Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

C2C Journal

Why the Trump Administration is Unlikely to Impose Import Tariffs on Canadian Oil and Natural Gas

Published

1 hour ago

35 minute read

From the C2C Journal

By George Koch

Few things about Donald Trump’s recent election are causing worse disarray worldwide than the incoming U.S. President’s vow to erect a tariff wall against all imports in order to spur a resurgence in American manufacturing might. Canada’s up to $200-billion-a-year worth of oil and natural gas exports lie at stake, feared to be among the new Administration’s tariff targets. But how strong is the basis for such fears? Probing the political psychology of Trump’s economic and trade policies and examining the intricate mechanism that is North America’s vast integrated oil and natural gas sector, George Koch illuminates the role Canadian energy can play in the U.S. economic revival and the Trump team’s geopolitical drive for global “energy dominance”.

Tariff,” U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump was fond of saying with a smirk, “it’s my favorite word.” It was enough to curdle the blood and wobble the knees of political leaders, trade officials and business groups around the world – not least in export-dependent Canada. This was one Trumpian campaign line not swatted aside by critics as bombast, trolling, dog-whistling to the “extreme right” or unhinged fantasy. And with evident good reason.

After all, it was President #45 who after rising to political prominence largely on his promise to go after “bad trade deals” had upended 70 years of U.S. trade policy by imposing tariffs on Chinese (and some Canadian) imports and demanding to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was returning candidate Trump who picked as his running mate J.D. Vance, whose life story growing up amidst family wreckage in rural Ohio is almost the embodied result of a hollowed-out manufacturing economy, and who today is an articulate frontman for the something-less-than-free school of international trade. And it is President-elect Trump who has nominated prominent advocates of “America-first” trade policy – in which tariffs are central – to become his Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Treasury.

Tariff king: Consistent with his first presidency, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to pursue an “America-first” trade policy this time. Shown, Trump speaking during an America First Policy Institute gala at his Mar-a-Lago, Florida estate, November 2024. (Source of photo: AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Few sectors in any country stand to suffer greater damage from U.S. tariffs than Canadian energy. Canada’s fossil fuel production is at record levels, with crude oil averaging 5.8 million barrels per day so far this year and natural gas well over 18 billion cubic feet per day. Exports of these key commodities (plus natural gas “liquids” like ethane and propane) are valued at more than $134 billion per year – another measure has it at US$160 billion – with exports of petrochemicals generating billions more. Canada’s oil and gas sector is directly responsible for $210 billion of the nation’s GDP and 25 percent of its exports.

Yet while the industry today is a marvel of leading technology, deep expertise and operating efficiency, Canadian energy remains costly to produce, heavily taxed and saddled with ever-increasing regulations, such as the recently announced federal “emissions cap”. Moreover, the remoteness of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin – the world-scale producing region that covers most of Alberta plus northeast B.C., southern Saskatchewan and a corner of Manitoba – imposes costs not incurred by U.S. producers. Constraints on export capacity effectively trap oil and gas within Western Canada, dampening regional benchmark commodity prices. And the industry remains over-dependent on the U.S. market; the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline will enable at best 20 percent of Canada’s crude oil production to access offshore markets, while the country’s first liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal is not yet operational.

This critical industry thus sits exposed and vulnerable to U.S. tariffs. A levy of 10-20 percent – the rate Trump has said he wants to slap on all imports – would be catastrophic, reducing Canada’s energy exports by an estimated 22 percent, causing domestic pricing to collapse and, with it, any new capital investment. Thousands would lose their jobs and government deficits would soar. Rory Johnston, a Toronto-based oil market researcher and founder of Commodity Context, describes Canada as “uniquely vulnerable to market pressure posed by U.S. refineries.”

“Uniquely vulnerable”: Canada’s oil and natural gas production is setting records and generating 25 percent of the country’s overall export earnings; a 10-20 percent U.S. import tariff could wreak catastrophic damage. (Sources: (graph) CAPP; (left photo) MikoFox, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0; (right photo) Green Energy Futures, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

But is the threat of such a tariff imminent – or even credible? The evidence to date – partial and indirect though it may be – suggests not. More profoundly, the logic of U.S. self-interest and of Trump’s stated policy objectives points away from tariffs on Canadian oil and natural gas.

First the evidence. Trump had barely been declared victor in the November 5 Presidential election before voices on both sides of the border began talking about creating a tariff “exemption” for Canadian fossil fuels. Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce in Trump’s first term, called fears of such a tariff “overblown” and said he “can’t imagine” his former boss imposing them. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith also said she was “not worried”.  Then again, she also wrangled for herself invitations to key events such as next month’s meeting of the Western Governors’ Association, as well as Trump’s Inauguration in January, to make sure Alberta’s message gets through.

Similar views have been expressed by other knowledgeable sources from industry, trade and investment organizations. They note that Trump has done this very thing before; the renegotiated U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement of 2019 notably excused oil and natural gas flows from any tariffs. A further favourable indication is Alberta’s recent admission to the U.S. Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security, a group of 12 states that have banded together to cooperate on policies that promote reliable and affordable energy.

