Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

Parliament’s Debate on Bill 377: A Battle for Transparency, Accountability, and the Control of National Security

Published

31 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Inside the Committee Circus: How Bill 377 Became a Battleground for Liberal Control Over Parliamentary Transparency!

In what could only be described as a bureaucratic circus, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs met to discuss Bill 377—a straightforward proposal that would give Members of Parliament (MPs) the right to apply for security clearances. What should have been a common-sense debate about empowering elected officials to do their jobs quickly turned into a showcase of Liberal fear-mongering, bureaucratic hand-wringing, and hypocritical stonewalling. The debate was rich in procedural distractions, leaving the core issue—government transparency—buried under layers of red tape.

The Fight for Transparency in Parliament: What CSIS and the PMO Had to Say

The debate over Bill 377—the proposal that would allow Members of Parliament (MPs) to apply for security clearances—kicked off with testimony from officials who wield significant influence over national security. First up was Nicole Giles, a representative from CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service), and Sean Jorgensen, a senior official from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Their comments set the stage for the battle between parliamentary transparency and bureaucratic control that would dominate the session.

Nicole Giles, representing CSIS, emphasized the importance of the security screening process in protecting national security and maintaining trust between the government and its citizens. She detailed how the security clearance process involves a rigorous collection of personal information and a careful vetting of individuals to assess their reliability and loyalty to Canada. According to Giles, this process is meant to ensure that those granted access to classified information can be trusted to protect it. But here’s the kicker: while CSIS insists that its process is designed to be rigorous, the question of who is deemed trustworthy seemed to stop at the doorstep of Parliament.

Giles explained that the process for obtaining security clearances involves informed consent and the use of data from law enforcement and intelligence sources. “The decision to grant a security clearance is made based on this evidence, ensuring individuals can be trusted to safeguard national security,” she said. Fair enough—but the fact that elected MPs are not included in this system, while low-level staffers and bureaucrats are, seemed like a glaring oversight that Bill 377 aimed to correct.

On the other side of the debate, Sean Jorgensen from the PMO seemed far more concerned with maintaining the status quo. Jorgensen echoed many of the typical bureaucratic fears about expanding access to security clearances, raising concerns about the potential for MPs to access sensitive information without the proper need-to-know basis. His testimony was filled with vague warnings about the risks of allowing more people into the security bubble, suggesting that MPs could pose a risk if not properly controlled.

But Jorgensen’s real agenda was clear: he wasn’t there to talk about enhancing transparency or improving parliamentary oversight. He was there to protect the PMO’s stranglehold on information. By casting doubt on whether MPs should even have the right to apply for security clearances, he was reinforcing the bureaucratic gatekeeping that has allowed the PMO to keep a tight grip on sensitive national security information.

Jorgensen and Giles set the stage for what would become a clear battle: Bill 377 wasn’t just about security clearances. It was about power—specifically, who holds it and who has access to the information that shapes the nation’s security policy. With CSIS and the PMO officials framing the debate, the scene was set for the Liberal swamp to defend their turf against a growing demand for accountability and transparency from parliamentarians.

What became apparent throughout the session is that while Giles and Jorgensen were trying to paint a picture of security concerns, the reality was that their testimony boiled down to protecting the existing system. The bureaucratic elite, including the PMO, seemed less interested in guarding national security and more interested in keeping MPs in the dark—ensuring that only a select few in the PMO and bureaucracy had the keys to the national security kingdom.

This fear of transparency would soon become a central theme as Conservative MPs like Alex Ruff and Eric Duncan took the floor, battling against the Liberal excuses and bureaucratic red tape designed to keep Parliament out of the national security loop.

Alex Ruff: The Champion of Accountability

Conservative MP Alex Ruff, the driving force behind Bill 377, came to the committee prepared to lay down a case so obvious it’s almost laughable that it needed to be debated. Ruff’s message was refreshingly simple: MPs should have the right to apply for security clearances, just like any other government official, intern, or low-level bureaucrat. And let’s not forget, we’re talking about Members of Parliament—elected officials responsible for voting on national security budgets and overseeing security policies that protect Canadians. How, Ruff asked, is it possible that these elected officials can’t even apply for the same clearances that government staffers are routinely granted?

Ruff’s frustration with the current system was evident from the start. As he rightly pointed out, the fact that interns—yes, interns—working in ministers’ offices can receive security clearances, while MPs are kept out of the loop, is nothing short of absurd. “If interns working in ministerial offices are given security clearances, why should MPs be left out of the loop?” Ruff questioned, nailing the fundamental issue with brutal accuracy. This isn’t some wild Conservative push for immediate access to classified documents. Ruff wasn’t demanding that MPs be handed national secrets on a silver platter. Instead, he was making the logical, common-sense argument that MPs—like everyone else—should have the opportunity to be vetted through the rigorous clearance process that is already in place.

Let’s stop for a second and think about the insanity of the current system. On one hand, you’ve got MPs, individuals who are entrusted by the Canadian people to make critical decisions affecting national security, being treated as though they’re untrustworthy amateurs. On the other hand, the same government hands out clearances to interns and bureaucrats without hesitation. Ruff was right to call this out for the farce that it is. The current setup not only undermines the authority of Parliament, but it also weakens the entire oversight process by keeping elected officials in the dark.

