![\"decrease\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/down.png\")
<\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Released:\u00a02025-08-08<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n Select geography
\n
\n Canada
\n Newfoundland and Labrador
\n Prince Edward Island
\n Nova Scotia
\n New Brunswick
\n Quebec
\n Ontario
\n Manitoba
\n Saskatchewan
\n Alberta
\n British Columbia
<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 Canada
\n<\/p>\n
21,020,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
-0.2%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 Canada
\n<\/p>\n
6.9%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.0\u00a0pts<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 N.L.
\n<\/p>\n
246,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.4%\u00a0![\"increase\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/up.png\")
<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 N.L.
\n<\/p>\n
10.5%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.6\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 P.E.I.
\n<\/p>\n
93,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
1.0%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 P.E.I.
\n<\/p>\n
8.8%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.2\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 N.S.
\n<\/p>\n
525,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.3%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 N.S.
\n<\/p>\n
7.0%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.3\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 N.B.
\n<\/p>\n
408,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.2%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 N.B.
\n<\/p>\n
7.5%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.2\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 Que.
\n<\/p>\n
4,637,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
-0.3%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 Que.
\n<\/p>\n
5.5%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
-0.8\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 Ont.
\n<\/p>\n
8,217,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
-0.0%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 Ont.
\n<\/p>\n
7.9%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.1\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 Man.
\n<\/p>\n
741,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.3%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 Man.
\n<\/p>\n
5.5%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.0\u00a0pts<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 Sask.
\n<\/p>\n
623,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.6%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 Sask.
\n<\/p>\n
5.0%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.1\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 Alta.
\n<\/p>\n
2,577,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
-0.6%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 Alta.
\n<\/p>\n
7.8%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
1.0\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nEmployment level \u2014 B.C.
\n<\/p>\n
2,953,000<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
-0.5%\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nUnemployment rate \u2014 B.C.
\n<\/p>\n
5.9%<\/p>\n
July\u00a02025<\/p>\n
0.3\u00a0pts\u00a0<\/p>\n
(monthly change)<\/p>\n
\nHighlights<\/p>\n
Employment fell by\u00a041,000\u00a0(-0.2%) in July and the employment rate declined\u00a00.2\u00a0percentage points to\u00a060.7%. The unemployment rate was unchanged at\u00a06.9%.<\/p>\n
The employment decline in the month was concentrated among youth aged\u00a015\u00a0to\u00a024\u00a0(-34,000; -1.2%). Employment among core-aged (25\u00a0to\u00a054\u00a0years old) people as well as among those aged\u00a055\u00a0and older was little changed in July.<\/p>\n
Employment was down across several industries, led by information, culture and recreation (-29,000; -3.3%) and construction (-22,000; -1.3%).<\/p>\n
Employment declined in Alberta (-17,000; -0.6%) and British Columbia (-16,000; -0.5%), while it increased in Saskatchewan (+3,500; +0.6%). There was little change in the other provinces.<\/p>\n
Total hours worked in July were little changed both in the month (-0.2%) and compared with\u00a012\u00a0months earlier (+0.3%).<\/p>\n
Average hourly wages among employees increased\u00a03.3% (+$1.17\u00a0to $36.16) on a year-over-year basis in July, following growth of\u00a03.2% in June (not seasonally adjusted).<\/p>\n
Employment falls in July<\/p>\n
Employment fell by\u00a041,000\u00a0(-0.2%) in July, partly offsetting the increase in June (+83,000; +0.4%). The decline in July was concentrated in full-time work (-51,000; -0.3%). Overall, there has been little net employment growth since the beginning of the year, and the number of employed people in July was little changed compared with January (+27,000; +0.1%).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Chart\u00a01\u00a0
