Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Support quality journalism
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24weeks
The Globe and Mail
Support quality journalism
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Globe and Mail website displayed on various devices
Just$1.99
per week
for the first 24weeks

var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){console.log("scroll");var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1);

Statistics Canada says the largest impact to its revisions on productivity was in the years 1981 to 1990, when productivity growth was revised down by 0.3 per cent per year – to 1 per cent from 1.3 per cent.

Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail

Canadian workers are even less productive than originally thought – 0.1 per cent per year less productive, to be exact.

That's the conclusion of Statistics Canada after a series of recent revisions to more than 30 years of key economic data as the agency works to bring its calculations in line with international norms.

The result means business sector labour productivity was an average of 0.1 per cent lower per year from 1981 to the second quarter of this year.

Story continues below advertisement

The largest impact was in the years 1981 to 1990, when productivity growth was revised down by 0.3 per cent per year – to 1 per cent from 1.3 per cent.

Canada's lagging productivity, particularly compared to the United States, has been a constant source of angst for policy makers and economists. In spite of intense efforts to boost competitiveness -- through policies such as free trade, deregulation, lower taxes and heavy investments in research -- the gap has persisted, and even widened in recent years.

Royal Bank of Canada economist Paul Ferley said the productivity revisions could also affect the Bank of Canada's calculation of the current output gap and possibly delay expected interest rate hikes.

Productivity is a measure of output per hours worked. Canada ranks in the middle of the pack among members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The latest revisions mean the Canada-U.S. gap is now wider – 0.8 percentage points per year from 1981 to 2012, up from 0.7 per cent.

Again, the revisions mainly affect the gap prior to 1990. The productivity gap remains largely unchanged in subsequent years. The average spread was 0.1 per cent in the 1990s and 1.5 per cent from 2000 to 2012.

On a positive note, productivity now looks better from 2009 to 2012 – 1.1 per cent per year versus 0.9 per cent.

Story continues below advertisement

Statscan's revisions data touch everything from gross domestic product to provincial economic accounts and the balance of payments. New GDP data was released last week, showing that the last recession was even deeper than thought.

The changes align the Canadian system with 2009 international standards set out by bodies like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. The U.S. will release its changes based on the new standards next year.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies