working for the Town. After graduating she moved onto the bright lights of Halifax. As a result the provincial economy was reduced since no replacement was found for her work and the town lost another resident which when combined with the hundreds of others has killed off the once successful retail and industrial sector. Now that 'K' is in Halifax she attends university, has no time for a job or volunteer work and lives on campus all of which have little to no impact on the economy. So in the short-term view she has negatively impacted the economy by moving and not replacing her impact but in the long-term it will have a positive impact. 'K' will likely stay in Halifax which means she will have a better paying job and higher tax rates both of which have huge impacts on provincial economies. The thousands like her will help bring big businesses to the region which in 15-20 years from now, when there is little left in the rural areas, will account for large growth in our GDP.

[PoscStudent]

^ That should mean that employment growth in the province should be better because people are moving to urban areas and it shoulda mean that GDP growth is higher because of more housing being built and etc. but it's not, gdp and employment growth are still not good.

[someone123]

How high is employment supposed to be, anyway? 1% greater than population growth already implies that demand for labour exceeds supply.

As DmaJackson has pointed out there is a lot of internal migration that over the years will fix some structural problems in the region, making it easier for governments to balance their books, etc. Traditionally, unfortunately, governments made this problem worse by directing spending to dying parts of the region and sending the bill to the city. This is okay in a place that's 90% urban but not in a region that's 55% rural.

[PoscStudent]

How high is employment supposed to be, anyway? 1% greater than population growth already implies that demand for labour exceeds supply.

As DmaJackson has pointed out there is a lot of internal migration that over the years will fix some structural problems in the region, making it easier for governments to balance their books, etc. Traditionally, unfortunately, governments made this problem worse by directing spending to dying parts of the region and sending the bill to the city. This is okay in a place that's 90% urban but not in a region that's 55% rural.

If growth in Halifax is so strong and it accounts for such a large ammount of the provincial population you would expect that gdp growth would be much higher though. And with urbanization happening throughout all of the Atlantic provinces, finally, you would think the unemployment rate would be dropping more and be on par with the national average.

The region is screwed by high taxes, I heard someone say a recently that it is costing them about the same or more to live in downtown Halifax then it did to live in Toronto.

[Acajack]

I think there is a "go west young man" type of thing that has "flavour of the month" implications to it. It's as much about perceptions as it is about economic reality.

For the longest time in Canada the conventional wisdom was that nothing was happening economically east of Ontario. What has shifted in recent years is the boundary, and Ontario is now being portrayed by some as a passé place that is lumped in with Quebec and that Atlantic provinces as a place that is going nowhere fast.

It is unfortunate that we in North America have this mentality that our countries have huge "disposable/expendable" regions that can be jettisoned without second thought. Now, I do realize that every country has richer and poorer regions but it seems to me that in many places in Europe there is much more effort and consideration put into bringing all regions of a given country up to a reasonably similar level, and far fewer regions "left in the lurch".

[someone123]

The unemployment rate in the cities is below the national average. It's 6.3% in Halifax, for example, and lower than the unemployment rate in Calgary. The overall percentage of people working is about the same as Edmonton -- much higher than Toronto.

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/cbin/mbl2.cgi?dir=1&fln=/l01/cst01/labor35-eng.htm

This is the same story as everywhere else in Canada. Relatively poor rural areas, relatively prosperous cities.

[PoscStudent]

A bit of good news, depending on who you talk too.

Dexter: N.S. ends fiscal year with $447 million surplus


By THE CANADIAN PRESS
Mon, Apr 4 - 8:07 PM

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9020456.html

Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter says the province had a $447-million surplus as the fiscal year drew to a close last week.
The premier says the money will be used to pay down the province's massive $13-billion debt.

Dexter made the commitment Monday during his response to the throne speech.

He says the surplus was the result of a $133-million reduction in government spending along with an $80-million reduction in debt servicing costs, thanks to reduced borrowing needs and favourable interest rates.

There was also a one-time adjustment of provincial revenue collected by Ottawa that provided the province with $196 million.

Dexter says that most provincial source revenues also came in higher than estimated.

