Sharan Kaur: Why top economists are rejecting the ‘recession’ narrative

The Front Bench panel discusses Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre’s war of words on the state of the economy after Canada slipped into a technical recession.

Sharan Kaur served as the deputy chief of staff for former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau and is currently a principal at Navigator.

Words matter in politics. Few carry the weight of ‘recession’, a term that doesn’t just describe an economic condition, but conjures one in the public imagination.

Mass layoffs. Shuttered businesses. Families in crisis. You don’t even need to prove a recession is happening to cause harm with the word. You just need to say it loudly enough, often enough, that people stop asking whether it’s true.

That seems to be Pierre Poilievre’s strategy right now. And it deserves to be called what it is. Politics.

There is no official definition of a recession in Canada. The term ‘technical recession,’ now plastered across opposition press releases and Poilievre’s social media feed, carries no formal weight in economic analysis.

The IMF has no universal definition. Neither does the Bank of Canada. The phrase is political shorthand, a deadline convenience borrowed and weaponized by a man more interested in stoking fear than offering solutions.

The actual arbiter of Canada’s recession dates is the CD Howe Institute’s Business Cycle Council, which has stated explicitly that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP are “neither necessary nor sufficient” to declare a recession. The Council has not declared one. It has not come close.

This matters because 2015 offers a direct precedent. That year saw a more pronounced contraction than today, and the Council still ruled it was not a recession, a judgment it reaffirmed over three subsequent years of data revision.

Poilievre’s party called it a recession then, too. The institution with the actual mandate to make that call disagreed. History is repeating itself, and Poilievre is counting on Canadians not noticing.

What the GDP data actually tells us

The figure at the centre of this debate is a 0.1 per cent annualized decline in real GDP for Q1 2026. On a straight quarter-over-quarter basis, GDP was unchanged, zero. The economy neither grew nor shrank. McMaster economist Colin Mang put it plainly: the total nominal decline was approximately $1 million in a $3.2 trillion economy. That is the number Poilievre is calling “the Liberal recession” while demanding emergency parliamentary debates. This isn’t a recession, it is a rounding error.

Canada’s leading economists are not persuaded:

• TD Bank said it “wouldn’t necessarily call it a technical recession.”
• BMO’s Douglas Porter said simply “no, not really.”
• KPMG called the two-quarter rule a “crude” measure.
• Desjardins found the weakness “not widespread enough” to meet any reasonable threshold.

These aren’t partisan voices. They are economists with institutional reputations and clients who hold them accountable.

Meanwhile, the Carney government is doing the serious work Poilievre is too busy fear-mongering to acknowledge. Faced with unprecedented U.S. tariff disruption, the genuine source of Canada’s investment softness, Carney has pursued coordinated trade diversification, engaged allies, and worked to stabilize the conditions Canadian businesses need to plan ahead.

Strong jobs and per-capita growth

The broader picture is more resilient than Poilievre’s recession narrative allows. Household spending rose in Q1. Canada’s economy added 88,000 jobs in May 2026. The unemployment rate dropped to 6.6% from 6.9% in April. Employee compensation increased. April’s advance GDP estimate showed a rebound of 0.4 per cent which is 1.6% annualized.

Canada’s population contracted following years of elevated immigration, meaning on a per capita basis, real GDP actually rose 0.2 per cent in the same quarter being branded a crisis. The economy produced more output per person. Poilievre hasn’t mentioned that once.

The GDP figures are also preliminary. Data goes through multiple revision rounds. CIBC’s Avery Shenfeld has noted that given the quarterly figure is zero, future revisions could easily render the annualized decline positive, erasing any basis for the “technical recession” claim entirely.

The panic, however, won’t be revised.

Canadians are capable of holding two ideas at once: that the economy faces real external headwinds, and that those headwinds are being grotesquely exaggerated by a politician who has made fearmongering his brand.

The Carney government deserves to be judged on its actual record, managing a genuinely difficult global moment, not on the vocabulary Pierre Poilievre chooses for his next press conference.

The word ‘recession’ means something. It shouldn’t be a campaign slogan.

More from Sharan Kaur:

• Why the 14 Liberal MPs need to own their dissent on the Carney-Smith deal
• Ottawa and Alberta struck a carbon deal that could actually move the needle
• Our laws are a paper-thin shield against AI deepfakes targeted against you