Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Brad Sallows]

Most searches will turn up links to information synthesized from OECD reports.

OECD sources are difficult to pin down, but can be found for those interested. Many will be PDFs. Be sure to check publication dates; some are outdated by a decade or more.

 

[daftandbarmy]

From google AI (take with a grain of skepticism)

The OECD ranks Canada among the lowest of its member nations for GDP per capita growth, particularly over the last decade. While aggregate GDP has shown resilience, persistent population growth has masked weak per-capita performance, resulting in Canada having one of the weakest standards-of-living growth rates in the developed world.

• Long-Term Projection: The OECD projects Canada will rank dead last (38th out of 38) in real GDP per capita growth among member countries from 2020–2030 and 2030–2060.
• Recent Performance: From 2014 to 2022, Canada ranked third-lowest out of 30 OECD countries for average growth in GDP per capita.
• Post-Pandemic Recovery: Canada experienced the 5th weakest recovery in real GDP per capita among OECD countries between 2019 and 2022.
• Income Decline: Canadian GDP per capita fell below the OECD average in 2022, and it is projected to fall further behind, with projections suggesting it could be US \(\$8,617\) below the average by 2060.
• Context: This underperformance is largely attributed to weak productivity growth, low capital investment per worker, and high population growth outpacing economic output. (Source is OECD)

Conversely, in terms of aggregate (total) GDP growth, Canada has often performed closer to the middle of the pack due to high population increases, but this does not translate to higher individual prosperity.

Along with other poor performing economic indicators, this tells us that Canada is circling the bowl.

Not a great place to invest, amongst other things.

 

[brihard]

Most searches will turn up links to information synthesized from OECD reports.

OECD sources are difficult to pin down, but can be found for those interested. Many will be PDFs. Be sure to check publication dates; some are outdated by a decade or more.

I did some searching on this one with similar results. I believe we’re being treated to regurgitated editorializing from several years ago, derived from analysis of reports earlier still.

Not to suggest Canada is an economic panacea. Far from it. But the claim made in that tweet doesn’t seem to hold up with any demonstrable currency.

 

[ArmyRick]

Along with other poor performing economic indicators, this tells us that Canada is circling the bowl.

Not a great place to invest, amongst other things.

One principle of war that would benefit Canada as a whole is Select and Maintain the Aim.

This thread alone with these last couple of post shows we have a few here arguing over the "validity" of the X post rather than focus on the fact that Canada is in trouble.

Our society as a whole functions the same way.

 

[Altair]

I did some searching on this one with similar results. I believe we’re being treated to regurgitated editorializing from several years ago, derived from analysis of reports earlier still.

Not to suggest Canada is an economic panacea. Far from it. But the claim made in that tweet doesn’t seem to hold up with any demonstrable currency.

Dont bother.

You will spend time and energy trying to track down the truth of the slop and even when you come with the actual data the person who posted it won't believe you or care, and will move on to the next slop twitter post.

 

[McG]

When you enter information into a discussion to support a conclusion, the "validity" of that information is relevant to whether or not it actually supports the conclusion you claim and so the validity of that information is germane to the discussion. If you argue that Canada is in trouble using false/misleading information then you have not actually substantiated the position that the trouble even exists for people to focus on it.

 

[ArmyRick]

Or you can open you eyes. Its all over the news, has been for years, left and right leaning media talking about how we need to solve a laundry list of issues, that somehow, never get sorted out.

Its seriously picking fly shit out of pepper. Canada is IN trouble. Or believe what you want.

My opinion is PM MC is not the solution.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or you can open you eyes. Its all over the news, has been for years, left and right leaning media talking about how we need to solve a laundry list of issues, that somehow, never get sorted out.

Its seriously picking fly shit out of pepper. Canada is IN trouble. Or believe what you want.

My opinion is PM MC is not the solution.

Poor productivity is the real killer. We're lazy, inefficient and don't innovate, and want to be paid well for it with great benefits, compared especially to the USA:

Canada’s weak productivity: reversing course​

What productivity is and why it matters​

Canada’s weak productivity growth is getting a lot of attention these days. And with good reason.

It makes our economy vulnerable to major disruptions like the trade conflict with the United States. Stronger productivity would protect against such shocks and give us momentum to seize opportunities in a rapidly changing world.

Strong productivity acts like a healthy immune system, making our economy more resilient. Contrary to what many people think, productivity does not mean working longer hours or working harder. It’s about making more with what we already have—it’s about producing better.

Canada’s weak productivity has persisted for 25 years. We’re less productive than other major economies, and that gap has widened since 2000, especially with the United States.

Improving productivity would allow us to earn more money while also keeping inflation low. If our productivity growth since 2000 had been similar to that of other G7 countries, our GDP in Canada today would be about 9% higher, which translates to almost $7,000 per person.