Guys who get it: Among Trump’s Cabinet nominees are North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum (left) and Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright (right), both known for their vigorous support of oil and natural gas development and free North American trade in energy products. (Sources of photos: (left) Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0; (right) Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Another positive sign is that alongside Trump’s pro-tariff Cabinet picks have come nominations of individuals with a deep understanding of North America’s petroleum sector. Douglas Burgum, a successful software entrepreneur and currently Governor of North Dakota, is slated to become Secretary of the Interior, chairman of the newly created National Energy Council and a member of the U.S. National Security Council. Burgum’s primary mandate is to promote innovation and investment by cutting through the thicket of new restrictions on oil and gas development that President Joe Biden had imposed. Chris Wright, founder of Liberty Energy and an unashamed industry booster, has been nominated to become what one U.S. commentator describes as “the most knowledgable secretary of energy the nation has ever had.” Lee Zeldin, another pro-industry figure, has been tapped to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

The fundamental objective underlying all of Trump’s trade policy is to strengthen American manufacturing. It is something he has articulated since before entering politics in 2015; it can accordingly be regarded as sincere.

Tweet

Equally noteworthy is that, in contrast to the widespread and bipartisan clamouring for tariffs on Chinese imports, nobody in the U.S. is demanding that Trump target Canadian energy. Even Bernie Sanders, the avowedly socialist Senator from Vermont who wants a “windfall tax” and higher government royalties imposed on all oil producers, appears indifferent to import tariffs. And while U.S. environmental groups don’t like any free trade in oil and gas, they devote most of their energy to pushing their government towards restrictive European/Canadian-style climate-change policies or a new UN “climate damages tax.” The American fossil fuel sector, meanwhile, is not only in favour of tariff-free trade in energy products – including with Canada – it opposes tariffs on anything.

The evidence to date, however hopeful it may seem, remains inconclusive. Trump prides himself on his unconventional and unpredictable nature. This is what causes America’s adversaries – most notably Communist China – the greatest consternation. Regardless of his previous decisions on trade issues, if Trump thinks imposing tariffs on Canadian energy imports make sense now, he will do so.

“Manufacturing superpower”: The fundamental objective underlying Trump’s trade policy is to reverse the long slide of American industry through decades of globalization – mainly by targeting offshore manufacturing. Shown at top and middle, Trump at campaign event at Dane Manufacturing in Waunakee, Wisconsin, October 2024; at bottom, an assembly line for automobile engines. (Sources of photos: (top and middle) AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall; (bottom) Alliance Employment Services)

Logic and self-interest, however, also point away from such tariffs. The fundamental objective underlying all of Trump’s trade policy is to strengthen American manufacturing. It is something he has articulated since before entering politics in 2015; it can accordingly be regarded as sincere. Trump wants to halt and if possible reverse that sector’s long slide through decades of offshoring and globalization that crippled or wiped out whole industries all over the U.S., especially in the Midwest heartland. These are the places Trump promised to help, this lies at the core of his slogan “Make America Great Again”, and these are many of the people who sent him to the White House the first time and stuck by him through the depths of his ignominy following his second, failed Presidential run. This year, Trump ran on a platform to transform his country back into “it’s my favorite word.”.

To accomplish that dramatic – some would say grandiose if not unachievable – objective, Trump intends to punish countries that use subsidies, favouritism and other policies to unfairly advantage their own industries and flood the U.S. with underpriced goods, harming domestic producers and preventing new ones from starting up. China may be hit with tariffs as high as 60 percent. He will also target imports believed to threaten U.S. national security (such as electric vehicles vulnerable to hacking by foreign enemies) while working to reduce dependence on imports of strategic materials or components critical in wartime. And he wants to close loopholes allowing China to bypass U.S. tariffs by locating production in proxy countries – especially the two countries adjoining the U.S.

Mexico has gone quite far down the road of partnering with Chinese companies, and Trump’s key advisors have warned that Mexico will be held to account for it. Canada is certain to be scrutinized as well, but can probably allay similar U.S. concerns by avoiding becoming a backdoor and way-station for Chinese goods, something Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland already promised last week. This will require several key policy commitments, as well as competent, rigorous enforcement (always a questionable assumption for this Liberal government). It will also be necessary to continue matching U.S. tariff-related moves against China, as Canada did earlier this fall in imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs and aluminum.

Closing the back door: Trump is determined to eliminate loopholes allowing China to bypass U.S. tariffs through “transshipment”, i.e., locating assembly plants in Mexico or Canada. Shown at top, Chinese company setting up facility in northern Mexico; at bottom, transshipment occurring in Texas. (Sources of photos: (top) Kosuke Shimizu/Nikkei; (bottom) T. Hammonds MSW, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

In addition to tariffs, Trump’s critical policies in restoring American manufacturing competitiveness will be reducing taxes, lifting the regulatory burden and, as his campaign platform puts it, ensuring the flow of “Reliable and Abundant Low Cost Energy”. By “energy” one should mainly read “crude oil and natural gas” – something Trump describes over and over as “liquid gold”. (Ending the demonization of coal is also a part; as well there is likely to be a modest revival in nuclear power.) In addition to supporting American industry, cheap energy is intended to help ease inflation and improve the lot of hard-pressed consumers, homeowners and wage-earners.