But Ruff wasn’t just there to point out the absurdity of the system—he was there to expose the real agenda behind the Liberal opposition to Bill 377. As the session dragged on, it became increasingly clear that the bureaucratic establishment and Liberal MPs weren’t interested in transparency. No, their goal was simple: maintain control. The PMO and its bureaucratic foot soldiers have grown accustomed to controlling access to information, shielding themselves from real scrutiny and accountability. And they’re desperate to keep things that way.

Ruff called out their tactics head-on. The Liberals, along with their bureaucratic allies, were trotting out every fear-mongering excuse they could think of. They raised hypothetical risks of MPs misusing classified information, warned of the dangers to international relations, and essentially treated elected officials like they couldn’t be trusted with the same basic tools the government hands out to junior staffers. Ruff saw right through it, and so should everyone else. This isn’t about protecting national security—this is about protecting power. The Liberals are terrified that giving MPs the ability to apply for clearances will disrupt their monopoly on sensitive information and weaken their ability to control the narrative.

Ruff’s argument is grounded in common sense and fairness. He’s not asking for special treatment—he’s asking for elected MPs to be held to the same standards as any other government official. The idea that MPs—individuals who represent the Canadian people—can’t even apply for a security clearance is insulting to the entire democratic process. By denying MPs this right, the Liberals are effectively saying that the public’s elected representatives can’t be trusted, and that only unelected bureaucrats should be allowed access to critical national security information.

What makes Ruff’s position even more powerful is that it’s not partisan—it’s pragmatic. He’s advocating for a system where MPs, regardless of their political affiliation, have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively. In fact, Ruff’s call for MPs to be allowed to apply for clearances is one of the most basic steps toward ensuring that Parliament functions as it should—as a body that can oversee and hold the government accountable on national security matters.

Yet, the response from the Liberal swamp was predictably hostile. They threw up bureaucratic roadblocks, introduced irrelevant procedural delays, and employed scare tactics to stall any real progress. The Liberals don’t want MPs—especially opposition MPs—having access to sensitive information, because it would mean that Parliament could finally hold the government accountable on key national security issues. They are far more interested in maintaining the status quo, where the PMO and bureaucrats have a stranglehold on information and can keep MPs—and by extension, the Canadian public—in the dark.

Ruff’s clarity of purpose stood in stark contrast to the bureaucratic noise surrounding him. He didn’t overcomplicate things. His message was straightforward: MPs need to have the right to apply for security clearances to do their jobs. And anyone who opposes that isn’t just standing in the way of Bill 377—they’re standing in the way of democracy and government accountability. Ruff’s push for common-sense reform is exactly what Parliament needs, and the Liberal resistance to this bill is nothing more than a desperate attempt to protect their power and secrecy.

Sherry Romanado: The Defender of the Status Quo

Liberal MP Sherry Romanado was one of the first to throw up procedural roadblocks during the committee’s debate on Bill 377. Rather than focusing on addressing the obvious issue—whether elected MPs should have the right to apply for security clearances—she chose to bog the discussion down with irrelevant questions designed to create new problems rather than solve the existing ones. Romanado fixated on the bureaucratic process of obtaining these clearances, questioning whether MPs should even have the right to apply in the first place.

She asked questions like, “Who would determine whether MPs should qualify for a security clearance?” and suggested that some kind of administrator or gatekeeper should be responsible for deciding which MPs could apply. This is classic Liberal strategy: instead of embracing transparency and accountability, she advocated for more layers of red tape and procedural delays. Her line of questioning wasn’t about protecting national security—it was about slowing down the process and keeping MPs, especially those outside the Liberal bubble, out of the loop.

Romanado’s approach was a transparent attempt to stall. By adding needless bureaucratic hurdles, she hoped to wrap the issue in so many layers of bureaucracy that it would get stuck in procedural purgatory. And that’s exactly what the Liberal swamp thrives on: bureaucratic dead-ends and vague questions designed to protect power and secrecy rather than empower the people’s representatives. By the end of her remarks, it was crystal clear—Romanado wasn’t interested in empowering MPs to fulfill their oversight role. She was laser-focused on maintaining the status quo and keeping control firmly in the hands of the PMO and bureaucrats.

BS Meter: Extremely High

Romanado’s entire line of questioning was pure bureaucratic theater, aimed at stalling real progress and keeping MPs in the dark. Her insistence on adding administrators or gatekeepers to the process was a desperate attempt to create roadblocks where none are needed. Romanado wasn’t working to protect national security; she was working to protect the Liberal power structure. This wasn’t about security—it was about control.

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau: Caution Without Vision

Bloc Québécois MP Marie-Hélène Gaudreau echoed some of the Liberal bureaucratic fears, but her concerns were framed around international relations and parliamentary privilege. Gaudreau questioned whether giving MPs access to classified information could compromise Canada’s relationships with allies like the Five Eyes and raised hypothetical scenarios where MPs might inadvertently disclose sensitive information. She warned of the risks this could pose to national security, stating, “What we would like to be able to do is provide that specific, perhaps classified information to a parliamentarian.”