Deep down, Canada’s affordability problem is really a productivity problem. … To make things more affordable, we need to raise our income. And the way to grow our income is by increasing productivity.

Canada’s weak productivity: reversing course

External Deputy Governor Nicolas Vincent discusses Canada’s longstanding weak productivity, what can be done to reverse the trend, and how we would all benefit if we do.

www.bankofcanada.ca

 

[YZT580]

Most searches will turn up links to information synthesized from OECD reports.

OECD sources are difficult to pin down, but can be found for those interested. Many will be PDFs. Be sure to check publication dates; some are outdated by a decade or more.

the one quoted can't be too outdated. It covers to the end of 2022 and I can just about guarantee that our economy hasn't improved any since then

 

[Altair]

the one quoted can't be too outdated. It covers to the end of 2022 and I can just about guarantee that our economy hasn't improved any since then

It's GDP per capita.

Seeing as we were one of the fastest growing nations on earth due to immigration it drags per capita GDP growth down.

The report then was showing a problem, but not the problem people were pointing to. It was showing we were growing too fast population wise for our economy to handle.

We are actively shrinking in population right now while our gdp continues to grow, so paradoxically our GDP per capita growth will probably skyrocket.

This is what happens when you have uninformed people on twitter posting nonsense.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's GDP per capita.

Seeing as we were one of the fastest growing nations on earth due to immigration it drags per capita GDP growth down.

This is what happens when you have uninformed people on twitter posting nonsense.

As I've noted repeatedly, spot measurements are not really helpful and are no match for trend measurements. The trend is unimpressive. It would be nice to exhibit a mostly monotonically increasing curve over the long term, and Canada doesn't.

US

Canada

It takes about 30 seconds to find results to check most claims about common economic measures. My memory is fallible so I often check my claims before I post, even if I'm too lazy to post links.

Even if you don't want to post links, you can at least verify whether your claims about other people posting nonsense are also nonsense.

 

[Altair]

As I've noted repeatedly, spot measurements are not really helpful and are no match for trend measurements. The trend is unimpressive. It would be nice to exhibit a mostly monotonically increasing curve over the long term, and Canada doesn't.

US

Canada

It takes about 30 seconds to find results to check most claims about common economic measures. My memory is fallible so I often check my claims before I post, even if I'm too lazy to post links.

Even if you don't want to post links, you can at least verify whether your claims about other people posting nonsense are also nonsense.

When did Trudeau lower immigration?

October 2024.

When did we see population growth flatline?

2025.

When did our population start to shrink?

2026.

When does the graph you just shared stop with it's data?

2023.

Tell me then, what good is a graph from 2023 at capturing population decline, thus GDP per capita increasing, in 2026?

I'll wait.

 

[daftandbarmy]

More OECD results ... mixed but not great overall.

Carney and his bunch have a steep uphill struggle, especially because the Liberals traditionally just love a pile of the good old red tape

Canada Economic Snapshot​

Canada’s GDP per capita (in PPP) is slightly above the OECD average but remains below that of top-performing countries, despite significant potential for higher levels thanks to strong institutions, a highly skilled workforce, and abundant natural resources. This gap is largely due to a below-average productivity level, which has declined further relative to top-performing economies in recent years. The capital stock per worker also remains below average. While overall labour utilisation is high, female labour force participation continues to lag slightly that of men.

Policy priorities should focus on boosting sluggish productivity growth by enhancing investment in physical and digital infrastructure and fostering a more competitive and dynamic business environment. Further key actions include reducing interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility, and lowering entry barriers in regulated sectors, including restrictions on foreign investment in these sectors. Labour utilisation among women and other underrepresented groups, such as immigrants, also has room for improvement.

https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/economic-surveys/canada-economic-snapshot.html

 

[Altair]

More OECD results ... mixed but not great overall.

Carney and his bunch have a steep uphill struggle, especially because the Liberals traditionally just love a pile of the good old red tape

Canada Economic Snapshot​

Canada’s GDP per capita (in PPP) is slightly above the OECD average but remains below that of top-performing countries, despite significant potential for higher levels thanks to strong institutions, a highly skilled workforce, and abundant natural resources. This gap is largely due to a below-average productivity level, which has declined further relative to top-performing economies in recent years. The capital stock per worker also remains below average. While overall labour utilisation is high, female labour force participation continues to lag slightly that of men.

Policy priorities should focus on boosting sluggish productivity growth by enhancing investment in physical and digital infrastructure and fostering a more competitive and dynamic business environment. Further key actions include reducing interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility, and lowering entry barriers in regulated sectors, including restrictions on foreign investment in these sectors. Labour utilisation among women and other underrepresented groups, such as immigrants, also has room for improvement.

https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/economic-surveys/canada-economic-snapshot.html

Im happy you moved past the twitter slop.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Tell me then, what good is a graph from 2023 at capturing population decline, thus GDP per capita increasing, in 2026?

The decades-long trend it shows.

