I'm not an economist, but I'm a Canadian. And I'm going to give you an answer that's not what you're looking for, but it's important:
No impact. Our government has been very, very clear about this. Measures, data, and statistics are intentionally buried and ignored during policy making. So if they exist, no, they won't have any impact. I'll quote our government for you:
"We don't govern on the basis of statistics"
I'm pretty heavily slanted towards the economic liberty side of things, but I simply can't abide a prime minister who so proudly proclaims his disdain for stats. Especially a PM who has an MA in Economics.
If the Canadian central bank is like any other central bank in the non-Euro world, it governs primarily on the basis of statistics. There's political influence, sure, but monetary policy revolves primarily around numbers. And depending on which version of mainstream economics you subscribe to, the importance of central bank policy in macro supply-demand equilibrium ranges from "all-important" to "almost all-important".
Those macro figures are crucial in unemployment and inflation numbers, and are increasingly suspected to play a part in the labor-capital balance.
TL;DR Medium-term macro numbers depend primarily upon the central banker manipulators of macro numbers.
For those curious, as I was, this quote seems to originate from: http://www.ctvnews.ca/justice-minister-defends-day-s-unrepor...
Liberal justice critic Mark Holland agreed that unreported crime is a legitimate phenomenon, but questioned Day's suggestion that it justifies expensive new prisons during an era of huge budget deficits. "Is this an absurd reason to spend $10- to $13-billion on Republican-style mega-jails? Do they propose to lock up people who aren't being charged? To round up anybody who looks suspicious?"
If the legislation is bad enough, members can cross the floor and join another party. If the legislation is on something crucial (budget) it's a non-confidence vote and an election is held.
> members can cross the floor and join another party
K, coming off my expat hot list.
Although I tangentially understand there could be implications to "monetary and fiscal" policies I would suspect these possibly revised productivity numbers will only weakly influence such policies.
The main thrust of Canadian economic policy since I can remember has been to control targeted inflation rates, which is presumably easier to measure, or at the very least uses a more widely accepted measuring process (e.g. basket of certain goods or other inflation indices).
With a renewed interest to control unemployment as opposed to inflation (more in line with the USA), I find it hard to believe that revised productivity measures over the past 50 years will much impact cabinet, Parliament or Bank of Canada decision making.
Can any HN economists comment on whether productivity measures would really have any impact on policies given overriding concerns on inflation or unemployment targets?