However, Gaudreau seemed to miss the point. Bill 377 isn’t about giving MPs blanket access to sensitive material—it’s about letting them apply for a security clearance and undergo the same vetting process as other government officials. Gaudreau’s overly cautious stance mirrored the Liberal reluctance to trust MPs with any level of responsibility over national security. Instead of advocating for greater parliamentary oversight, she leaned heavily into fear-mongering, treating MPs as though they were a potential security threat rather than the elected representatives they are.

BS Meter: Medium-High

Gaudreau’s concerns, though reasonable to a degree, leaned too heavily on hypotheticals and fear-based arguments. Instead of pushing for more parliamentary transparency and accountability, she echoed the status quo, focusing on potential risks rather than recognizing the importance of MPs having access to the information they need. Her stance mirrored the bureaucratic excuses of those who are more interested in maintaining control than empowering elected representatives.

Ryan Turnbull: The Liberal Apologist

Of course, Ryan Turnbull—the Liberal MP who never misses an opportunity to defend the bureaucratic elite—stepped in with his fear-laden hypotheticals about the risks of parliamentary privilege. Turnbull was particularly concerned that if MPs were granted security clearances, they might misuse or disclose classified information during parliamentary sessions. He warned of onward disclosure risks, essentially treating MPs as if they’re reckless amateurs who can’t be trusted to handle sensitive material responsibly.

Turnbull’s remarks were a classic example of Liberal paranoia. He warned that without the right frameworks, Bill 377 could increase the risk of classified information being leaked, and suggested that parliamentary privilege could be used to shield MPs from the consequences of such leaks. What Turnbull conveniently ignored was that MPs, like any other officials with security clearances, would be bound by the same rules and regulations governing the handling of classified information.

His arguments weren’t about protecting national security—they were about protecting Liberal control over who gets access to classified material. Turnbull was just using scare tactics to justify keeping MPs out of the national security conversation, ensuring that bureaucrats and the PMO maintained their monopoly on sensitive information.

BS Meter: Off the Charts

Turnbull’s argument was pure Liberal fear-mongering. By focusing on parliamentary privilege and hypothetical scenarios of MPs misusing classified information, he created a smokescreen to justify keeping MPs in the dark. His refusal to engage with the actual purpose of Bill 377—which is about giving MPs the right to apply for security clearances—shows that his real priority is protecting the power structure and keeping control firmly in the hands of the Liberal elite. His exaggerated fears were nothing but a distraction to prevent real government transparency.

Eric Duncan: Calling Out Liberal Hypocrisy

Conservative MP Eric Duncan didn’t hold back in calling out the hypocrisy of the Liberal position. After listening for an hour of liberal obfuscation and gatekeeping he pointed out that interns and ministerial staffers are regularly granted security clearances, yet MPs—elected officials who are supposed to hold the government accountable—are treated like they can’t be trusted. Duncan’s frustration was palpable as he tore into the bureaucratic excuses being used to deny MPs the right to apply for clearances.

“Why can’t MPs apply?” Duncan asked, hammering home the absurdity of the situation. He wasn’t calling for MPs to get immediate access to classified information—he was simply advocating for MPs to have the opportunity to be vetted. His stance was clear: MPs deserve the same level of trust and access as other government officials. Duncan saw through the Liberal smokescreen and rightly called it out for what it was—a blatant attempt to keep MPs in the dark and protect the power structure.

Lindsay Mathyssen: Procedural Paralysis

NDP MP Lindsay Mathyssen played her role as the procedural nitpicker, focusing more on the logistics of Bill 377 than on the broader implications of transparency and accountability. Mathyssen raised concerns about the administrative burden of processing security clearances for MPs, as if the government couldn’t handle a few hundred additional applications. Her focus on training and compliance, while technically valid, felt like a deliberate attempt to bog the debate down in bureaucratic minutiae.

Rather than addressing the need for MPs to have access to classified information to do their jobs, Mathyssen seemed more interested in discussing the mechanics of security clearance applications. This focus on logistics was a convenient way to avoid taking a strong stance on the bill itself. In typical NDP fashion, she sidestepped the larger issue of democratic oversight, preferring instead to dwell on procedural details that only served to stall the conversation.

BS MeterHigh

Mathyssen’s intervention felt like an attempt to stall the conversation by focusing too much on the bureaucratic processes of security clearances. Rather than tackling the broader issue of democratic accountability and the need for MPs to have access to classified information, she chose to drown the discussion in procedural concerns. This is classic NDP—sidestepping the need for real action by focusing on technicalities. Mathyssen’s questions might seem pragmatic, but they ultimately dodge the bigger issue at hand: getting MPs the information they need to hold the government accountable.

The Core of the Debate: Transparency vs. Control

At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental clash between the desire for parliamentary transparency and the bureaucratic resistance to change. Bill 377 represents a push for greater accountability, empowering MPs to do their jobs by giving them the right to apply for security clearances. Yet, the Liberal swamp—with the help of cautious allies like Gaudreau and procedural obsessives like Mathyssen—has thrown up roadblocks at every turn.