Among the associated promises and policies Trump has mentioned are to cancel the Biden Administration’s planned pro-electric vehicle policies (similar in effect to Canada’s outright mandate) and its moratorium on new LNG export facilities, end permitting of offshore wind turbines, reopen offshore areas to oil and gas drilling, unlock Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, reopen federal lands to drilling and hydraulic fracturing, pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord (for the second time, in Trump’s case) and otherwise end the Biden-era’s “Green New Deal”, which Trump derides as a “green new scam”.

During his election-night acceptance speech, Trump pointedly told Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., his pick to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and formerly a vocal anti-oil activist, to keep his nose completely out of energy issues. Chris Wright, his recently announced nominee to be Secretary of Energy, has written a 180-page paper which contends that “Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a better goal than Net Zero 2050.”

Trump’s energy policy includes cancelling President Joe Biden’s moratorium on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, reopening offshore areas to oil and gas drilling and unlocking Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. Shown at left, Trump visits the Cameron LNG liquefaction terminal in Hackberry, Louisiana, 2019; at middle, an oil drilling platform at Green Canyon in the Gulf of Mexico; at right, the National Petroleum Reserve. (Source of right photo: mypubliclands, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Trump’s energy policy, in short, is “drill, baby, drill” – often written in all-caps. Where might Canadian-produced oil and natural gas fit into this picture? Right in the middle, as it turns out – figuratively and literally.

It cannot be said often or loudly enough: inexpensive, reliable and plentiful energy is essential to economic competitiveness, national prosperity and modern civilization. But many Western governments – Canada’s among them – act as if it is optional. Right now, industries in authoritarian China use low-cost coal-fired electricity to produce the pricey solar panels and wind turbines that are exported to Western countries where they produce exorbitantly expensive electricity that in turn renders their domestic industries uncompetitive. Industrial users in Great Britain, for example, currently pay five-and-a-half times as much for electricity as those in the U.S., while German industry pays more than three times as much. Both countries are seeing their industrial base evaporate before their eyes. If Canada remains on its current policy path, it will be next.

Oil and natural gas are critical inputs that make American manufacturers more competitive, reduce the operating costs of nearly any business and allow American consumers to pay less to fuel their vehicles and heat/cool their homes. Canadian oil and natural gas not only do not undermine Trump’s economic and trade policies, they strengthen and advance them.

Tweet

Trump is unshakeably determined to avoid that for his country – and this is where Canadian energy enters the picture. Crucially, Canadian fossil fuels are not manufactured goods except in the narrowest technical sense. Unlike cars, smartphones, toys, shoes or furniture, they are commodities rather than finished products. They aren’t produced with unfair subsidies. They don’t contain secret chips enabling the Chinese to spy on U.S. military bases. They don’t threaten to displace or bankrupt age-old American companies, throw thousands of employees out of work or transform once-thriving cities into ghostly husks.

They are the very opposite: critical inputs that, by being priced competitively, make American manufacturers more competitive, reduce the operating costs of nearly any business and allow American consumers to pay less to fuel their vehicles and heat/cool their homes. Canadian oil and natural gas not only do not undermine Trump’s economic and trade policies, they strengthen and advance them.

Integrated system: Western Canada’s producing region supplies the U.S. heartland with crude oil and natural gas, where it can be refined and distributed, meeting the Trump test of (as his campaign platform puts it) “Reliable and Abundant Low Cost Energy”. Shown at top, an oil refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota. (Sources: (photo) Pexels; (map) CAPP)

This beneficial role is accentuated by some geographical quirks. Although North America’s vast interlinked system of energy pipelines is a near-miracle of technology, operating efficiency and reliability, it is not perfect or seamless. Major consuming regions tend to get most of their oil, natural gas and liquids from the nearest producing region; why ship the stuff farther than you must? Consequently, the U.S. Midwest and portions of the “near South” and northeast are heavily supplied from Canada.

If this supply were to be curtailed or disrupted by tariffs or other measures, manufacturers in these dependant regions would suffer immediately as wholesale and consumer prices jumped substantially. Regional oil refineries, gas/liquids facilities and petrochemical plants would pay more for their feedstock, face shortages as Canadian producers “shut in” no-longer-profitable production, and/or would operate below capacity or inefficiently as they sourced sub-optimal feedstock from elsewhere.

Even a 10 percent tariff would raise the average retail gasoline price across the U.S. by 5 percent, according to commodity pricing analysts at Montreal-based BCA Research. But the regional effects would be much greater. Regional prices not only for gasoline and heating fuel, but on any goods related to oil and natural gas, would rise far more than is implied by a mere 10-20 percent import tariff. And keep in mind, much of this region is MAGA country. Over time, some pipelines that currently ship product out of the Midwest might need to be “reversed”, no longer exporting to the Gulf of Mexico and Northeast regions but drawing energy from them. The U.S. might even need to increase imports from geopolitical adversaries like Venezuela or dodgy and corrupt African states.

All of this would be damaging not only to American consumers, business and manufacturing industries, but to U.S. foreign policy and even to the U.S. energy industry itself, the ostensible “competitor” that one might intuitively think stands to benefit from import tariffs. It hardly needs to be said that this would run counter to the new Administration’s objectives.

