Interprovincial mobility: Retention rates and net inflow rates 2008-2013 landings

Monica van Huystee

Ci4-171/2017E-PDF
978-0-660-09389-5

Reference Number: R33-2016

Interprovincial mobility of all immigrants: Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 1: The case of Ontario as an example

Of the 430,275 permanent residents who landed in Ontario between 2008 and 2013, 400,410 still lived in Ontario in tax year 2013. Thus, the retention rate for Ontario is 93.1% (400,410/430,275).

29,865 left Ontario and lived in other provinces (out-migration), while 37,045 permanent residents who declared a destination province other than Ontario, moved to Ontario (in-migration). Thus, the net of in-migrants and out-migrants for Ontario is +7,180 (more moved in than moved out). As a result, the net inflow rate is 101.7% (a slight gain).

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings, by province, of immigrants ^{note 1} who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a Province:

Total number of immigrants, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their destination province in TY 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of immigrants who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of immigrants who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 who were not destined to the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

Immigrants, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of immigrants who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrants to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of immigrants who resided in a particular province in TY 2013 divided by the number of immigrants destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

In general, provincial retention rates have been fairly stable over the last few years.

• PEI’s retention rate fell from 32.3% in TY 2011 to 27.8% (tax year 2013) and the net inflow rate for 2013 (30.9%) is also lower than it was in 2011 (37.3%). This means that PEI retains significantly less than 1/3 of the immigrants originally destined there, which is problematic for a province where Provincial Nominees account for about 90% of annual flow of new permanent residents. Most of PEI’s out-migrants are destined for Ontario (2,555), and BC (1,720).
• Ontario’s and Alberta’s retention rates were the highest in Canada (93.1%), but while Ontario’s was stable from 2011, Alberta’s rate rose 1.3 percentage points between 2011 and 2013 to equal Ontario’s.
• Immigrants who left Ontario were found mainly in Alberta (12,910), BC (6,950) and Quebec (5,405). The main sources of in-migration to Ontario came from Quebec (15,030), BC (7,670) and Alberta (4,110). Other sources were Manitoba (2,870) and PEI (2,555). However, immigrants destined for all provinces were resident in Ontario in 2013.
• Alberta’s out-migrants resided in Ontario (4,110) and BC (3,010) in TY 2013, while Alberta attracted significant numbers from Ontario (12,910), Quebec (5,145), Manitoba (3,340), Saskatchewan (2,170) and BC (5,785).
• BC’s retention rate fell slightly from 93.1% in TY 2011 to 90.4% in 2013. 7,670 immigrants destined to BC lived in Ontario in 2013 and a further 5,785 lived in Alberta. However, BC experienced in-migration of 6,950 from Ontario, 5,150 from Quebec, 3,010 from Alberta, 1,885 from Manitoba and 1,720 from PEI.
• Quebec’s retention rate fell slightly from 88.7% to 87.4% between TY 2011 and TY 2013. Immigrants destined for Quebec were found in Ontario (15,030), Alberta (5,145) and BC (5,150) in 2013. On the other hand, about 5,405 immigrants destined for Ontario resided in Quebec in 2013 and a further 885 were originally destined for BC. 530 originally destined for Alberta resided in Quebec in 2013.
• Although retention rates in the Atlantic provinces are the lowest in Canada, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia both saw slight increases in their retention rates from TY 2011 (from 62.7% to 64.7% and from 72% to 74.2% respectively). Of those who resided outside the Atlantic provinces, Ontario attracted the majority followed by BC and Alberta.

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration to smooth retention rates over time, which is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes all immigrants who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial mobility of skilled worker (SWs): Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 2: The case of Ontario as an example

Ontario was the destination of the largest number of skilled workers and their families (SWs) landing in Canada between 2008 and 2013. The 139,915 SWs who landed in Ontario between 2008 and 2013, comprised 40% of the total number of SWs landing in Canada over the period. Of these, 123,585 still lived in Ontario in TY 2013. Thus, the retention rate for Ontario is 88.3% (123,585/139,915). Ontario had the second highest retention rate in Canada (0.5 percentage points lower than Alberta and Quebec).

