From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Over the four years from 2020/21 to 2023/24, Ontario saw 104,426 people (on net) leave the province and migrate to somewhere else in Canada. This concerning trend of out-migration, particularly among working age individuals, suggests the province is an increasingly less-desirable place to live and work—and policymakers should take notice.

Using data from Statistics Canada, we can see that over the four year period from 2020/21 to 2023/24 (the latest year of available data), 277,299 people migrated to Ontario from other provinces or territories while 381,725 left Ontario to move to a different province or territory. Put differently, Ontario saw a net loss of 104,426 people to the rest of Canada.

We can further break down this data by age. Looking at working age individuals (15-64 years old), Ontario had a net loss of 80,323 people from 2020/21 to 2023/24. If we zero in further, roughly 39 per cent (40,608 individuals) of the total net loss during those four years were young individuals aged 20-34 years old.

These are concerning trends. Not only have more individuals been leaving Ontario than are coming from other provinces in recent years, but a significant share of those who are leaving are young adults—those who may be finishing school, starting a career or a family, and who have the potential to contribute greatly to the overall standard of living in Ontario over the course of their lifetime.

So, why might Ontario be increasingly viewed as a less-desirable place to live?

First and foremost, Ontario’s economy is broken and provincial living standards have been falling behind the rest of Canada for decades. In 2000, per-person GDP—a broad measure of individual living standards—was $63,146 (inflation-adjusted), nearly 5 per cent higher than the rest of Canada. Yet growth in Ontario’s per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) has slowed since then and provincial living standards in 2023 were 3.2 per cent lower than the rest of Canada. In other words, over the last two decades Ontarians went from enjoying a higher standard of living than the rest of the country, to now suffering lower living standards.

Ontarians are further saddled with some of highest tax rates in North America. For example, an Ontarian earning C$150,000 per year faces the third highest combined (federal/provincial) marginal personal income tax rate of anywhere in Canada and the United States.

And the Ford government’s continual debt accumulation—including massive projected deficits of $14.6 billion this year and $7.8 billion next year—suggests taxes in Ontario could rise further in the years to come.

High tax rates take away more of your hard-earned money and discourage skilled workers (including doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs) from living and working in the province—meaning future tax hikes will only further weaken Ontario’s already-struggling economy.

Finally, Ontarians (particularly younger individuals) may be leaving the province in search of more affordable housing. Ontario is ground zero for Canada’s housing affordability crisis and there are few signs this will change anytime soon. Home prices and rents are through the roof due to a lack of housing supply, and recent efforts by the Ford government to try and spur more homebuilding will do little to help (despite their considerable cost).

Migration numbers suggest that Ontario is increasingly becoming a less desirable place to live and work compared to the rest of Canada. If the Ford government is to stop the exodus, it must balance the budget, lower taxes, and meaningfully address housing affordability.

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Following last month’s European Union-Canada 2025 Summit, Prime Minister Carney and his EU counterparts issued a joint statement reaffirming their shared commitments, which include reaching “net-zero” by 2050 and transitioning away from fossil fuels. This confirms the Carney government intends to stay the course set by the Trudeau government. However, despite these commitments and the trillions invested toward this goal, the timeline to phase out fossil fuels and achieve a zero-carbon economy by 2050 remains disconnected from reality.

Building a “net-zero” economy by 2050 requires phasing out fossil fuels—such as oil, natural gas, and coal—as primary energy sources, or offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions with other activities such as tree planting. Governments and firms worldwide have devoted a massive amount of resources to achieve this goal. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), between 2015 and 2025 alone, public and private investment in “clean energy” totalled approximately US$16.7 trillion (inflation-adjusted). That’s equivalent to China’s total economic output in 2022.

And yet, according to new data released by the Energy Institute, from 1997 (when the Kyoto Protocol set binding international decarbonization targets) to 2024, global use of oil, natural gas and coal increased by 58 per cent. Specifically, oil consumption grew by 33 per cent, natural gas by 87 per cent and coal by 73 per cent. In 2024, fossil fuels still provided 80.6 per cent of global energy consumption—a slight decline from 85.7 per cent in 1997.

Canada has followed a similar pattern despite the billions spent by Ottawa and various provinces. Between 1997 and 2024, our country’s use of fossil fuels as a primary energy source actually grew by 17 per cent. And the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy consumption rose from 63.1 per cent in 1997 to 66.3 per cent in 2024. Simply put, despite a cascade of regulations, taxes and multibillion-dollar subsidies, the country is becoming more—not less—reliant on fossil fuels.

So, why hasn’t this costly push to transition away from fossil fuels played out the way Ottawa and the provinces intended?

Because major energy transitions are inherently slow and take centuries, not a couple of decades. As noted by scholar Vaclav Smil, the first energy transition—from biomass fuels such as wood and charcoal toward fossil-based energy—unfolded over more than two centuries. And that transition is still underway. As of 2020, close to three billion people in developing countries still relied on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating. These energy sources still accounted for roughly 7 per cent of global energy consumption at the beginning of this decade.

Biomass (wood, charcoal, etc.) powered human civilization for millennia, and only around 1900 did coal became a predominant global energy source. Moreover, it wasn’t until the 1950s that oil accounted for one-quarter of global fossil fuel consumption, reaching that milestone roughly 150 years after it was first introduced into the energy market. And it wasn’t until the end of the 20th century, after about 130 years of development, that natural gas reached 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide.

World leaders, including Prime Minister Carney, should acknowledge reality and be transparent about the commitments they make on behalf of their citizens. Despite decades of international pledges, costly policies and trillions spent, fossil fuel use keeps growing, making net-zero by 2050 a wholly unrealistic goal.