The real issue isn’t the security clearance process itself, but the fear of losing control. The Liberal establishment doesn’t want MPs having access to sensitive information because it could disrupt their carefully guarded monopoly on national security oversight. By using hypotheticals, fear-mongering, and bureaucratic delay tactics, they’ve managed to stall real progress toward government transparency.

Bill 377 Is a Step Toward Accountability

Let’s cut to the chase: Bill 377 is nothing more than a common-sense proposal designed to do what every elected official in a free and democratic society should be able to do—apply for security clearances. That’s right—apply—not automatically gain access to top-secret documents, but simply go through the same vetting process as bureaucrats, staffers, and even interns working in government offices. It’s the least we should expect for those trusted to make decisions that directly impact the safety and security of our nation. Yet, here we are, watching the Liberal swamp and their bureaucratic enablers scramble to protect their stranglehold on power.

Let’s be clear about one thing: the pushback you’re hearing from Liberal MPs, bureaucrats. No, it’s about protecting their own power. They don’t want MPs—especially those from the Conservative benches—to have access to the information they need to do their jobs. Why? Because the Liberal establishment thrives in the darkness. They want to keep control centralized in the PMO and the hands of a few bureaucratic elites who answer to Justin Trudeau and his lackeys.

Ask yourself: Why are low-level staffers and interns granted security clearances, but elected MPs are treated like children who can’t be trusted with the truth? This isn’t about safety—this is about maintaining the status quo. They’re terrified of transparency. They’re terrified of accountability. And most of all, they’re terrified of MPs having the power to actually hold them accountable for their failures, their corruption, and their incompetence in safeguarding our nation.

Alex Ruff, Eric Duncan, and their Conservative colleagues aren’t fighting for some partisan gain here. They’re fighting for transparency and accountability—the two things the Liberal swamp fears the most. These MPs understand what the Liberal establishment refuses to admit: MPs represent the people. They are elected by Canadians to make decisions on behalf of the public, and denying them access to the information they need to oversee national security is a slap in the face to every Canadian citizen who voted them into office.

Bill 377 is about restoring power where it belongs—in the hands of elected representatives. It’s about ensuring that those entrusted with the responsibility to oversee Canada’s security apparatus aren’t left out of the loop by unelected bureaucrats hiding behind layers of red tape. This is about draining the swamp and taking the first step toward restoring accountability in government.

The Liberal swamp, with its endless bureaucratic fog, wants to keep everything behind closed doors. They want to maintain a system where only a select few—those who answer directly to the PMO—have access to the truth. They’ve turned national security into their own private kingdom, where only the loyal subjects of the Liberal elite are given clearance to enter. This isn’t about protecting Canada—it’s about protecting their grip on power.

But make no mistake—Bill 377 is the first strike against that corrupt system. It’s a crucial step toward ensuring that MPs have the tools they need to hold the government accountable, to oversee national security policies, and to ensure that the interests of the Canadian people are protected, not just the interests of the Liberal elite.

It’s time to cut through the bureaucratic nonsense and recognize Bill 377 for what it is: a bill that empowers MPs to do their jobs effectively. Anything less than full support for this bill is just another victory for the Liberal swamp—another step toward more secrecy, more control, and less accountability.

Canada deserves better. Canadians deserve leaders who have the power to hold their government accountable. Bill 377 is a patriotic first step toward that goal. Let’s drain the swamp and return power where it belongs—to the people and their elected representatives.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight  newsletter.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Business

The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View

Published on

The Audit

 David Clinton

Why Can’t We See the Canadian Institutes for Health Research-Funded Research We Pay For?

Right off the top I should acknowledge that a lot of the research funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) is creative, rigorous, and valuable. No matter which academic category I looked at during my explorations, at least a few study titles sparked a strong “well it’s about time” reaction.

But two things dampen my enthusiasm:

  1. Precious few of the more than 39,000 studies funded by CIHR since 2011 are available to the public. We’re generally permitted to see no more than brief and incomplete descriptions – and sometimes not even that.
  2. There’s often no visible evidence that the research ever actually took place. Considering how more than $16 billion in taxpayer funds has been spent on those studies over the past 13 years, that’s not a good thing.

If you’ve been reading The Audit for a while, you know that I’ll often identify systems that appear vulnerable to abuse. As a rule though, I’m reluctant to invoke the “s” word. But here’s one place where I can think of no better description: the vacuum where CIHR compliance and enforcement should be is a national scandal.

Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.

I’ve touched on these things before. And even in that earlier post I acknowledged how:

…as a country, we have an interest in investing in industry sectors where there’s a potential for high growth and where releasing proprietary secrets can be counter productive.

So we shouldn’t expect access to the full results of every single study. But that’s surely not true for the majority of research. And there’s absolutely no reason that CIHR shouldn’t provide evidence that something (anything!) productive was actually done with our money.

