2 weeks Ago By By Deveryn Ross
According to Statistics Canada data that was released yesterday morning, Canada’s economy lost a staggering 62,000 full-time jobs in March. That loss was offset by gains in part-time employment, leaving a net loss of 33,000 jobs for the month — a huge loss that traded full-time jobs for part-time employment. Read this article for free: Already have an account? As we navigate through unprecedented times, our journalists are working harder than ever to bring you the latest local updates to keep you safe and informed.
Now, more than ever, we need your support. Starting at $15.99 plus taxes every four weeks you can access your Brandon Sun online and full access to all content as it appears on our website.
or call circulation directly at (204) 727-0527. Your pledge helps to ensure we provide the news that matters most to your community! To continue reading, please subscribe: *$1 will be added to your next bill. After your 4 weeks access is complete your rate will increase by $4.
99 a X percent off the regular rate. According to Statistics Canada data that was released yesterday morning, Canada’s economy lost a staggering 62,000 full-time jobs in March. That loss was offset by gains in part-time employment, leaving a net loss of 33,000 jobs for the month — a huge loss that traded full-time jobs for part-time employment.
Read unlimited articles for free today: Already have an account? Opinion According to Statistics Canada data that was released yesterday morning, Canada’s economy lost a staggering 62,000 full-time jobs in March. That loss was offset by gains in part-time employment, leaving a net loss of 33,000 jobs for the month — a huge loss that traded full-time jobs for part-time employment. For comparison, the United States economy added 228,000 jobs in March, a much higher figure than the 140,000 jobs that many experts had anticipated — and that’s on top of the 117,000 jobs added in February.
That adds up to 325,000 net new American jobs in just two months since the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump.
While the employment rate in Canada has risen to 6.7 per cent on the heels of yesterday’s news, the U.S.
jobless rate is far lower, at just 4.2 per cent. Deveryn Ross writes that on election day, Canadians must choose between Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s plan to reduce the Canada-U.
S. trading relationship and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s plan for a deeper, more integrated economic relationship between the two nations. (The Canadian Press files) That data underscores the seriousness of the economic challenge Canada is facing as we grapple with the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Wednesday, and as we contemplate the possibility of additional measures being imposed in the coming weeks.
With that reality in mind, and the fact the nation is in the midst of a federal election campaign, the question on many Canadians’ minds is which political party and leader is best-suited to navigate Canada through the turbulent economic waters we currently find ourselves in. Several opinion polls conducted over the past three weeks have found that more Canadians believe that Liberal Leader Mark Carney is better-equipped than Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to stand up to Trump, but that position is largely based on general perceptions of the two leaders, not empirical facts. In order to arrive at a more informed determination as to who would do a better job of defending Canada’s interests in dealings with the Trump administration, it makes more sense to weigh what each leader says he would actually do as prime minister.
Both Carney and Poilievre say they would commence negotiations with the U.S. on a new trade treaty immediately after the election is concluded, but the approach and objectives that would form the foundation for their respective negotiation strategies are very different.
Carney would conduct those negotiations on the basis that the highly integrated economic relationship that has existed for decades between Canada and the U.S. is largely over.
Though security arrangements between the two countries would continue to exist, the Liberal leader would place a greater emphasis on building better trading relationships with other nations. Poilievre, on the other hand, says his government would immediately negotiate a new Canada-U.S.
-Mexico deal that would further integrate the economic relationship between Canada and the U.S. He says that the deeper links would be an economic boon for Canada, and would finance the additional military investments that the U.
S. demands Canada commit to. Poilievre’s strategy would deepen the economic integration between Canada and the U.
S., while Carney’s approach would do the opposite. It would reduce the scope of our economic relationship with the U.
S. and diversify our trading relationships across the globe. Voters should have some obvious questions regarding those two plans: How realistic is it for Carney to suggest that Canada can quickly add or enhance trading relationships with other nations? How close can those relationships come to offsetting the economic harm caused by a reduced economic relationship with the U.
S.? With respect to Poilievre’s plan, how could he trust the U.S.
to respect Canada and honour its obligations under a new trade agreement if it is currently breaching its obligations under the existing trade agreement? How confident can we be that a government led by him would be capable of negotiating a new trade agreement with the Trump administration that would fully protect Canadian interests? Even more importantly, how can we negotiate any trade agreement — which requires a high degree of trust, respect and good faith — with a nation that says it is prepared to use economic force to annex us? Isn’t even greater economic integration between Canada and the U.S. really just a prelude to greater political integration? Could that be a back-door path to the two countries eventually becoming one nation? With all of those questions in mind, it’s clear that the ballot box question in the current election should be more complex than simply guessing whether Carney or Poilievre is best equipped to stand up to Trump.
Canadian voters must choose between Carney’s plan to reduce the Canada-U.S. trading relationship and Poilievre’s plan for a deeper, more integrated economic relationship between the two nations.
It’s a stark, binary choice for voters to make. The livelihoods of millions of Canadians, and the future of our nation, hinge on that choice. Advertisement Advertisement.