Population decline, 2025 Q4. 103,504 people. Population estimate for 01 Jan 2026: 41,472,081. World Bank GDP estimate for 2025: about $2.1T USD (so comparable to what's at the links I provided).

$2.1T / 41,472,081 = $50636 (per capita)
$2.1T / (41,472,081+103,504) = $50510 (per capita)

Not much more than a rounding error. Not much different from the past few years. And those are current, meaning not adjusted, USD. So if the numbers aren't increasing, things are worse than they look.

 

[Altair]

The decades-long trend it shows.

Population decline, 2025 Q4. 103,504 people. Population estimate for 01 Jan 2026: 41,472,081. World Bank GDP estimate for 2025: about $2.1T USD (so comparable to what's at the links I provided).

$2.1T / 41,472,081 = $50636 (per capita)
$2.1T / (41,472,081+103,504) = $50510 (per capita)

Not much more than a rounding error. Not much different from the past few years. And those are current, meaning not adjusted, USD. So if the numbers aren't increasing, things are worse than they look.

Canada GDP (2026) - Worldometer

Current and historical Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Canada in nominal and real US dollar values. GDP growth rates and charts

www.worldometers.info

IMF​

Nominal (current) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Canada is $2.51 trillion ($2,507,340,000,000) as of 2026, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).The GDP growth rate in 2026 is 1.5%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).GDP per Capita in Canada (with a population of 40,467,728 people) is $60,305 in 2026, an increase of $4,540 from $55,765 in 2025; this represents a change of 8.1% in GDP per capita.

Due to population decline, and GDP growth our GDP per capita increased 8.1 percent.

Compared to 1.4 percent from the slop tweet, I stand by what I said, it skyrocketed from where it was in just one year.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Due to population decline, and GDP growth our GDP per capita increased 8.1 percent.

Compared to 1.4 percent from the slop tweet, I stand by what I said, it skyrocketed from where it was in just one year.

It's May, 2026. GDP numbers for 2026 are still estimates/projections. Even 2025 numbers aren't very firm, but at least they're more firm than complete unknowns/extrapolations.

The estimates of population loss for 2025 vary, but are somewhere around 100,000 net for the year. It should have been obvious by inspection, but certainly after I showed a calculation, that any given total GDP number is so large that a per capita calculation just isn't really sensitive to that change in population. That leaves changes in the GDP number as the overwhelming determinant of significant changes in GDP per capita. And for comparison across years, it's best to have at least estimates of what was done rather than extrapolations.

 

[Altair]

It's May, 2026. GDP numbers for 2026 are still estimates/projections. Even 2025 numbers aren't very firm, but at least they're more firm than complete unknowns/extrapolations.

The estimates of population loss for 2025 vary, but are somewhere around 100,000 net for the year. It should have been obvious by inspection, but certainly after I showed a calculation, that any given total GDP number is so large that a per capita calculation just isn't really sensitive to that change in population. That leaves changes in the GDP number as the overwhelming determinant of significant changes in GDP per capita. And for comparison across years, it's best to have at least estimates of what was done rather than extrapolations.

The number is very large but its also a very stupid statistic.
Think for a second, if we just shipped off 250k people, but boosted oil revenue, our GDP per capita would soar.
Is the economy any healthier? No. We just have less people sharing the same amount of the pie.

GDP growth last year was 1.7 percent. Nothing to write home about. But that small growth and the decrease in population was enough to pump up our GDP per capita numbers.

The USA by comparison,

United States GDP (2026) - Worldometer

Current and historical Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States in nominal and real US dollar values. GDP growth rates and charts

www.worldometers.info

Nominal (current) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States is $32.38 trillion ($32,383,920,000,000) as of 2026, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).The GDP growth rate in 2026 is 2.3%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).GDP per Capita in the United States (with a population of 349,035,494 people) is $94,430 in 2026, an increase of $4,439 from $89,991 in 2025; this represents a change of 4.9% in GDP per capita.

They only grew 4.9 percent per capita despite higher GDP growth.

It's a really dumb statistic that muddles so much and points at so many things at once that it's mostly just noise.

It's why it was dumb when PP was talking about it in march 2025 and it's dumb now. The underlying economy didn't get 8.1 percent better. We just got rid of a lot of people while maintaining just enough growth to make that number look good.

And I need to spend all this time, and all this work, because someone posted BS on twitter.

It would be nice if people would do a few minutes of verifying the source material before posting it here and making my wife give me side eye because...

 

[Brad Sallows]

The number is very large but its also a very stupid statistic.

Per capita is more useful than total, and PPP adjusted numbers are more useful still.

 

[Altair]

Per capita is more useful than total, and PPP adjusted numbers are more useful still.

Median household income trumps them all. So does median wealth.

It would show that we are still richer than alabama, even in USD.

But that doesn't fit the narrative of "CANADA IS FAILING!" so nobody uses it.