Despite being dubbed “dirty oil”, “unsustainable” and a “sunset industry”, the energy sector has led America’s productivity gains over the last decade while providing well-paying jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans – including Hispanics, Blacks and American Indians. (Source of bottom photo: Sahara Group)

In addition to its roles in supporting manufacturing and consumers, America’s oil and gas industry is seen by Trump and key members of his nascent Administration as a competitive advantage for the economy as a whole, as a major source of wealth-creation in its own right and as a geopolitical weapon. For this to make sense, one needs to know a few things about this industry. In contrast to its image as “dirty oil”, “unsustainable” or a “sunset industry”, oil and natural gas is among the most technologically advanced, innovative, entrepreneurial and dynamic industries in the economy. This sector led the entire American economy in productivity gains over the previous decade, as the accompanying graph indicates.

The million or more jobs it provides across the continent are by turns technically intricate, dangerous, physically hard, intellectually stimulating – and very lucrative. Just as more and more Canadian First Nations are becoming proponents of natural resource development because they recognize the benefits to themselves, the U.S. industry provides jobs to hundreds of thousands of Hispanics, Blacks and American Indians – an impressive number of whom just voted for Trump.

This is all thanks to one of the most remarkable industrial turnarounds in history: America’s transformation from an insatiable importer of oil and natural gas, its domestic production sagging by the year towards apparent oblivion, its producing sector increasingly demoralized and decrepit, into a country that’s not only energy self-sufficient but has leapfrogged to a net exporter. All in the dizzying time-frame of barely a dozen years, starting in 2008, the year U.S. crude oil production reached its nadir of a mere 5 million barrels per day. (Not long after, just as U.S. oil production was showing sparks of revival, President Barack Obama contemptuously declared that, “Anybody who tells you that we can drill our way out of this problem doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or just isn’t telling you the truth.”)

By last year the average rate had soared to 12.9 million barrels per day which, the U.S. Energy Information Administration recently pointed out, represented “more crude oil than any country, ever.” U.S. production isn’t just higher than Saudi Arabia and Russia’s – it’s nearly 30 percent higher. How this came about is its own story. But suffice it to say that Canadian visionaries and companies played an important role. So, interestingly, did prospective energy secretary Wright and his company, Liberty Energy, which helped pioneer the development of formerly inaccessible shale reservoirs by using horizontally drilled wells completed with multiple hydraulic fractures. In short, this transformation has fundamentally changed the energy game for the U.S., domestically and internationally.

Since its nadir at 5 million barrels per day (mmbpd) in 2008, U.S. crude oil production has soared to an average of 12.9 mmbpd in 2023 – more than any other country in history and trumping Saudi Arabia and Russia. Concurrently, exports of liquefied natural gas have zoomed from zero a decade ago to 12 billion cubic feet per day. (Sources of graphics: (top) eia.gov; (bottom) S&P Global, retrieved from The New York Times)

Here again, imported Canadian energy is neither a competitive threat nor a hindrance – but a source of economic value. The quirks of geography combined with the refusal of successive Canadian governments to ensure that Canada’s oil and natural gas could access global markets have created what amounts to a gargantuan, continent-spanning arbitrage mechanism that enriches American companies, investors and governments. In brief, cheap Canadian crude oil, natural gas and liquids are drawn into the U.S. from the north, enabling domestically produced crude oil, natural gas, liquids, refined fuels and petrochemicals to be exported from the vast Gulf of Mexico energy complex to hungry global markets, where they access premium international prices.

This has become a multi-hundred-billion-dollar opportunity that American entrepreneurs and financiers have exploited with alacrity. Vast investments in LNG export facilities have taken the U.S. from zero LNG as recently as 2014 to approximately 12 billion cubic feet per day this year, a figure forecast to zoom to 20 billion cubic feet per day within two years (the U.S. will thus be exporting more gas than Canada produces in its entirety). U.S. net exports of refined fuels (much more valuable than crude oil) are generating more than US$60 billion annually. The associated processing and export facilities themselves employ thousands.

Trump’s ‘liquid gold’ will soothe American consumers, grease the skids of American manufacturing, fill the financial tanks of American investors and set economic bonfires upon America’s enemies.

Tweet

Clearly, the more Canadian oil and natural gas can be imported from the north, the more American energy – including value-added refined/processed products – can flow from the Gulf of Mexico outward to the world. Indeed, Trump himself has said he would like to reinstate the federal permit for the much-fought-over, 800,000-barrel-per-day Keystone XL pipeline, which he approved early in his first term but was then cancelled by Biden.

The stunning U.S. energy turnaround in barely 15 years plus the current prospect of enormous further growth enable Trump and his policymakers to credibly talk about elevating the U.S. to global “energy dominance”. That is to say, an America liberated from dependency on imported oil not only can act unconstrained by the need to placate oil-producing nations that don’t share U.S. interests, but can use its own energy exports to enrich itself and support allied countries. It can also stare down oil-producing adversaries like Iran and Russia, leaving them weaker, contained and less able to fund wars, terrorism and other foreign mischief. Trump’s stated policy to curtail oil production misused by dictatorships in Iran and Venezuela also implies that Canadian energy exports will be more highly sought-after than ever. More Canadian energy strengthens U.S. energy dominance and weakens its enemies by helping to hold down international commodity prices.