Because a well-chosen example can sometimes tell the story better than huge numbers, I’ll focus on one particular study in just a moment. But for context, here are some huge numbers. What follows is an AI-powered breakdown by topic of all 39,751 research grants awarded by CIHR since 2011:

Those numbers shouldn’t be taken as anything close to authoritative. The federal government data doesn’t provide even minimal program descriptions for many of the grants it covers. And many descriptions that are there contain meaningless boilerplate text. That’s why the “Other – Uncategorized” category represents 72 percent of all award dollars.

Ok. Let’s get to our in-the-weeds-level example. In March 2016, Greta R. Bauer and Margaret L. Lawson (principal investigators) won a $1,280,540 grant to study “Transgender youth in clinical care: A pan-Canadian cohort study of medical, social and family outcomes”.

Now that looks like vital and important research. This is especially true in light of recent bans on clinical transgender care for minors in many European countries following the release of the U.K.’s Cass report. Dr. Cass found that such treatment involved unacceptable health risks when weighed against poorly defined benefits.

A website associated with the Bauer-Lawson study (transyouthcan.ca) provides a brief update:

As of December of 2021, we have completed all of our planned 2-year follow up data collection. We want to say thanks so much to all our participants who have continued to share their information with us over these past years! We have been hard at work turning data into research results.

And then things get weird. That page leads to a link to another page containing study results, but that one doesn’t load due to an internal server error.

Before we move on, I should note that I come across a LOT of research-related web pages on potentially controversial topics that suddenly go off-line or unexpectedly retire behind pay walls. Those could, of course, just be a series of unfortunate coincidences. But I’ve seen so many such coincidences that it’s beginning to look more like a pattern.

The good news is that earlier versions of those lost pages are nearly always available through the Internet Archive’s WayBackMachine. And frankly, the stuff I find in those earlier versions is often much more – educational – than whatever intentional updates would show me.

In the case of transyouthcan.ca, archived versions included a valid link to a brief PDF document addressing external stressors (which were NOT the primary focus of the original grant application). That PDF includes an interesting acknowledgment:

This project is being paid for by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). This study is being done by a team of gender-affirming doctors and researchers who have many years of experience doing community-based trans research. Our team includes people who are also parents of trans children, trans adults, and allied researchers with a long history of working to support trans communities.

As most of the participants appear to have financial and professional interests in the research outcome, I can’t avoid wondering whether there might be at least the appearance of bias.

In any case, that’s where the evidence trail stopped. I couldn’t find any references to study results or even to the publication of a related academic paper. And it’s not like the lead investigators lack access to journals. Greta Bauer, for example, has 79 papers listed on PubMed – but none of them related directly to this study topic.

What happened here? Did the authors just walk off with $1.2 million of taxpayer funding? Did they do the research but then change their minds about publishing when the results came in because they don’t fit a preferred narrative?

But the darker question is why no one at CIHR appears to be even mildly curious about this story – and about many thousands of others that might be out there. Who’s in charge?

Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.

Continue Reading

Business

A Rush to the Exits: It’s Not Just Immigration, Canada Has an Emigration Crisis

Published on

From the C2C Journal

By Scott Inniss
The Justin Trudeau government’s decade-long determination to drive immigration numbers ever-higher – a policy that public outcry now has it scrambling away from – has obscured a rather important and discouraging phenomenon: more and more people are choosing to leave Canada. Emigration is the flipside of the immigration issue – a side that has been largely ignored. With the best and brightest among us increasingly leaving for better opportunity elsewhere, this growing trend reveals Canada is no longer the promised land it once was. Using the most recently released data and analysis, Scott Inniss uncovers why so many are voting with their feet.

Elena Secara is planning a career change. And not a minor change. She’s planning on moving to a different country for the next stage of her working life.

Secara arrived with her husband and their two sons as immigrants from Romania in 2005. At that time, Canada was looking for good-quality newcomers to welcome and Romania was still struggling to pull itself out of the doldrums following its 1989 revolution. As an impressively educated couple – Elena was a bank economist while her husband Gabriel had trained as a mechanical engineer – who were both fluent in French, the Secaras’ prospects looked good. They landed in Montreal, eventually settling in the suburb of Vaudreuil in 2010.

“The quality of life is low here”: After 20 years of living and working in Canada, Romanian immigrants Elena Secara and her husband Gabriel are planning to move back to their home country, having grown disillusioned with Canada’s economic limitations. (Source of photo: Courtesy of Elena and Gabriel Secara)

But life in Canada never became quite what they had hoped. Elena could not find the kind of work she thought she would. She took a job as a business manager in a car dealership in 2006, where she has stayed on, while Gabriel hit the wall erected by many Canadian professional associations that often severely limits recognition of education and training in other countries. He took upgrading courses to have his professional degree recognized, but that still didn’t land him a job in his field. Gabriel eventually went to work in manufacturing, often pulling night shifts.

“We had to face the reality of economic life in Canada,” says Elena in an interview. “We have contributed and worked for 20 years in Canada. I have never been without a job. But with the income we can count on over the next few years, it does not allow us to live at a level we wish to live at. The quality of life is low here, and we cannot take it.” Elena became a Canadian citizen in 2009 but she’s planning to say goodbye to Canada in the next couple of years. One of her sons has already voted with his feet, and is now living in Romania.