[PoscStudent]

Provinces

Here's what happened provincially (previous month in brackets):

•Newfoundland 12.4 (12.8)
••Prince Edward Island 11.2 (11.7)
••Nova Scotia 9.0 (9.5)
••New Brunswick 9.6 (9.8)
••Quebec 7.7 (7.7)
••Ontario 8.1 (8.0)
••Manitoba 5.5 (5.3)
••Saskatchewan 5.2 (5.7)
••Alberta 5.7 (5.7)
••British Columbia 8.1 (8.8)

Cities

•St. John's, N.L. 6.5 (6.7)
••Halifax 6.6 (6.7)
••Moncton, N.B. 8.1 (8.1)
••Saint John, N.B. 6.4 (6.6)
••Saguenay, Que. 7.8 (8.2)
••Quebec 6.3 (5.2)
••Trois-Rivieres, Que. 8.5 (8.4)
••Sherbrooke, Que. 7.3 (7.2)
••Montreal 8.1 (8.1)
••Gatineau, Que. 6.8 (6.4)
••Ottawa 6.5 (6.7)
••Kingston, Ont. 6.8 (6.3)
••Peterborough, Ont. 9.7 (9.2)
••Toronto 8.5 (8.3)
••Hamilton 6.0 (6.7)
••Kitchener, Ont. 6.7 (6.6)
••Brantford, Ont. 9.2 (9.2)
••Guelph, Ont. 7.3 (6.7)
••London, Ont. 8.3 (8.4)
••Oshawa, Ont. 8.9 (8.9)
••St. Catharines-Niagara, Ont. 9.5 (9.6)
••Sudbury, Ont. 7.6 (7.4)
••Thunder Bay, Ont. 7.0 (6.5)
••Windsor, Ont. 9.7 (9.6)
••Barrie, Ont. 8.9 (8.3)
••Winnipeg 5.7 (5.6)
••Regina 5.6 (5.1)
••Saskatoon 5.7 (5.5)
••Calgary 6.1 (6.3)
••Edmonton 5.8 (5.8)
••Kelowna, B.C. 7.8 (7.7)
••Abbotsford, B.C. 10.2 (10.1)
••Vancouver 8.2 (8.1)
••Victoria 6.3 (6.2)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/where-the-jobs-are/article1976161

[PoscStudent]

'Sizzling' economy powers N.L. budget surplus

Soaring oil production helped Newfoundland and Labrador on Tuesday post a whopping $485-million surplus for the last fiscal year, with government expecting another surplus despite a broad pre-election spending program.

"Our economy is sizzling right now," said Finance Minister Tom Marshall, whose new $7.3-billion budget includes large increases on both the revenue and spending sides. The government expects to finish the year with a surplus of $59 million.

"We're going to have lots of revenues … People are paid well, and we cut their taxes," Marshall told reporters, defending a budget that includes increased spending in practically every part of the public service....
Continue reading (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/04/19/nl-budget-2011-main-surplus-419.html)

Here's the Budget: http://www.budget.gov.nl.ca/budget2011/

[caltrane74]

oh boy, Alberta is gonna lose half it's population!

lol!

[PoscStudent]

oh boy, Alberta is gonna lose half it's population!

lol!

I wish.

One of Danny's dreams was to fly an airbus into Fort Mac and take home all the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

[SHOFEAR]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/no-work-yet-in-oil-patch-but-youre-hired/article1984506/


No work yet in oil patch, but you’re hired
NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
CALGARY— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 13, 2011 6:53PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 14, 2011 6:53AM EDT
29 comments Email Print/License Decrease text size
Increase text size Canada’s oil patch is resorting to increasingly unusual measures to secure workers ahead of a coming labour shortage, with one company hiring engineers before work is available and another resorting to a province-wide electronic blitz.

Triple-digit oil prices have fuelled a substantial comeback in Alberta, which has seen its unemployment rate tumble as employers brought back nearly 70,000 jobs over the past year.

[PoscStudent]

Where the jobs are?

Provinces

Canada's national unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent in April. Here's what happened provincially (previous month in brackets):
Newfoundland 11.1 (12.4)

Prince Edward Island 11.2 (11.2)

Nova Scotia 9.2 (9.0)

New Brunswick 10.0 (9.6)

Quebec 7.8 (7.7)

Ontario 7.9 (8.1)

Manitoba 5.2 (5.5)

Saskatchewan 5.0 (5.2)

Alberta 5.9 (5.7)

British Columbia 7.9 (8.1)

Cities

Statistics Canada also released seasonally adjusted, three-month moving average unemployment rates for major cities but cautions the figures may fluctuate widely because they are based on small statistical samples. (Previous month in brackets.)

St. John's, N.L. 5.7 (6.5)

Halifax 6.6 (6.6)

Moncton, N.B. 7.8 (8.1)

Saint John, N.B. 6.8 (6.4)

Saguenay, Que. 7.7 (7.8)

Quebec 6.8 (6.3)

Sherbrooke, Que. 6.9 (7.3)

Trois-Rivieres, Que. 8.7 (8.5)

Montreal 8.0 (8.1)

Gatineau, Que. 6.8 (6.8)

Ottawa 6.3 (6.5)

Kingston, Ont. 7.1 (6.8)

Peterborough, Ont. 9.6 (9.7)

Oshawa, Ont. 9.9 (8.9)

Toronto 8.5 (8.5)

Hamilton 5.5 (6.0)