Golden opportunity: The Trump Administration’s stated goal of global “energy dominance” appears achievable, weakening its oil-producing adversaries while holding open the door to Canada – if Canada’s political leadership is intelligent enough to seize the moment. Shown, Trump shakes hands with UFC Champion Jon Jones at Madison Square Garden, New York, 11 days after his election victory. (Source of photo: AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The U.S. is already the world’s energy giant. Its goal of “energy dominance” is therefore serious and realistic. Standing atop it all will be Trump, the energy dominator: his “liquid gold” will soothe American consumers, grease the skids of American manufacturing, fill the financial tanks of American investors and set economic bonfires upon America’s enemies. That simply does not sound like an Administration about to place tariffs on the very imports that will help it make this happen. Far more likely, the 47th President’s energy policy will offer Canada a golden opportunity to play a supportive role as a neighbour, friend, trading partner and ally – and to profit greatly from doing so.

George Koch is Editor-in-Chief of C2C Journal.

Source of main image: heritage.org.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
C2C Journal / 1 hour ago

Why the Trump Administration is Unlikely to Impose Import Tariffs on Canadian Oil and Natural Gas

COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

Ontario court throws out Dr. Trozzi’s appeal after medical license revoked over COVID stance

Addictions / 3 hours ago

Parliament votes for proposal recommending hard drug decriminalization

Business

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

Published on November 24, 2024

By

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.

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.

Tweet

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, 2010-2022, compared 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.”

‘The Newcomer Perspective’ report 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.

Tweet

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.

On Harvard University’s Economic Complexity Index – a measure of an economy’s productive capacity – Romania 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 serious economic deterioration.

Tweet

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

C2C Journal

Drinking by the Numbers: What Statistics Canada Doesn’t Want You to Know

Published on November 15, 2024

By

From the C2C Journal

By Peter Shawn Taylor
“The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify,” cautioned journalist Darrell Huff in his famous 1954 book How to Lie with Statistics. It’s still useful advice, although Canadians might hope such a warning isn’t required for the work of Statistics Canada. In an exclusive C2C investigation, Peter Shawn Taylor takes apart a recent Statcan study to reveal its use of controversial, woke and unscientific methods to confuse what should be the straightforward task of reporting on the drinking habits of Canadians in various demographic groups. He also uncovers data the statistical agency wants to keep hidden for reasons of “historical/cultural or other contexts”.

Statistics Canada would like to know how much you’ve been drinking.

In October, the federal statistical agency released “A snapshot of alcohol consumption levels in Canada” based on its large-scale 2023 Canadian Community Health Survey that asked Canadians how much they drank in the previous week. The topline number: more than half of those surveyed – 54.4 percent – said they didn’t touch a drop in the past seven days. This is considered “no risk” according to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction’s (CCSA) 2023 report Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health, which Statcan uses as its standard. Among those who did imbibe, 15.2 percent said they’d had one or two drinks in the last week, an amount the CCSA guidance considers “low risk”, 15.2 percent said they’d consumed between three and six drinks, considered by CCSA to be “moderate risk”, and the remaining 15.1 percent admitted to seven or more drinks per week, what the CCSA calls “increasingly high risk”.

Statcan then sliced this information several different ways. By gender, men reported being bigger drinkers than women, based on their relative share in the “high risk” category (19.3 percent versus 11.1 percent). By age, the biggest drinkers are those 55-64 years, with 17.4 percent consuming at least one drink per day. Perhaps surprisingly, the 18-22-year-old college-aged group reported the lowest level of “high risk” drinking across all ages, at 8.4 percent, an outcome consistent with other observations that younger generations are becoming more conservative.

Statcan’s data also reveals that Quebeckers are the biggest drinkers in the country with 18.1 percent in the “high risk” category, while Saskatchewan and New Brunswick had the greatest number of teetotalers. Rural residents are bigger drinkers than those living in urban areas. By occupation, those holding male-dominated jobs in the trades, equipment operation and transportation were the most likely to report drinking in the “high risk” category of seven or more per week. Finally, the richest Canadians – those in the top income quintile – said they drink more than Canadians in lower income quintiles, an outcome that seems logical given the cost of a bottle these days.

The demographic detail in Statcan’s alcohol consumption survey is extensive and largely in keeping with general stereotypes. The quintessential drinker appears to be a middle-aged blue-collar male living in rural Quebec. (Although the report notes an enormous discrepancy between self-reported consumption data and national alcohol sales, with self-reported amounts accounting for a mere one-third of actual product sold. This suggests many Canadians are far from truthful when describing how much they drink.)

Despite the apparent surfeit of information, however, several demographic categories are missing from Statistics Canada’s report. And not by accident. According to a “Note to readers” at the bottom of the October report, the survey “included a strategic oversample to improve coverage…for racialized groups, Indigenous people, and persons with disabilities. While this analysis does not contain results for these populations (primarily owing to the need to delve into historical/cultural or other contexts for these groups as it pertains to alcohol consumption), the Canadian Community Health Survey 2023 data is now available to aid researchers looking into health analysis for these populations.”

The demographic detail in Statcan’s alcohol consumption survey is extensive and largely in keeping with general stereotypes. The quintessential drinker appears to be a middle-aged blue-collar male living in rural Quebec.