<\/p>\n The employment rate\u2014the proportion of the population aged\u00a015\u00a0years and older who are employed\u2014fell by\u00a00.2\u00a0percentage points to\u00a060.7% in July and was down\u00a00.4\u00a0percentage points from the beginning of the year (61.1% in both January and February).<\/p>\n The number of employees in the private sector fell by\u00a039,000\u00a0(-0.3%) in July, partly offsetting a cumulative gain of\u00a0107,000\u00a0(+0.8%) in May and June. There was little change in the number of public sector employees and in the number of self-employed workers in July. <\/p>\n Employment decreases among youth <\/p>\n The employment decline in July was concentrated among youth aged\u00a015\u00a0to\u00a024\u00a0(-34,000; -1.2%). Youth continue to face challenging labour market conditions; the youth employment rate fell\u00a00.7\u00a0percentage points to\u00a053.6% in July\u2014the lowest rate since November\u00a01998\u00a0(excluding\u00a02020\u00a0and\u00a02021\u00a0during the COVID-19\u00a0pandemic).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Infographic\u00a01\u00a0
<\/p>\n Employment held steady among core-aged (25\u00a0to\u00a054\u00a0years old) men and women in July. The employment rate of core-aged women fell\u00a00.3\u00a0percentage points to\u00a080.0%, while for core-aged men it was little changed at\u00a086.5%. <\/p>\n Unemployment rate unchanged at\u00a06.9% as unemployed people continue to face difficulties finding work <\/p>\n The unemployment rate held steady at\u00a06.9% in July, as the number of people searching for work or on temporary layoff varied little from the previous month. The unemployment rate had trended up earlier in\u00a02025, rising from\u00a06.6% in February to a recent high of\u00a07.0% in May, before declining\u00a00.1\u00a0percentage points in June.<\/p>\n Unemployed people continued to face difficulties finding work in July. Of the\u00a01.6\u00a0million people who were unemployed in July,\u00a023.8% were in long-term unemployment, meaning they had been continuously searching for work for\u00a027\u00a0weeks or more. This was the highest share of long-term unemployment since February\u00a01998\u00a0(excluding\u00a02020\u00a0and\u00a02021).<\/p>\n Compared with a year earlier, unemployed job searchers were more likely to remain unemployed from one month to the next. Nearly two-thirds (64.2%) of those who were unemployed in June remained unemployed in July, higher than the corresponding proportion for the same months in\u00a02024\u00a0(56.8%) (not seasonally adjusted).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Chart\u00a02\u00a0
<\/p>\n Despite continued uncertainty related to tariffs and trade, the layoff rate was virtually unchanged at\u00a01.1% in July compared with\u00a012\u00a0months earlier (1.2%). This represents the proportion of people who were employed in June but had become unemployed in July as a result of a layoff. In comparison, the layoff rate for the corresponding months from\u00a02017\u00a0to\u00a02019, prior to the pandemic, averaged\u00a01.2% (not seasonally adjusted).<\/p>\n There were fewer people in the labour force in July, and the participation rate\u2014the proportion of the population aged\u00a015\u00a0and older who were employed or looking for work\u2014fell by\u00a00.2\u00a0percentage points to\u00a065.2%. Despite the decrease in the month, the participation rate was little changed on a year-over-year basis.<\/p>\n Youth unemployment rate reaches its highest level since\u00a02010<\/p>\n The youth unemployment rate edged up to\u00a014.6% in July, the highest rate since September\u00a02010\u00a0(excluding\u00a02020\u00a0and\u00a02021). The youth unemployment rate has trended up over the past two years and in July\u00a02025\u00a0was up\u00a04.3\u00a0percentage points compared with July\u00a02023. Over this two-year period, increases were recorded both for young men (+5.7\u00a0percentage points to\u00a016.2%) and young women (+2.6\u00a0percentage points to\u00a012.8%).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Infographic\u00a02\u00a0
Chart\u00a03\u00a0
<\/p>\n Among the five largest racialized groups, the unemployment rate was highest among Arab youth in July, at\u00a026.4%. Unemployment rates were also elevated for Black (23.4%), Chinese (20.5%), Filipino (19.4%) and South Asian (17.1%) youth. In comparison, the unemployment rate for non-racialized and non-Indigenous youth stood at\u00a012.0% in July (three-month moving averages, not seasonally adjusted).<\/p>\n Difficult summer job market for returning students continues in July<\/p>\n From May to August, the Labour Force Survey (LFS<\/a>) collects labour market information from students who attended school full time in March and who intend to return to school full time in the fall.<\/p>\n The unemployment rate for returning students aged\u00a015\u00a0to\u00a024\u00a0was\u00a017.5% in July, the highest for the month of July since\u00a02009\u00a0(excluding July\u00a02020). The unemployment rate for returning students in July\u00a02025\u00a0was little changed on a year-over-year basis but was up from a low of\u00a011.2% recorded in July\u00a02022\u00a0(not seasonally adjusted).<\/p>\n Returning students aged\u00a015\u00a0to\u00a016\u2014who were of high school age\u2014continued to face the most difficulties finding work. Their unemployment rate was\u00a031.4% in July\u2014unchanged compared with\u00a012\u00a0months earlier. The unemployment rate was lower among older returning students aged\u00a017\u00a0to\u00a019\u00a0(18.0%) and those aged\u00a020\u00a0to\u00a024\u00a0(10.4%).<\/p>\n Employment down across several industries in July<\/p>\n Employment in information, culture and recreation declined by\u00a029,000\u00a0(-3.3%) in July, following gains in April and May, and little change in June. Despite the decrease in July, employment in the industry was little changed on a year-over-year basis.<\/p>\n In construction, employment decreased by\u00a022,000\u00a0(-1.3%) in July, following five consecutive months of little change. The number of people working in construction in July was little changed compared with\u00a012\u00a0months earlier.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Chart\u00a04\u00a0