16,330 SWs left Ontario and lived in other provinces (out-migration), while 15,405 who declared a destination province other than Ontario, moved to Ontario (in-migration). Thus, the net of in-migrants and out-migrants for Ontario is -925 (more moved out than moved in). As a result, the net inflow was 99.3% (a loss of less than 1% of those who declared Ontario as their destination at landing)

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings, by province, of skilled workers ^{note 2} who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a Province:

Total number of SWs, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their destination province in TY 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of SWs who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of SWs who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 who were not destined to the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

SWs, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of SWs who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrating SWs to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of SWs who resided in a particular province in TY 2013 divided by the number of SWs destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

SWs who did not reside in their intended destination province tended to reside in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

• Generally, the Atlantic provinces had lower retention rates than the other provinces (ranging from 50-65%). There were very few SWs destined to PEI, but a few destined to other provinces resided there by 2013, thus PEI had both the lowest retention rate and, as a result of the small number destined there, the highest net inflow rate.
• Quebec was the destination of the second highest number of SWs landing in Canada (123,355). By TY 2013, 13,770 lived in other provinces (mainly in Ontario (8,215), Alberta (3,390) and BC (1,565) resulting in a retention rate of 88.8% for Quebec, the highest (with Alberta) in Canada. At the same time, 4,330 SWs originally destined for other provinces lived in Quebec. Thus, there was a net loss of 9,440 SWs resulting in a net inflow rate of 92.3%.
• Alberta, the province with the fourth highest number of SWs landing, shared the highest retention rate (88.8%). In addition, a further 12,990 SWs destined to other provinces resided in Alberta in TY 2013, while 3,950 of those destined to Alberta resided outside Alberta, mainly in Ontario (2,030) and BC (1,305). Thus, Alberta’s net inflow rate was 125.7%--it had almost 26% more SWs than originally destined for the province.
• SWs moving to Ontario mainly came from Quebec ((8,215) or 53% of incoming SWs to Ontario), BC (3,885 or 25%), Alberta (2,030 or 13%), and to a lesser extent all remaining provinces.
• British Columbia was the intended destination of the third largest number of SWs over the period (41,125). Of these, by 2013, 6,965 resided in other provinces (mainly Ontario (3,885) and Alberta (2,220) and 7,080 destined for other provinces resided in BC. This resulted in a retention rate of 83.1% and a net inflow rate of 100.3%.
• About 2,375 SWs declared Manitoba as their intended destination. Of these, 1,630 resided in Manitoba in TY 2013 (a loss of 745 SWs) resulting in a retention rate of 68.6%, the lowest outside Atlantic Canada. At the same time, 990 SWs destined for other provinces lived in Manitoba in 2013, resulting in a net inflow rate of 110.3%. SWs destined for Manitoba who resided in other provinces in 2013 tended to live in Alberta and Ontario.
• Saskatchewan’s retention rate was 73.1%; most of its SWs living in other provinces were in Ontario and Alberta. Although roughly a quarter of its SWs lived in other provinces, the inflow of SWs destined for other provinces who lived in Saskatchewan in 2013 (1,625) was more than triple the out migration. Thus the Saskatchewan’s net inflow rate was 153.7% or a net increase of SWs almost 54%.

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes all Skilled Workers who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial mobility of provincial nominees (PNs): Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

"Destined at Landing” is distinct from the count of PNs nominated by a particular province. Upon admission, some nominees chose to go to provinces other than their province of nomination at landing.

Reading Table 3: The case of Manitoba as an example

Of the 41,135 permanent residents whose intended destination was Manitoba and who arrived under the Provincial Nominee Program between 2008 and 2013 (both principal applicants and their spouses and dependants), 35,895 still lived in Manitoba in 2013. Thus, the retention rate for PNs in Manitoba is 87.3% (35,895/41,135).

5,240 moved from Manitoba to other provinces (out-migration), while 610 PNs who declared a destination province other than Manitoba, moved to Manitoba (in-migration). The net of in-migrant and out-migrant PNs for Manitoba is -4,630 (more left than moved in). As a result, the net inflow rate is 88.7% (a net loss of 11% of PNs who arrived during the period).

