Talk:List of Canadian provinces and territories by gross domestic product

Comparable Economies
This whole comparable country table is not really useful, inaccurate and becoming outdated quickly. It should be removed if nobody oppose. --Astator (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how the comparable countries in the tables are compared. For example, in the GDP per capita section, Alberta with a GDP per capita of 66,000 (~$US60,000), is compared to the US, whose GDP per capita on average is about 42,000.  It should be comparable to Luxembourg or maybe Norway, not to the US.  I see no use for this as well because the provinces/territories could compare to a number of different countries, and the fact that there are less countries with higher GDP so Alberta is stuck in between Norway and Luxembourg for GDP per capita.  And to add to that, I just took a look at some other provinces and their comparable equivalents.  It's not accurate.  It seems like a random country is chosen in a range of 50,000 (million) of the GDP and the closest one isnt even chosen.  This whole table should be removed in my opinion.
 * I don't see a problem and see much use for the comparative figures. This article indicates GDP/per capita figures for Canadian provinces and territories in Canadian dollars as of 2005 and are compared to closest countries in the relevant articles after conversion to United States dollars (or comparable International dollars) and purchasing power parity as of 2005.  At the time, the conversion factor was about C$1 = US$0.808.  Yes: it looks like the AB comparison might be off, converting to US$53 575 at that time (not US$60K as it might today) and closer to Norway than Luxembourg (and I've corrected this), but the other figures and comparisons seem fine. 142.150.134.70 00:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

GDP per capitas/Canada's
I changed Ontario's GDP per capita to closest to USA since Denmark was already below, and the fact that Ontario's economy and overall outlook is the closest to what you might see in the USA

Second, it says Canada's GDP per capita is $42,000(US $38,000). Does that not mean the main Canada page should also be changed to resemble the GDP per capita of $38,000? Does this not also mean that the GDP would be around 1.2 trillion US?


 * As of the dates cited in the article/tables, Ontario's GDP (after conversion) is closest to that of Denmark ... not to the USA. As well, the values in the country wikitables might have a different source/basis than the ones in the article and, therefore, none should be changed.  142.150.134.54 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GDP per capita PPP
I do not know hwo PPP is calculated, but using the numbers at the top this is what I come up with.

1.105 til / 1.368 til	 = 0.807748538

alberta           66279        53536

british columbia  39490        31898

manitoba	  35609        28763

new brunswick	  31552        25486

newfoundland	  41733        33709

northwest terrs   94953        76698

nova scotia       33533        27086

nunavut           36700        29644

ontario           42866        34624

prince ed. is. 29993       24226

quebec            36175        29220

saskatchewan      42742        34524

yukon	          49097        39658

canada            42402        34250

This appears rather correct. Given that Canadian subdivisional GDPs are not provided in US dollars nor is there a source for this conversion/information, though, this should not be included. 142.150.134.54 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GDP update
Today, updated based on (xe.com) today's exchange rate with international (U.S.) dollars and List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, which (I think) has been updated. If the intent is to compare the economic activity per person (which it appears to be), nominal seems to be the better choice. It is also easier to verify in terms of conversion rates. If the intent is to show a standard of living comparison, is there a better way than PPP per capita GDP, (especially since all of these provinces are all fairly well off)? For instance, Northwest Territories would be by far the richest in the world, but maybe by other quality of life indicators, Ontario would rank higher. Again, my interpretation is that the table is comparing the economic activity per person, so nominal seems more appropriate. Any concerns? Ufwuct 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still no comments? I think that the cost of living far off places in Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon is probably much higher than other places (other than Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal) because of their remoteness and the need to ship essential goods in via airplane or by the ice roads.  If anyone has data to support my guess or to disprove it, it would be welcomed.  However, without cost-of-living data, PPP comparisons are not very meaningful and worse, are probably misleading.  This is why nominal GDP seems better.  It at least measures economic activity, without presuming to compare purchasing power parity.  Thanks. Ufwuct 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi -- someone is listening. :) I think the values are derived from 2005 Statistics Canada figures, with appropriate comparisons (after 2005 currency conversion) to like global values (i.e., IMF values from the 2005 GDP PPP country listing in Wp).  Thus, it would probably be incorrect to use and compare any other values until the basic Canadian figures are updated by StatsCan.  In turn, the 2005 national GDP PPP per capita value (StatsCan values/population) appears to correspond with the GDP PPP per capita values at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita after 2005 currency conversion (C$42 402/US$34 273 = US$1=C$1.237 or C$1=US$0.808), which also appears the basis for subnational calculations; see above.  The current arrangement and comparisons seem to be a matter of comparing like-with-like and, thus, should remain unchanged.  Even though I agree that costs would be greater in the North than elsewhere, I think comparisons with nominal values would be more imprecise than currently.
 * Also note that the value of the Canadian dollar has appreciated against most currencies since the 2005 figures were compiled and has a higher PPP value (in relation to nominal values) than most other currencies, i.e., it is undervalued. I hope this all makes sense. :) Cogito ergo sumo 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agreee that the PPP GDP value for Canada matches the master list of all contries. I agree with your source and think it is the most reliable source available.  However, inherent in the in any comparison using PPP GDP data is the comparison of purchasing power parity between whatever areas are being compared.