<\/p>\n Employment fell in business, building and other support services (-19,000; -2.8%), marking the third decline in the past four months for the industry. Employment also fell in health care and social assistance (-17,000; -0.6%), offsetting a similar-sized increase in June. Compared with\u00a012\u00a0months earlier, employment in health care and social assistance was up by\u00a054,000\u00a0(+1.9%) in July.<\/p>\n Employment rose in transportation and warehousing (+26,000; +2.4%) in July, the first increase since January. On a year-over-year basis, employment in this industry was little changed in July.<\/p>\n Employment falls in Alberta and British Columbia, while it increases in Saskatchewan<\/p>\n Employment in Alberta fell by\u00a017,000\u00a0(-0.6%) in July, partly offsetting an increase of\u00a030,000\u00a0(+1.2%) in June. The unemployment rate in the province increased\u00a01.0\u00a0percentage points to\u00a07.8% in July.<\/p>\n In British Columbia, employment declined by\u00a016,000\u00a0(-0.5%) in July, following an increase of\u00a013,000\u00a0(+0.4%) in May and little change in June. Losses in July were predominantly among core-aged women (-17,000; -1.8%). The unemployment rate in British Columbia increased\u00a00.3\u00a0percentage points to\u00a05.9% in July.<\/p>\n Employment held steady in Quebec in July, following an increase of\u00a023,000\u00a0(+0.5%) in June. The unemployment rate decreased\u00a00.8\u00a0percentage points to\u00a05.5% in July as fewer people searched for work.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Map\u00a01\u00a0
<\/p>\n Employment in Ontario was virtually unchanged in July, after increasing by\u00a021,000\u00a0(+0.3%) in June. The unemployment rate stood at\u00a07.9% in July, little changed from the previous month. The unemployment rate in the Toronto census metropolitan area stood at\u00a09.0% in July, up\u00a00.3\u00a0percentage points from the previous month (three-month moving average).<\/p>\n Saskatchewan was the lone province to record an employment increase in July (+3,500; +0.6%). Compared with July\u00a02024, employment in the province was up by\u00a016,000\u00a0(+2.6%), mostly the result of gains so far in\u00a02025. At\u00a05.0%, the unemployment rate in Saskatchewan was the lowest among all the provinces.<\/p>\n In the spotlight: Despite an uncertain economic outlook, most workers remain confident in their employment prospects<\/p>\n In a changing labour market, how employees perceive their employment prospects can provide insights into how factors, such as tariff-related trade uncertainty, are shaping workers’ outlooks and career decisions.<\/p>\n Based on additional questions asked in the LFS<\/a> in July\u00a02025, a majority (54.9%) of employees aged\u00a025\u00a0to\u00a064\u00a0reported being very confident in their employment prospects in their current line of work. Another\u00a041.1% of employees were either quite confident or somewhat confident, while only\u00a04.1% of employees reported not being confident (either not very confident or not at all confident).<\/p>\n Among those who were not confident in their employment prospects, the most common main reported reason was the presence of layoffs in the industry (27.5%), followed by a perceived lack of skills, experience, education or credentials (14.4%) and tariff-related trade uncertainty (12.3%). Only\u00a06.6% cited automation or artificial intelligence as the main reason for not being confident.<\/p>\n Overall, employees in health care and social assistance (64.2%), utilities (62.9%), educational services (62.4%) and construction (61.2%) were most likely to be very confident in their employment prospects.<\/p>\n On the other hand, those in information, culture and recreation (43.8%), professional, scientific and technical services (46.9%), accommodation and food services (49.3%) and manufacturing (49.4%) were least likely to report being very confident.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Chart\u00a05\u00a0
<\/p>\n Employees working in industries dependent on US<\/a> demand for Canadian exports were\u00a07.1\u00a0percentage points less likely to be very confident in their employment prospects compared to employees in other industries (48.5% vs.\u00a055.6%).<\/p>\n Moreover, employees in industries dependent on US demand for Canadian exports more often cited tariff-related uncertainty as the main reason for not being confident, compared with those in other industries (26.7% vs.\u00a010.1%).<\/p>\n Did you know we have a mobile app?<\/p>\n Download our mobile app and get timely access to data at your fingertips! The StatsCAN<\/a> app is available for free on the App Store<\/a> and on Google Play<\/a>.<\/p>\n
On January\u00a01,\u00a02016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030\u00a0Agenda for Sustainable Development<\/a>\u2014the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next\u00a015\u00a0years. The plan is based on\u00a017\u00a0specific sustainable development goals.<\/p>\n The Labour Force Survey is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goals:<\/p>\n