The Secaras’ story is not unique. Every year tens of thousands of Canadians pull up stakes and start a new life elsewhere. They become emigrants, and their numbers have been rising. Recent debates over the Justin Trudeau government’s massive increase in immigration targets (which last month were scaled back a bit) have ignored the fact that about 100,000 people have been leaving Canada every year of late, undermining the very system the government is so keen to tout and costing the country some of its best and brightest. Many are like Elena – successful people who came to Canada, made it through the immigration system to become citizens, only to feel their ambitions were stymied and their dreams dashed, to grow disillusioned and, ultimately, to leave again.

For many, Canada is not the promised land, or even the type of country they thought it was.

The Outflow by the Numbers

While it is known that the flow of emigrants from Canada is increasing – and that the number-one destination is the United States – their exact number is elusive, so Canada estimates figures using data from international sources, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Source of photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

The first thing that becomes obvious when looking at emigration is how imprecise the data is. Unlike more repressive regimes, or even the European Union, Canada has no exit controls. Emigrants can just leave – and Canadians can also take their money with them, as long as they pay their taxes – and so organizations like Statistics Canada can only make estimates. “Emigration is one of the most difficult flows [of people] to measure,” says Lorena Canon, an analyst at Statcan who studies migration, in an interview. She and other statisticians have to work with different sources of information, like tax records, lists of recipients of child welfare money, and foreign government agencies that keep records. “Because we know almost all [Canadian emigrants] go to the states, we use data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security [on new arrivals to the U.S.],” she points out by way of example.

In a 2022 study entitled The Canadian diaspora: Estimating the number of Canadians citizens who live abroad, Canon and her co-author Julien Bérard-Chagnon acknowledged the lack of precision. “The numerous challenges associated with accurately measuring emigration and the significant conceptual differences in international data mean that the few sources that are currently available…provide very different numbers,” they write, in the bureaucratese of number-crunchers. Their study sorts through and analyzes the available data to estimate the number of Canadians living abroad in 2016 at between 2.9 million and 5.5 million, with a “medium numbers scenario” putting it at 4,038,700.

These are big numbers, the “medium” scenario equating to about 12.6 percent of the Canadian population that year (the latest for which this kind of analysis exists). Even if one excluded what the authors call “Canadian citizens by descent” – those born abroad to parents holding Canadian citizenship, who might be thought less connected to Canada – the country has still lost about 2 million citizens who used to live here. (The other two emigrant sub-categories are Canadian-born citizens, who comprise an estimated 33 percent of the nation’s global diaspora, and naturalized citizens, the remaining 15 percent.)

A 2022 Statistics Canada study put the number of Canadian citizens living abroad in 2016 under its “medium numbers scenario” at roughly 4 million, or 12.5 percent of the national population. (Sources: (table) Statistics Canada, 2022; (chart data) Statistics Canada, 2024)

And given that Canon advises there’s a margin of error of “perhaps up to 5 or 10 percent” in estimating numbers, and the fact – untracked by Statcan – that there are likely Canadian expats working illegally abroad who may not want to be counted, these are likely to be conservative estimates.

The numbers have also been rising in recent years. In its work analyzing the components of population growth, Statcan estimates the number of “emigrants” and “net emigrants” (which subtracts returnees) going back to the 1970s. Both numbers gradually rose into the 1990s, then stabilized to some degree. Emigration jumped significantly in 2016-2017, coinciding with a change in how Statcan calculates its figures. Since 2021-2022 it has been rising steadily, and in 2023-2024 more than 104,000 people left Canada.

Numbers from other sources tell a similar story. This year’s American Community Survey (ACS), conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, put the number of people moving from Canada to the U.S. at 126,340 in 2022, up by 70 percent from a decade ago. About one-third of those are Americans who were returning home, but the number of Canadian-born immigrants to the U.S. was 50 percent higher than in pre-Covid times.

The Flow of Money, the Flow of People

A realistic interpretation of emigration numbers would include an observation of some historical trends. Although it’s true that for centuries emigrants tended to be poor, landless people desperate for a better life, or were fleeing oppression or famine, it’s not always the case today and certainly does not describe most Canadians currently pulling up stakes. In developed nations, the more prosperous people are typically the more mobile, and with rising wealth come greater means to move to other places.

Follow the money: Alex Whalen, an economist at the Fraser Institute, believes that “the precipitous decline in earnings [in Canada], relative to the U.S.” is helping drive Canadian emigration.

The trend also very likely reflects the globalization of commerce; as more people find themselves working for transnational corporations, they increasingly see the benefits in moving abroad. This is complemented by our era’s instant access to detailed information about nearly any place, even the world’s remotest and most obscure corners. That includes real estate prices, quality of schools, leisure activities – and, among the most important categories, tax levels. More and more Canadians have gained awareness that many other countries offer not only a more pleasing climate than Canada but an equal or better quality of life and some combination of lower taxes and lower prices.