 * Using a hypothetical from the United States (so that I can simplify it by using international dollars), let's say the per capita GAP (Gross Area Product) of San Francisco is $50,000 and the per capita GAP for San Antonio is $25,000. Let's also assume for a moment that all GAPs in the U.S. add up to the total U.S. GDP (in reality, I think this would be far too complicated; adding up GSPs (Gross State Products) is much more likely to have this desired correlation).  We also know that the PPP has been established for the U.S. in comparison to all other countries in the world, based on the cost-of-living/cost of products in each of those countries.  If we then use this PPP calculation for the U.S. as a whole to compare San Antonio's per capita GDP to another country, San Antonio would compare most closely with New Zealand ($24,797, #27).  San Francisco would be closest to Norway, yet far ahead of Norway ($42,364, #2).  Completely lost in this comparison is the fact that the cost of living is much, much higher in land-scarce, regulation-high San Francisco than in San Antonio (with plentiful buildable land, cheap housing, and lower taxes).


 * I was wondering initially if PPP has been calculated for each province and territory of Canada. If so, is this information available?  If so, it would be very helpful.  Also, what is your source for: C$42 402/US$34 273 = US$1=C$1.237 or C$1=US$0.808).  I know many places to look up the exchange rate day-by-day, but if we could have a source that shows a standard exchange for a previous year, I think that would further solidify this article.  Thanks for your time. Ufwuct 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that if the above-mentioned considerations have not been taken into account, the information is misleading, In which case, it would be better to have no comparisons made at all rather than misleading information. Ufwuct 23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There have always been challenges when using GDP/GDP PPP figures across the board; however, IMO, the above analysis makes far more assumptions than are required. PPP figures take into account the equalisation of purchasing power of different currencies in respective countries for a set amount of goods; reagrdless, there remain difficulties when making comparing figures within countries.  Whether or not these figures are compiled for jurisdictions within Canada, I cannot say.  My source for the currency comparison is merely from a calculation of the figures in the article -- they seem correct given the timeframe and you'd have to ask the originator of the article.  As such, I find nothing misleading about the contents or comparisons of this article.