The Labour Force Survey (LFS<\/a>) estimates for July reflect labour market conditions during the reference week of July\u00a013\u00a0to\u00a019,\u00a02025.<\/p>\n The sample size of the LFS<\/a> is approximately\u00a065,000\u00a0households, representing over\u00a0100,000\u00a0respondents each month. For more information, see the Guide to the Labour Force Survey<\/a>.<\/p>\n This analysis focuses on differences between estimates that are statistically significant at the\u00a068% confidence level. Monthly estimates may show more sampling variability than trends observed over longer periods. For more information, see “Interpreting Monthly Changes in Employment from the Labour Force Survey<\/a>.”<\/p>\n LFS<\/a> estimates at the Canada level do not include the territories.<\/p>\n The LFS<\/a> estimates are the first in a series of labour market indicators released by Statistics Canada, which includes indicators from programs such as the Survey of Employment, Payrolls and Hours (SEPH<\/a>); Employment Insurance Statistics; and the Job Vacancy and Wage Survey. For more information on the conceptual differences between employment measures from the LFS<\/a> and those from the SEPH<\/a>, refer to section\u00a08\u00a0of the Guide to the Labour Force Survey<\/a>.<\/p>\n The employment rate is the number of employed people as a percentage of the population aged\u00a015\u00a0years and older. The rate for a particular group (for example, youth aged\u00a015\u00a0to\u00a024\u00a0years) is the number employed in that group as a percentage of the population for that group.<\/p>\n The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labour force (employed and unemployed).<\/p>\n The participation rate is the number of employed and unemployed people as a percentage of the population aged\u00a015\u00a0years and older.<\/p>\n Full-time employment consists of persons who usually work\u00a030\u00a0hours or more per week at their main or only job.<\/p>\n Part-time employment consists of persons who usually work less than\u00a030\u00a0hours per week at their main or only job.<\/p>\n Total hours worked refers to the number of hours actually worked at the main job by the respondent during the reference week, including paid and unpaid hours. These hours reflect temporary decreases or increases in work hours (for example, hours lost due to illness, vacation, holidays or weather; or more hours worked due to overtime).<\/p>\n This release refers to the gender of a person<\/a>. The category “men” includes men, as well as some non-binary persons. The category “women” includes women, as well as some non-binary persons. Given that the non-binary population is small, data aggregation to a two-category gender variable is necessary to protect the confidentiality of responses provided.<\/p>\n Seasonal adjustment<\/p>\n Unless otherwise stated, estimates presented in this release are seasonally adjusted, which facilitates comparisons by removing the effects of typical seasonal variations. For more information on seasonal adjustment, see Seasonally adjusted data \u2013 Frequently asked questions<\/a>.<\/p>\n Population growth in the Labour Force Survey<\/p>\n The LFS<\/a> target population includes all persons aged\u00a015\u00a0years and older whose usual place of residence is in Canada, with some exceptions (those living on reserves, full-time members of the regular Armed Forces and persons living in institutions). The target population includes temporary residents\u2014that is, those with a valid work or study permit, their families, and refugee claimants\u2014as well as permanent residents (landed immigrants) and the Canadian-born.<\/p>\n Information gathered from LFS<\/a> respondents is weighted to represent the survey target population using population calibration totals. These totals are updated each month, using the most recently available information on population changes derived from Canada’s official population estimates, with minor adjustments being made to reflect the LFS<\/a> target population.<\/p>\n While the LFS<\/a> population totals are generally aligned with official demographic estimates, the official estimates should be considered the official measure of population change in Canada. More information on how population totals in the LFS<\/a> are calculated can be found in the article “Interpreting population totals from the Labour Force Survey<\/a>.”<\/p>\n Regional unemployment rates used by the Employment Insurance program<\/p>\n As a result of a temporary measure in effect from April\u00a06\u00a0to October\u00a011,\u00a02025, the unemployment rates are adjusted by one percentage point (to a maximum of\u00a013.1%) in all Employment Insurance economic regions, ensuring that no region has an unemployment rate less than\u00a07.1%. Regions with an unemployment rate of\u00a013.1% or higher keep their actual rate. For more information, see Temporary Employment Insurance measures to respond to major changes in economic conditions<\/a>.<\/p>\n Updates to the Labour Force Survey sample design beginning in April\u00a02025<\/p>\n Every\u00a010\u00a0years, the LFS<\/a> sample is redesigned to reflect changes in population characteristics and updated geographical boundaries. The updated sample design\u2014based on the\u00a02021\u00a0Census population characteristics and the\u00a02021\u00a0Standard Geographical Classification\u2014is being phased in from April to September\u00a02025. For more information, see Section\u00a04\u00a0of the Guide to the Labour Force Survey<\/a>.<\/p>\n Data for the Labour Market Indicators program are now available for July\u00a02025.<\/p>\n Next release<\/p>\n The next release of the LFS<\/a> will be on September\u00a05. August data will reflect labour market conditions during the week of August\u00a010\u00a0to\u00a016.<\/p>\n