Tweet

The upshot of this word salad: Statcan went to extra lengths to get high-quality information on the alcohol consumption of natives, visible minorities, immigrants and people with disabilities. And then it enshrouded these numbers in a cloak of secrecy, choosing not to release that information publicly because of “historical/cultural or other contexts”. Why is Canada’s statistical agency keeping some of its data hidden?

Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health

Before investigating the missing data, it is necessary to discuss a controversy regarding the alcohol consumption guidelines used by Statcan. As mentioned earlier, its survey is based on new CCSA standards released last year which consider seven or more drinks per week to be “increasingly high risk”. This is the result of recent CCSA research that claims “even a small amount of alcohol can be damaging to health.” By focusing on the incidence of several obscure cancers and other diseases associated with alcohol consumption, the CCSA recommends that Canadians cut back drastically on their drinking. For those who wish to be in the “low risk” group, the CCSA recommends no more than two drinks per week for men and women, and not downing both on the same day.

To your health: The “J-Curve” plots the well-documented relationship between moderate social drinking and a long lifespan, revealing the healthiest level to be around one drink per day, what the new CCSA standards call “high risk”.

Such a parsimonious attitude towards drinking is at sharp odds with earlier CCSA findings. In 2011, the CCSA released “Canada’s Low Risk Alcohol Guidelines”, which defined “low risk” drinking levels very differently. Under this older standard, Canadians were advised to limit their consumption to 15 drinks per week (10 for women) and no more than three per day. It also acknowledged that it was okay to indulge on special occasions, such as birthdays or New Year’s Eve, without fear of any long-term health effects.

These rules were based on ample medical evidence pointing to substantial health benefits arising from moderate drinking, given that social drinkers tend to live longer than both abstainers and alcoholics – a statistical result that, when placed on a graph, yields what is commonly referred to as the “J-Curve”. These rules also aligned with social norms and hence garnered broad public support.

The dramatic contrast between the 2011 and 2023 CCSA drinking guidelines has attracted strong criticism from many health experts. Dan Malleck is chair of the Department of Health Sciences at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, as well as director of the school’s Centre for Canadian Studies. In an interview, he bluntly calls the new CCSA guidelines “not useful, except as an example of public health over-reach.” Malleck argues the emphasis CCSA now places on the tiny risk of certain cancers associated with alcohol ignores the vast amount of evidence proving moderate drinking confers both physical and social advantages. This, he says, does a disservice to Canadians.

“The opposite of good public health advice”: According to Dan Malleck, chair of Brock University’s Department of Health Sciences, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction’s (CCSA) 2023 guidelines suggesting alcohol in any amount is a health hazard are unrealistic. (Source of photo: Brock University)

“The Opposite of Good Public Health Advice”

“There are two possible responses” to the CCSA’s new drinking guidelines touting near-abstinence as the preferred course of action, Malleck says. “People will hear the message that no amount of drinking is healthy and simply ignore the recommendations altogether because they’re so restrictive – and so we end up with no effective guidance. Or they’ll take it all at face value and become fearful that having just two beers a week will give them cancer. Creating that sort of anxiety isn’t useful either.” Considering the two alternatives, Malleck says the end result “is the opposite of good public health advice.”

Perhaps surprisingly, it appears Ottawa agrees with this assessment. While the CCSA is a federally-funded research organization, it is not a branch of the civil service. As such, its work does not automatically come with an official imprimatur. Rather, its reports have to be adopted by Health Canada or another department to become government policy. This was the case with its 2011 guidance. It is not the case with CCSA’s new report.

In response to a query from C2C, Yuval Daniel, director of communications for Ya’ara Saks, the federal minister of Mental Health and Addictions, stated that, “The Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse and Addiction’s proposed guidelines have not been adopted by the Government of Canada. Canada’s 2011 low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines remain the official guidance.”

Too strict even for the Liberals: Federal Mental Health and Addictions Minister Ya’ara Saks has chosen not to adopt the CCSA’s 2023 drinking guidelines as official policy – yet Statistics Canada insists on using them to measure Canadians’ drinking habits. (Source of photo: The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld)

It seems the CCSA’s new and abstemious drinking guidelines are too strict even for the federal Liberals. The 2011 standard, which considers anything up to 15 drinks per week to be “low risk”, remains the government’s official advice to Canadians. While this seems like a small victory for common sense, it raises another question: if the federal government has refused to adopt the strict 2023 CCSA drinking standards, why is Statcan using them in its research?

According to Malleck, the appearance of the new, unofficial CCSA alcohol guidance in Statcan’s work “legitimizes” the explicitly-unapproved guidelines. “It further reinforces these seemingly authoritative, government-funded recommendations” and obscures the sensible, official advice contained in the earlier guidelines, he says. It seems a strange state of affairs. But given other odd aspects of Statcan’s alcohol survey, it is in keeping with an emerging pattern of problematic behaviour at the statistical agency. Statcan is no longer merely gathering information and presenting it in an objective way, to be applied as its users see fit; the agency appears to be crafting its own public policy by stealth.