 * The figures in the table are apparently derived from the StatsCan website, which are reported to the IMF periodically in USD (International dollars), I think. As well, I believe similar figures are included in the Canadian Global Almanac (insert year), though precise figures currently elude me. Cogito ergo sumo 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made one assumption: the purchasing power of (Canadian) money varies in different provinces. The reason I provided a detailed hypothetical scenario is because you did not appear to understand my initial posts.  Why did I make this assumption?  Because you did not address this core issue that I raised.  It was the central point of my argument.  Yes, you talked about how the GDP for Canada as a whole correlates with the correct figures (StatsCan) and how the PPP GDP per capita figures for each province are very close to the PPP GDP per capita figures in the corresponding Wikipedia article.  You also said that the costs of living in the North would be higher, but you didn't then say why you thought PPP GDP figures are more accurate.
 * Plus, I'm sure my one assumption is fairly accurate. This information can be found in external sources and even within Wikipedia.  The other parts of my argument don't require any assumptions (any specifc numbers were purely for illustration purposes).  PPP measures purchasing power parity (it's evident by the name).  Months after I brought up this initial discussion, I found Comparison between U.S. states and countries nominal GDP.  This issue has been brought up there as well (independently).  If, as you say, you would like to make as few assumptions as possible, let's try using comparisons based on GDP (nominal).  The very name itself gives the caveat "nominal", so no assumptions are required (such as: Even though I agree that costs would be greater in the North than elsewhere, I think comparisons with nominal values would be more imprecise than currently or Probably $1 does not have the same buying power in different states however it should be close enough.)  GDP (nominal) is simply C + I + G + (E - I), which StatsCan has conveniently already calculated for us.  Ufwuct 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, given the focus of the article, arguably yours is one assumption too many. Though I don't necessarily disagree with your perspective, I see nothing wrong with the like-like comparisons herein -- all the base PPP figures in C$ (e.g., in the intro) are cited, and that should be good enough.  It would be great if some authoritative analysis/paper were produced to corroborate your position regarding regional variances and their applicability to this article (e.g., a prior paper about HDI for Canadian provinces and territories) ... but until then, the status quo (with PPP figures) seems sufficient -- alternatively, I think use of nominal figures would be more imprecise precisely because there is no correction or accommodation for monetary values in different locales.  (As well, you didn't clearly articulate your argument throughout; if I misunderstood, my apologies.)  There also seems to be issues with the US article that are not wholly evident in this one: the US article is tagged for improvement, and discussions thereof seem to support use of PPP figures (not nominal ones) for comparison.  I have said that I believe the costs in the North are higher, but I believe these are also accommodated for in the StatsCan figures (e.g., higher federal transfers to the North). Cogito ergo sumo 16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * and discussions thereof seem to support use of PPP figures (not nominal ones) for comparison
 * I missed that. I said that the crux of my argument had been independently voiced elsewhere, not that it had prevailed.  On the other hand, you're saying that that talk page has reached a consensus of using PPP figures?
 * If so, where (elsewhere) is the crux of your argument? Another article?  Anyhow, the discussion on the US article page (no consensus, but little debate) seems to revolve around the calculations: this article is more meant as a tabular comparison of Canadian subdivisions. Cogito ergo sumo 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Crux = "This does however assume that $1 has the same PPP in each US state." Ufwuct 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, given the focus of the article, arguably yours is one assumption too many.
 * If it is important enough to include in this article, then it is certainly important enough to ensure that the information is not misleading. It would be disingenuous to say: "Oh, it's not that important; let's just leave it as is."  If it's not important to this article enough to ensure accuracy of the information, then that information doesn't belong here.
 * It is important to include notations to embrace various points of view, but I believe it not so important so as to obviate information that is already there; see below. Cogito ergo sumo 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think that the federal transfer payments correct, or balance out, etc. the imprecision of PPP GDP per capita country-to-province comparisons. I'm not even sure how this relates.  (I'd like to see if you can make an argument against using nominal GDP comparisons with this line of reasoning, though.  I'd be interested to hear it.) Northwest Territories receives equalization payments even though it has by far the highest per capita GDP.  This gives each NWT resident extra money (in a crude, indirect sort of way) which boosts their apparent per capita PPP GDP.  But if the cost of living is much higher, then the flaw in using PPP GDP estimates still remains.
 * I do not believe comparisons are apt using nominal figures. I do not think this is indicative of a 'flaw' using PPP: far from it; while I cannot source this just yet, I suspect the correlation is more substantive.  I believe the federal government especially transfers revenue to the territories (which are creations of the federal government) because of the extra costs of living in the North.  All but two provinces receive equalisation, and I believe that transfers are components of provincial/territorial economic figures ... even moreso for the less populous territories with smaller economies in an absolute sense. Cogito ergo sumo 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the first sentence, I agree with every part of the (your) above paragraph, yet I'm not sure what it was in response to. I feel as though you're not even reading my posts - only replying. Ufwuct 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So where does this leave us? I'll put on {#123;disputed}} tags for now and a note at the bottom of the table.  Eventually, if this is resolved, we could take the disputed tags off (if not the entire column) and possibly improve the note at the bottom of the table if necessary. Thanks. Ufwuct 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine -- I may tweak the notes added to be more ... encyclopedic. I might remove the 'dubious' tag claim since the note added now qualifies the information and the tag presupposes that  (given the above) the use of nominal figures is more apt ... and since you've apparently made prior editions to the table without the expectation of any such proviso, and that is a point of view which I do not share.  I do find utility in the column of comparisons but (given the focus of the article/table) can be compelled otherwise.  Cogito ergo sumo 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ... okay. Ufwuct 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

CAD vs USD
The Canadian average GDP of CAD$42,400 be USD$37,573 ? Currently The CAD is worth 88 cents and is expected to increase. I used the Yahoo! currency convertor. Making it the 5th highest.