More information about the concepts and use of the Labour Force Survey is available online in the Guide to the Labour Force Survey (Catalogue number71-543-G<\/a>).<\/p>\n The product “Labour Force Survey in brief: Interactive app<\/a>” (Catalogue number14200001<\/a>) is also available. This interactive visualization application provides seasonally adjusted estimates by province, gender, age group and industry.<\/p>\n The product “Labour Market Indicators, by province and census metropolitan area, seasonally adjusted<\/a>” (Catalogue number71-607-X<\/a>) is also available. This interactive dashboard provides customizable access to key labour market indicators.<\/p>\n The product “Labour Market Indicators, by province, territory and economic region, unadjusted for seasonality<\/a>” (Catalogue number71-607-X<\/a>) is also available. This dynamic web application provides access to labour market indicators for Canada, provinces, territories and economic regions.<\/p>\n The product “Labour market indicators, census metropolitan areas, census agglomerations and self-contained labour areas: Interactive dashboard<\/a>” (Catalogue number71-607-X<\/a>) is also available. This dashboard allows users to visually explore the estimates using an interactive map as well as time series charts and tables.<\/p>\n The product Labour Force Survey: Public Use Microdata File (Catalogue number71M0001X<\/a>) is also available. This public use microdata file contains non-aggregated data for a wide variety of variables collected from the Labour Force Survey. The data have been modified to ensure that no individual or business is directly or indirectly identified. This product is for users who prefer to do their own analysis by focusing on specific subgroups in the population or by cross-classifying variables that are not in our catalogued products.<\/p>\n Contact information<\/p>\n For more information, or to enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact us (toll-free 1-800-263-1136; 514-283-8300; infostats@statcan.gc.ca<\/a>) or Media Relations (statcan.mediahotline-ligneinfomedias.statcan@statcan.gc.ca<\/a>).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Released:\u00a02025-08-08
Select geography
Canada
Newfoundland and Labrador
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":54676,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[43,44,41,39,42,40],"class_list":["post-54675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headlines","tag-headlines","tag-news","tag-top-news","tag-top-stories","tag-topnews","tag-topstories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54675\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/54676"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\n ![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/magnify-clip.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
<\/a>
\nEmployment rate falls in July, following an increase in June
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/cg250808a001-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a>
\nEmployment rate by age group, July\u00a02025
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Thumbnail](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/g250808a001-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a>
\nThe unemployment rate unchanged at\u00a06.9% in July
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/cg250808a002-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a>
\nUnemployment rate by age group, July\u00a02025
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Thumbnail](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/g250808a002-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a>
\nYouth unemployment rate for the five largest racialized groups in Canada, July\u00a02025\u00a0
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/cg250808a003-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a>
\nEmployment change by industry, July\u00a02025
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/cg250808a004-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a>
\nUnemployment rate by province and territory, July\u00a02025
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Thumbnail](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/mc250808a001-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/a>
\nEmployees in health care and social assistance most likely to be very confident in their employment prospects
<\/p>\n
\n ![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/cg250808a005-eng.png\" "\\"Enlarge")
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nSustainable Development Goals<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/08_SDG_EN.png\"\/ "\\"Goal")
\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/09_SDG_EN.png\"\/ "\\"Goal")
<\/p>\n
\n \u00a0\u00a0Note to readers
\n <\/p>\n
\n
\nProducts
<\/p>\n