When historians are discussing major past events – like a lot of people moving around – the conversation usually includes discussion of economic circumstances. Put bluntly, find the flow of money and you can explain the flow of people. Alex Whalen, an economist and director of Atlantic Canada Prosperity for the Fraser Institute, points to the earnings gap between Canada and the U.S. as a factor driving current emigration. Its recent report, Our Incomes Are Falling Behind: Earnings in the Canadian Provinces and US States, 2010-2022compared median per capita earnings in all 50 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces – and painted a depressing picture. Results in 2010 were worrisome enough: Alberta was the only Canadian province in the top 20. By 2022, all 10 Canadian provinces finished at the bottom of the ranking. Every province had become poorer, by that measure, than the lowest-earning American state.

“The precipitous decline in earnings, relative to the U.S. is deeply concerning, but not entirely surprising,” says Whalen in an interview. Canadian incomes have been lower than those in the U.S. for some time, he says, but it’s the dramatic nature of their recent relative decline that’s raising eyebrows. And it is not just relative to the U.S. Whalen points to growth rates in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) – how much a country produces per person – as evidence of Canada’s waning economic power. In another recent study, the Fraser Institute noted that Canada ranked third-lowest among 30 OECD countries by that measure between 2014 and 2022, losing ground to key allies and trading partners like the U.S., U.K. and Australia.

Comparing median per capita earnings in 50 U.S. states and the 10 Canadian provinces in 2010 versus 2022 reveals Canada’s dismal economic performance. (Source of charts: Fraser Institute, 2024)

Worse, perhaps, the OECD has projected Canada will rank dead-last among member countries in per capita GDP growth going out to 2060. GDP per capita is closely linked to productivity, which has been in a troubling decline in Canada, and to business investment, which has been moribund. Countries with rising per-capita GDP provide higher average wages and salaries because the capital investments that drive the higher productivity enable employers to pay more – and create greater competition for qualified labour.

“From a competitive perspective it is not surprising to see that people are on the move [out of Canada],” says Whalen, who notes that he is not an expert on emigration. Canada’s relatively high taxation rates, he says, exacerbate the problem: “High-income people, in particular, tend to be mobile, and sensitive to taxation and over-taxation.”

The high cost of living, particularly for housing, is also an increasingly large factor. A recent survey by Angus Reid reported that 28 percent of respondents were giving serious consideration to leaving their province of residence due to the increasing unaffordability of housing. Among those, 42 percent said they would move outside Canada. The overall cost of living, finding a better quality of life and improved access to health care also made the list of reasons to leave.

Canada’s poor productivity growth, partly due to sagging business investment, means sluggish growth in GDP per capita and lagging wages; add in heavy taxation, declining health care and the grim climate, and the decision to leave Canada becomes even easier. (Sources: (charts) TD Economics, 2024; (photos) Pexels)

And those most likely to leave are the people Canada should most want to keep. As the abovementioned 2022 Statcan study put it, emigrants “are younger, earn higher incomes, are more educated and often work in fields that require a high level of skill. The departure of people with these characteristics raises concerns about the loss of significant economic potential and the retention of a highly skilled workforce.”

Canada Becoming a Big Hotel

The notion that Canada is not so much a country as a large, open-air hotel has gained ground in recent years. Emigration can be seen as part of that phenomenon. Some of the people leaving Canada are people who recently arrived. A report from the Conference Board of Canada in partnership with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship (ICC), an advocacy group focused on integrating and celebrating new Canadians, sounds the alarm bells on the immigrant-turned-emigrant trend. Entitled The Leaky Bucket, the report notes that “onward” migration had been steadily increasing since the 1980s – but positively surged in 2017 and 2019 to levels 31 percent higher than the historical average. High levels of onward migration, the report notes, “Could undermine Canada’s strategy to use immigration to drive population and economic growth.”

An updated version of the report, shows that the numbers grew again in 2020, although the document speculates that the Covid-19 pandemic could have been a factor (even though the accompanying lockdowns and travel restrictions would seem to complicate the process of moving to another country). The report forecasts that 25,500 of the 395,000 planned permanent resident admissions in 2025 will have moved on by 2030.

“These are not desperate people fleeing destitution for the comfort of Canada’s generosity,” writes Daniel Bernhard, CEO of the ICC. “Rather, they are a globally coveted talent pool with global options. When we fail to retain newcomers, we are essentially helping them to contribute to another country’s success.” And these are the very people, Bernhard lamented in a recent column in the Globe and Mail, who are “by far most eager to hit the road.”

Another study from the ICC conducted with the polling firm IPSOS was equally alarmist. The Newcomer Perspective  surveyed more than 15,000 immigrants and found that 26 percent said they are likely to leave Canada within two years, with the proportion rising to more than 30 percent among federally selected economic immigrants – those with the highest scores in the points system. Clearly, many more people are planning to check out of Hotel Canada.