St. Catharines-Niagara, Ont. 9.2 (9.5)

Kitchener, Ont. 6.9 (6.7)

Brantford, Ont. 8.9 (9.2)

Guelph, Ont. 7.2 (7.3)

London, Ont. 8.3 (8.3)

Windsor, Ont. 10.7 (9.7)

Barrie, Ont. 8.8 (8.9)

Sudbury, Ont. 7.9 (7.6)

Thunder Bay, Ont. 7.3 (7.0)

Winnipeg 5.7 (5.7)

Regina 5.6 (5.6)

Saskatoon 6.1 (5.7)

Calgary 5.9 (6.1)

Edmonton 5.7 (5.8)

Kelowna, B.C. 8.1 (7.8)

Abbotsford, B.C. 9.4 (10.2)

Vancouver 8.4 (8.2)

Victoria 6.2 (6.3)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/where-the-jobs-are/article2012359/

St. John's now has the third lowest unemployment rate in the country!! Last mounth I think it was number 10.

[SHOFEAR]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/where-the-jobs-are/article2012359/

St. John's now has the third lowest unemployment rate in the country!! Last mounth I think it was number 10.



All the unemployed newfyies are moving back to Fort Mc.

[Acajack]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/where-the-jobs-are/article2012359/

St. John's now has the third lowest unemployment rate in the country!! Last mounth I think it was number 10.

What's up with BC?

[PoscStudent]

All the unemployed newfyies are moving back to Fort Mc.

Well if they moved there it wouldn't effect our employment.

[Wishblade]

Well if they moved there it wouldn't effect our employment.

I have a feeling some people are surprised to see that urban areas in the atlantic provinces have some of the best employment rates in the country and want to find backwards reasoning for it. It's the rural areas that really drag this region down while the cities are doing perfectly fine. Im not sure how many people realize this :shrug:.

[240glt]

^ that's just common knowledge for any region.

rural areas and smaller centres have more seasonal employment, more resource based employment and much different types of jobs than large cities do.

For most the choice between living rural and in the city is a matter of lifestyle, not economy

[thurmas]

b.c. really seems to be having a post olympic hangover right now. Manitoba and sask gained more people than b.c. last quarter and now these unemployment stats are pretty bad.

[240glt]

BC has never really had strong employment numbers, I don't think the olympics has anything to do with it.

As with the rural areas, BC is more about lifestyle than economy for a lot of people.

[thurmas]

I don't know I remember a year or 2 ago b.c. had unemployment at 6.4%

[SHOFEAR]

Well if they moved there it wouldn't effect our employment.

Unemployed people leaving st johns would, wouldn't it....

anyways, i was being fictitious.

[240glt]

I don't know I remember a year or 2 ago b.c. had unemployment at 6.4%

The building frenzy helped but traditionally BC's employment figures have not been that good. When I was cutting my teeth in construction in Vancouver 12-13 years ago good jobs were hard to get and pay scales were very low.

And remember, 6.4 may have been good by BC standards but by Alberta standards that's fairly high

But that's the price you pay to live in paradise though :cool:

[someone123]

^ that's just common knowledge for any region.

Yes, but the view of Atlantic Canada as "any region" economically is very new. Traditionally (1920-2000 or so) the Atlantic region was a kind of whipping boy within Canada. People in other regions were happy to pin its poor economic performance on supposed local cultural failings or any number of other uncontrollable factors.

[graupner]

Currently living in Sydney, NS , I can assure you that the economy here totally sucks and is not improving.

I meet everyday people leaving for Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Don't fool yourself, if those numbers are improving, it's only an illusion!

[someone123]

Sitting in Sydney and saying that the Atlantic economy sucks is like sitting in Thunder Bay and saying that Ontario's economy sucks.

[graupner]

Except Halifax, Nova Scotia is a terrible shit hole, economically speaking.

I'm here for a government contract.

[someone123]

Except Halifax, Nova Scotia is a terrible shit hole, economically speaking.

That's not what the labour and wage statistics seem to suggest. It's also not what I found when I lived there; I had no problem finding interesting jobs. I am not aware of any friends there who are unemployed, but I do know a bunch who are in their mid-20s and already have found jobs as doctors, lawyers, researchers, workers in high tech companies, etc.

I talked to an American once who said Halifax was a shithole and he would never consider living there. It turned out he was rejected for a couple of jobs there. Interesting that he was looking for jobs in a shithole he'd refuse to move to!

[PoscStudent]

On CBC news right now they are talking about the difference in the employment on the Avalon Peninsula and the rest of the province. Over 50% of the population live on the Avalon and the unemployment rate is just over 8%. In the four other regions of the province the unemployment rate ranges from 19% to 21%.

[LeftCoaster]

Unemployment rate here in Singapore is 1.9%.... just sayin. ;)