Uncovering the Missing Data

Recall that Statcan’s recent alcohol survey withheld consumption data regarding racial, Indigenous and disabled status for reasons of “historical/cultural or other contexts”. Although the statistical agency collected the relevant numbers, it then restricted access to researchers “looking into health analysis for these populations.” As a media organization, C2C requested this data on the grounds it was public information. After some back-and-forth that included the threat of a $95-per-hour charge to assemble the figures, Statcan eventually provided the once-redacted numbers for free. With the data in hand, it seems obvious which numbers were withheld and why.

The only category that seems worthy of any comment is that of Indigenous Canadians. At 20.1 percent, aboriginals display one of the highest shares of ‘high risk’ drinkers in the country.

Tweet

Nothing about alcohol consumption by immigrant status or race appears newsworthy. Immigrants are revealed to be very modest drinkers, with 68 percent reporting no alcohol consumed in the past week, and only 7 percent admitting to being in the “high risk” seven-drinks-per-week category. Similar results hold for race; Arab and Filipino populations, for example, display extremely high rates of abstinence, at 88 percent and 80 percent, respectively. Disabled Canadians are also very modest drinkers.

The only category that seems worthy of any comment is that of Indigenous Canadians. At 20.1 percent, aboriginals display one of the highest shares of “high risk” drinkers in the country.

Out of sight, out of mind: Statcan’s recent report on alcohol consumption deliberately withholds data on Indigenous Canadians for reasons of “historical/cultural and other contexts”. (Source of photo: AP Photo/William Lauer, File)

According to Malleck, Statcan’s reference to “historical/cultural or other contexts” in withholding some drinking data is a clear signal the move was meant to avoid bringing attention to Indigenous people and their problematic relationship with alcohol. “A lot of people will now err on the side of caution when it comes to this kind of information [about Indigenous people],” he says. This is a phenomenon that has been building for some time. Nearly a decade ago, the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action made numerous demands about how governments and universities deal with Indigenous knowledge and history. “I can see the people at Statcan saying that this [new data] will play into the so-called ‘firewater myth’ and be too damaging culturally to justify its inclusion,” Malleck adds.

“The Unmentioned Demon”

It is certainly true that Canada’s native population has been greatly damaged by alcohol since the beginning of white settlement in North America. As early as 1713 the Hudson’s Bay Company told its staff at Fort Albany, in what is now northern Ontario, to “Trade as little brandy as possible to the Indians, we being informed it has destroyed several of them.”

Later, the pre-Confederation era featured many legislative efforts to limit native access to alcoholic spirits. Further, one of the purposes behind the creation of Canada’s North West Mounted Police (NWMP) was to interdict American whiskey traders at the U.S. border to prevent them from selling their wares to Canadian tribes, who were suffering catastrophically under alcohol. The NWMP were notably successful in that mission, earning the fervent gratitude of prominent Indigenous chiefs on the Prairies. More recently, the topic of alcoholism on native reserves has been the subject of several books, including former Saskatchewan Crown prosecutor Harold Johnson’s powerful 2016 work Firewater: How Alcohol is Killing my People (and Yours).

Canada’s native community has struggled with alcohol abuse ever since white settlement began. Many federal policies have attempted to address this, including the creation of Canada’s North West Mounted Police (NWMP) in 1873. Shown, NWMP officer with members of the Blackfoot First Nation outside Fort Calgary, 1878.

With all this as background, it should not come as a surprise that Indigenous communities continue to struggle with high rates of alcohol use and abuse. In fact, such detail is easily accessible from other government sources. The federal First Nations Information Governance Centre, for example, reveals that the rate of binge drinking (five drinks or more in a day, at least once per month) among Indigenous Canadians is more than twice the rate of the general population – 34.9 percent vs. 15.6 percent. Reserves and Inuit communities also display extremely high rates of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder(FASD), which is caused when pregnant mothers drink. Some research shows FASD rates are 10 to 100 times higher among Indigenous populations than the general Canadian population. This C2C story calls FASD “the unmentioned demon that haunts the native experience throughout Canada.”

Given all this readily available information, it makes little sense for Statcan to collect and then withhold data about Indigenous drinking. Such an effort will not make the problem go away, nor change public perceptions. Indeed, the only way to reduce alcoholism on reserves and among urban native communities is to confront the situation head-on. The first step in Alcoholics Anonymous’ 12-step recovery program is, notably, admitting to the existence of the problem itself.

With regard to sensitivity about identity, Statcan showed no qualms about labelling Quebeckers as being the thirstiest drinkers in the country. Or that men employed in the trades, equipment operation and transportation tend to kick back with a beer more than twice a week. Further, Indigenous Canadians are not even the country’s biggest imbibers. That distinction belongs to the top quintile of income-earners, with 21.5 percent of Canada’s highest earners in the “high risk” category.

Habs fans at work: While Statcan appears unwilling to publish data revealing that Indigenous Canadians are among the biggest drinkers in Canada, it has no such qualms about identifying Quebec as Canada’s thirstiest province. (Source of photo: CTV News Montreal)

This effort to spare Indigenous Canadians the ignominy of being recognized as among the country’s biggest drinkers, even after devoting more time and effort to researching their habits, follows a 2021 federal Liberal directive that requires Statcan to spend more resources on certain targeted groups. The $172 million, five-year Disaggregated Data Action Plan (DDAP), which is referenced in the alcohol report’s footnotes, is an effort to collect more detailed data about Indigenous people, women, visible minorities and the disabled “to allow for intersectional analyses, and support government and societal efforts to address known inequities and promote fair and inclusive decision-making.”

