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 Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

The Department of Energy (DOE) released a new scientific analysis on Tuesday finding that climate change is not humanity’s most existential threat and that emissions will not devastate the economy as climate alarmists have claimed for years.

Released as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is moving to repeal a cornerstone climate regulation, the report states that drastic energy policies are unlikely to effectively reverse climate change and could even potentially cause more harm than benefit. Authored by scientists including former Obama DOE Under Secretary for Science Steven Koonin and climatologist John Christy, the report undermines the prevailing narrative of climate catastrophe often touted by Democrats and legacy media calling for a rapid, taxpayer-funded green energy transition.

“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright wrote in the report’s foreword. “What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people — even well-meaning ones — walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete.”

DOE Critical Review of Impacts of GHG Emissions on the US Climate July 2025 by audreystreb on Scribd

The report, titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” states that the impact of global warming on the U.S. economy is expected to be “negligible.”

“CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial,” the report reads. “There is evidence that scenarios widely-used in the impacts literature have overstated observed and likely future emission trends.”

Impacts of policies mandating significant cuts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are also projected to be “negligible” because local emissions regulations are unable to significantly slow the global effects of climate change, according to the report.

“Even the most aggressive regulatory actions on GHG emissions from U.S. vehicles cannot be expected to remediate alleged climate dangers to the U.S. public on any measurable scale,” the report reads.

The report states that it is “naive” to assume that extreme weather events like hurricanes or tornadoes are brought about by human impacts on the climate. Furthermore, it states that “most types of extreme weather exhibit no statistically significant long-term trends over the available historical record.”

“These green energy policies hurt people more than the climate risk,” meteorologist Chris Martz told the Daily Caller News Foundation, noting that the report indicates most extreme weather events have not increased over time — and some have even decreased. “Forcing intermittent and unreliable energy on people is going to lead to a poorer standard of living and a poorer quality of life.”

The report and the proposed EPA action to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding will be open to public comment, which Wright notes in the foreword is a part of “honest scrutiny and scientific transparency [that] should be at the heart of our policymaking.”

The five authors who drafted the report included several scientists and one economist: Koonin, Christy, . Wright noted that he asked the “diverse team of independent experts” to summarize what is currently known about climate science and how it translates to the U.S.

Christy told the DCNF that “this is not the final product as we are gearing up to address the many public comments that will come in – and we will fix any mistakes we may have made for the final version.”

“There has been a noticeable lack of evidence-based information feeding the climate narrative, and we wanted to bring that to bear in this report. It will surprise many folks I suppose to see the lack of trends in various types of extreme weather after being constantly told their occurrences are increasing,” Christy told the DNCF. “Make no mistake, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that all things being equal will exert a warming influence.  The evidence we present is that the impact of that warming is not a developing crisis as the world continues to develop wealth and prosperity.”

Christy also told the DCNF that “without energy life is brutal and short,” noting that meeting energy demand is necessary for human health.

Other energy sector experts have pointed to the DOE report as a landmark release that deals a major blow to the climate alarmism narrative.

“Much to the chagrin of climate ‘panicans,’ Secretary Chris Wright assembled five credible scientists to publish this seminal and important report,” Gabriella Hoffman, director of the Center for Energy & Conservation at the Independent Women’s Forum, told the DCNF. “Let’s clear the air: The science on CO2 isn’t settled. And it’s worthy to have a debate about whether or not it’s actually harmful to human health and welfare. As the authors noted, fixating on CO2 — a component that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere — might have more adverse negative impacts than CO2 itself.”