NWT gdp
I think that there should be some note about the fact that the vast majority of people in NWT are native Canadians who make next to nothing. The reason why the GDP in NWT is so high is not because of equalization, it is because there are diamonds mines all over the place in NWT and what you have is a few white really wealthy diamond miners and a bunch of poor natives. Amnesty international has essentially bashed the Canadian government for this and there are articles all over to support these facts

Real vs Nominal GDP
Something seems very wrong here. Specifically, it seems incredible to me that Newfoundland has a GDP per capita higher than British Columbia and nearly that of Ontario. So I took a look at the StatsCan references and discovered that the provincial GDP figures used in the article may be wrong. Specifically, the link cited in the article, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ15.htm gives a value of $21 billion for the GDP of Newfoundland, but another page in the StatsCan site, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ50.htm gives a value of $15 Billion. The first page is labeled 'Gross domestic product, expenditure-based' whereas the second is labeled 'Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based'. Altough all provincial GDP figures are higher in the first set of data, they are proportionally much higher for Newfoundland, which is contributing to its (apparent) high ranking. Using the second set ranks NL's GDP per capital much lower (29.6K vs 33.8K for BC and 38K for Ontario). These seem more plausible to me. Unfortunately I'm not sure what the difference is between the two methodologies and the StatsCan website offers little in the way of explanation. Any insights from the more economically-minded amongst us?
 * I don't think that there's anything wrong with the figures already in the article (since they do correspond with cited figures in the relevant StatsCan article) - note that the 'real' GDP figures are calculated using "millions of chained (1997) dollars", so they are time-adjusted values whereas the figures currently in the article are not. That being said, it is probably more a matter that the 'real' figures might need to be added to the tables; of course, this may raise more questions than answers (see above). Cogito ergo sumo 07:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

International dollars
Could we by any chance change Canadian dollars to American dollars for the sake of internationalism. All other figures are given in USD and this may cause quite a confusion. Thank you, (12.218.46.67 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC))


 * It doesn't work that way.  Andrew 6 47 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, quite often it does. Perhaps both can be given.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Canada's nominal gdp rank is 8th or 9th in the world
I wrote that in and it's a fact can someone link that to a source. Why would its ppp rank be highlighted and its nominal gdp rank (which is the more accurate gdp measurement) be ignored when its ranked higher ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.212.64 (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger
This article should be merged with Economy of Canada. Aurush kazemini (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This list is similar to many others on Wikipedia regarding individual countries.  TastyCakes (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research
This article synthesizes information from different sources. Isn't that a no-no? LOLOL Aurush kazemini (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Using different sources does not constitute original research. What part of the article are you claiming is original research?  TastyCakes (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in article
There seems to be a mistake in the article. In the first table, the percentage you calculate with Alberta's GDP being 235,593 is about 20%, not 12.8%. I believe the total also adds up incorrectly at the bottom, since the percentages do add up to 100%. The reference given no longer works. TastyCakes (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected the figure based on the Real Growth figure. It is now in line with the percentage as well.  --Astator (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Market Income per capita is original research
The column labelled "Market Income per capita" is original research. No source is provided directly supporting the data presented. It defines something called "market income" without citing a source, and calculates it using an unsourced, non-obvious formula. These are not routine calculations. Rectipaedia (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Market income is a Statistics Canada concept, and a source was cited (in fact, in response to this comment). I can see why you deleted it last year due to the lack of citation, but the latest deletion despite evidence is unwarranted. A Google search of "market income" (with quotation marks) of statcan.gc.ca yields over 600,000 results; whether you were personally aware of it or not, it is a well-established concept. As for the "per capita" part, that is routine calculation. In fact, Statistics Canada doesn't directly provide GDP per capita by province, so if you disallow per capita calculations, you might as well delete this whole article. As such, I have reverted your edit. 172.103.172.218 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the number of search results estimated by Google can fluctuate (I now get 428,000), but the point is that it is very large, demonstrating that this is not some obscure concept. 172.103.172.218 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Original research" a lovely way of describing something created to support a conspiracy theory. Transfer payments are a contentious subject and this appears to be an attempt to falsely link personal incomes to "transfer payments" which is not defined here and could mean federal transfer payments which are larger than (because they contain) equalization payments. Economists have a different view of "transfer payments" but what's a little red herring between ideological opponents. Another case of lions being led by donkeys. Jwaustin188 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the issue is. First, equalization payments are made to provinces, not individuals, so your comment seems off. Second, government transfers are defined in the same glossary where market income is defined on the Statistics Canada website. Third, transfer payments (both between governments and from any government to individuals) are *not* part of GDP, so of the three income concepts used by Statistics Canada (market, total and after-tax), the one most closely related with GDP is market income. (If the point were instead to measure individuals' spending power, then after-tax income would be more appropriate, as it adds government transfers and subtracts income taxes.) 172.103.172.218 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Updated to more recent statistics
In updating to use more recent statistics how should the existing tables be kept? In a separate article in a talk page archives?Oceanflynn (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Added new table based on StatCan data
I created this sortable table and I have also added it in this article Economy of Alberta. Oceanflynn (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A table listing annual ""Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by industry, provinces and territories (x 1,000,000)." from 2014 through 2018 with value chained to 2012 dollars.