Setting aside the tedious terminology of the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) movement, it may well be a reasonable policy goal to collect more and better information about underprivileged groups. With better information comes greater knowledge and, it can be hoped, an improved ability to plan. But such efforts are for naught if this additional data is then hidden from public view because it might cast favoured groups in a bad light.

Ottawa’s $172 million Disaggregated Data Action Plan (DDAP), unveiled in 2021, is meant to collect and distribute more detailed data on targeted groups including women, Indigenous people and the disabled. It doesn’t always work as promised.

Canada’s Statistical Agency Goes Random

The apparent data damage arising from the new DDAP is not limited to hiding results about Indigenous Canadians. It is also affecting results by gender. Recall that the October alcohol consumption report reveals a clear male/female split in drinking habits, with men drinking substantially more than women. On closer inspection, however, this distinction refers only to self-reported gender identity – not to biological sex. As a result of a separate 2018 directive, the statistical agency is now forbidden from asking Canadians about their sex “assigned” at birth.

This is in keeping with woke ideology favoured by the federal Liberals that regards gender as a social construct separate from biology. But such a policy entails several significant problems from a statistical point of view. For starters, it makes it difficult to compare results with previous years, when gender was defined differently. According to Statcan, this is no big deal: “Historical comparability with previous years is not in itself a valid reason to be asking sex at birth.” These days, ideology matters more than statistical relevance, even to those who once held sacred the objective gathering of high-quality data.

As its work becomes more overtly political and ideological following nearly a decade under the Justin Trudeau government, Statistics Canada is endangering its own reputation as a reliable and impartial source of data.

Tweet

This new policy also means that in situations where biological sex is crucial to interpreting the data – health issues, for example – the results are now muddied by the conflation of gender with sex. This is particularly relevant when it comes to self-identified transgender or non-binary individuals. In following the new rules set out by the DDAP, Statcan now takes all transgender and non-binary responses and shuffles them arbitrarily between the male and female categories – what have since been renamed as Men+ and Women+. As Statcan itself reports, this data is “derived by randomly distributing non-binary people into the Men+ or Women+ category; data on sex at birth is not used in any steps of this process.”

Anti-scientific: As a result of the DDAP, Statcan now randomly distributes responses from people who self-identify as transgender or non-binary into its Men+ and Women+ categories, making a mockery of good statistical practice. (Source of photo: Shutterstock)

In other words, Statcan is now randomly allocating the responses it receives from anyone who says they are transgender or non-binary into the Men+ and Women+ categories. Transgender women who remain biological men may thus be included together with other biological women. Doing so is, of course, entirely unscientific. Randomizing data points that have been carefully collected undermines the entire statistical process and weakens the usefulness of any results. Taken to the extreme, such a policy could produce such medical data absurdities as rising rates of prostate cancer among Women+ or a baby boom birthed by Men+. Consider it a triumph of wokeness over basic science and math.

Statistical Irrelevance in Three Easy Steps

As its work becomes more overtly political and ideological following nearly a decade under the Justin Trudeau government, Statistics Canada is endangering its own reputation as a reliable and impartial source of data. The October survey on alcohol consumption contains three examples of this lamentable slide into incoherence which, if not halted promptly, will lead to growing irrelevance.

First is the presentation of controversial new CCSA alcohol consumption guidelines as an official standard by which Canadians should measure their alcohol use. In fact, these guidelines have no federal standing whatsoever; the actual official standards are much more permissive. It is not clear why Statcan would promote these unofficial and scientifically dubious recommendations. In effect, the agency has teamed up with a temperance-minded organization that seems determined to convince Canadians they are drinking too much booze.

This party can’t last forever: Statcan’s recent survey on Canadians’ drinking habits reveals the many ways in which the statistical agency is becoming increasingly ideological in how it collects (and hides) data. If left unchecked, this will eventually lead to its irrelevance as a source of reliable information. (Source of photo: CanadaVisit.org)

Second, Statcan wants to prevent Canadians from having ready access to information about alcohol consumption by Indigenous Canadians. This may be the result of some misconstrued sense of sympathy or obligation towards native groups. In doing so, however, the statistical agency is hiding an important public policy imperative from the rest of the country. It should be the job of Canada’s statistical agency to collect and distribute high-quality data that is relevant to the Canadian condition regardless of whether the resulting inferences are for good or ill. While the $172 million DDAP program was promoted as the means to shine a brighter light on issues of concern for marginalized groups, it now appears to be working in reverse – hiding from public view issues that should concern all Canadians.

Finally, Statcan’s gender-based data collection policy is doing similar damage – and could do vastly more in the future as long-term datasets become ever-more degraded. Also based on the Liberals’ Disaggregated Data Action Plan, the agency now collects responses from Canadians who identify as transgender and non-binary and then randomly allocates these between its Men+ and Women+ categories, undermining the quality and reliability of its own work. While the actual numbers for nonbinary Canadians may be perishingly small, such a flaw should be a big deal for anyone who cares about rigorous statistical validity. And surely Statistics Canada should care.

Peter Shawn Taylor is senior features editor at C2C Journal. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.

Continue Reading

Trending

X