“Burgeoning disillusionment”: A 2023 report warns that even recent arrivals in Canada are turning around and leaving; “After giving Canada a try, growing numbers of immigrants are saying ‘no thanks,’ and moving on,” says Daniel Bernhard (right), CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship. (Sources of photos: (left) The Canadian Press/Chris Young; (right) TVO today)

The top three reasons driving onward migration are all economic, led by the cost of housing, low salaries and general economic conditions. More than half of those surveyed said Canada falls short of their expectations as a place to get ahead financially. “While the fairy tale of Canada as a land of opportunity still holds for many newcomers,” Bernhard wrote in The Leaky Bucket, there is undeniably a “burgeoning disillusionment. After giving Canada a try, growing numbers of immigrants are saying ‘no thanks,’ and moving on.” It’s a particularly stark phenomenon considering that most immigrants have come from much poorer, less developed and often autocratic or unsafe nations; that these people find Canada – for decades considered the ultimate destination among those seeking a better life – to be such a disappointment that the best response is to leave is a damning indictment.

The same detachment from Canada can be seen in the number of immigrants who don’t even take the trouble to get their citizenship. Statcan highlighted the new trend in its February 2024 report, The decline in the citizenship rate among recent immigrants to Canada. In the mid-1990s, 65-70 percent of recent arrivals completed the process of becoming citizens (in 1996 it was even higher, 75.4 percent). By 2021 the proportion had fallen to 46 percent. Even accounting for the possible effects of the pandemic, which slowed the processing of citizenship applications, the citizenship rate declined at a faster rate from 2016 to 2021 than during any other five-year period since 1996.

The rising number of immigrants who don’t take the trouble to get their citizenship suggests an increasing detachment from Canada, quite possibly because the perceived value of becoming Canadian is not what it used to be. (Source of graph: Statistics Canada, 2024)

The drop was most dramatic among immigrants from non-Western nations, including East Asia (mostly China) and Southeast Asia. “This may be related to the increasing economic and international status of these regions,” the report speculates, “which may reduce the economic motivation of recent immigrants from these regions to acquire Canadian citizenship.” The value of becoming Canadian, it seems, is not what it used to be.

Canada Losing its Best and Brightest – Mostly to the U.S.

Canada, as every schoolchild learns, has thousands of kilometres of undefended border. There are places where people cross officially, at roads and airports. Some people think of these border crossings as gates. But they are not gates. They are revolving doors. A lot of people go through them, in both directions, every year.

“Revolving doors”: Canada’s border crossings with the U.S. have become gateways for those with marketable skills and high earning-power to leave the country. (Sources of photos: (left) ValeStock/Shutterstock; (right) oksana.perkins/Shutterstock)

When digesting the economic data, it becomes obvious that the flow of people out of the country is following the flow of money. People want better incomes, better prospects. It seems like stating the obvious, but sometimes the obvious must be stated. The ones leaving Canada for the U.S. are the ones in a position to do so: the ones with globally marketable skills, independent incomes or inherited wealth, who can easily start anew elsewhere. And the ones who have decent incomes are usually the ones who have the brains as well. Canada is losing its best and brightest. Instead of easing, Canada’s brain drain is almost certain to intensify. Whoever holds office in Ottawa over the next decade will be hearing about it; let’s hope they do something about it.

Political leaders often tout Canada as a land of immigrants. In 2021, more than 8.3 million people, or 23 percent of the population, were immigrants, the highest proportion since Confederation. Never mentioned is that there could be as many as 5 million Canadians living abroad – one-eighth of the Canadian population. The inflated but often-insincere rhetoric about immigration, emanating from Liberal and NDP politicians in Ottawa and from much of mainstream media, has simply ignored the whole question of outflow from Canada, of how we have lost so many of our best and brightest – and, without major economic, fiscal and governance reforms, will keep right on doing so.

On to Romania

Regardless of who wins the next federal election, any policy reforms are unlikely to come soon enough to change Elena Secara’s mind. She is firm in her decision to leave Canada and add herself and her family to the 4-million-plus Canadian emigrés. “I return to Romania every two years,” she says. “And I see improvements each time. In Canada it is the opposite. Canada is getting worse and worse. Canada is declining…In Romania there are much more opportunities for professionals, the medical system is better, the food is better.” And, she adds with a laugh, “Even the roads are better.”

On the rebound: Once poor, corrupt and decrepit, Romania today is a growing regional economic power and competitor for immigrants – including emigrants from Canada like the Secara family. (Source of photos: Unsplash)

All of which stands as another indictment of Canada. Romania spent years after the Cold War as one of the poorest, most corrupt and decrepit nations in Europe, seemingly in terminal decline, the kind of place people left if they could – and hundreds of thousands did. Romania has managed to launch a remarkable comeback, however. Its per capita GDP  still lags Canada’s considerably but it has grown impressively over the last decade. It’s one of Europe’s leading destinations for foreign investment, and on Harvard University’s Economic Complexity Index – a measure of an economy’s productive capacity – it jumped from 39th in the world in 2000 to 19th, just behind France. Canada is facing ever-greater competition from nations on the rebound just as it enters the second decade of what may be its longest and most serious economic deterioration since Confederation.

Secara doesn’t bother overanalyzing the data. For her, “quality of life” sums up her thinking. “I love Canada,” she says. “And I thank Canada for all the experiences I have. But Canada is not what it was.”

Scott Inniss is a Montreal writer.

Continue Reading

Trending

X