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings of Provincial Nominees ^{note 3} (both principal applicants and spouses and dependants), by province, who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a Province:

Total number of Provincial Nominees, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their destination province in 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of Provincial Nominees who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of Provincial Nominees who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 who were not destined to the province in which they resided in 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

Provincial Nominees, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of Provincial Nominees who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrant Provincial Nominees to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of Provincial Nominees who resided in a particular province in 2013 divided by the number of PNs destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

As regards Provincial Nominees there are two retention rates of interest: 1) what proportion of those who were destined to a particular province continue to reside there and 2) of those that were nominated by a particular province, how many reside there? 

This analysis answers the first question and is thus comparable to the analyses of overall retention rates. At the same time, there are a couple of provinces that exhibit unusual trends, namely Ontario and Quebec, and as regards these two provinces, there are some additional points below addressing nominations.

• PEI had the lowest retention rate of PNs (24.4%) of all provinces and it was also lower than the 28.7% for tax year 2011. Of the 4,445 who left, they resided mainly in Ontario (2,365) and BC (1,700) with a few more found in Quebec (150) and Alberta (160). In other words, of the PNs destined for PEI between 2008 and 2013, by 2013 about 75% did not live in PEI: 38.5% of them lived in Ontario and another 25.9% lived in BC.
• Alberta had the highest retention rate (96%) of PNs. Nevertheless 4,670 PNs destined for other provinces lived in Alberta by 2013, of which most came from Saskatchewan (1,495), Manitoba (1,470) and BC (895). In 2013 about 14% more PNs lived in Alberta than were originally destined there.
• BC had the next highest retention rate of PNs (91.6%) although PNs destined to BC resided in Ontario (530) and Alberta (895) by 2013. On the other hand, 5,050 PNs destined for other provinces resided in BC, of which there was a significant inflow from PEI (1,700), Manitoba, (1,460) and some from Saskatchewan (660) and Alberta (425). In 2013 about 14% more PNs lived in BC than were originally destined there.
• Ontario had a relatively small Provincial Nomination Program, but had many more destined to the province than it nominated (6,890 compared to the 2,880 that it nominated). Nevertheless, Ontario had the third highest retention rate of PNs (89.6%)( which was 8 percentage points higher than the rate in tax year 2011), and also had the highest inflow from other provinces (8,085), which was much higher than the number originally destined there (6,890). Thus, the net inflow rate is very high (206%). This is consistent with the findings in 2011.
• Quebec does not have a Provincial Nomination Program but nevertheless was the intended destination of some PNs (120) and retained most of them in addition to receiving another 475 from other provinces. Thus, its net inflow rate is also very high. This is consistent with the pattern in 2011 when Quebec was the destination of some PNs nominated by other provinces and attracted an even higher number originally destined to other provinces.
• In general, retention rates of PNs are lower in Atlantic Canada than in the rest of the country, which is also consistent with the findings in 2011.

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes provincial nominees who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial mobility of provincial nominees by nominating province: Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 4: The case of Manitoba as an example

Of the 42,415 permanent residents who arrived under the Provincial Nominee Program, whose province of nomination was Manitoba and landed between 2008 and 2013 (both principal applicants and their spouses and dependants), 36,125 lived in Manitoba in tax year (TY) 2013. Thus, the retention rate of Manitoba’s nominated PNs who landed in Canada is 85.2% (36,125/42,415).

6,290 lived in outside Manitoba in TY 2013 (“out-migration”), while 350 PNs whose province of nomination was not Manitoba, moved to Manitoba (“in-migration”). The net of in-migrant and out-migrant PNs for Manitoba is -5,940 (more were not resident in Manitoba than moved in). As a result, the net inflow rate is 86% (a net loss of 14% of PNs who were nominated by Manitoba and arrived during this period).

Definitions:

Province of Nomination:

Total landings of Provincial Nominees ^{note 4} (both principal applicants and spouses and dependants) by province of nomination, who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013.

Out-Migration from a province:

Total number of Provincial Nominees, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their province of nomination in TY 2013, by province of nomination.

Nominated and Resident in 2013:

Total number of Provincial Nominees who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who resided in their province of nomination in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of Provincial Nominees who landed between 2008 and 2013 who were not nominated by the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

Provincial Nominees, who resided in the province by which they were nominated, plus in-migration by province.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of Provincial Nominees who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of nomination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrant Provincial Nominees to a particular province less those who were not living in the particular province of nomination.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of Provincial Nominees who resided in a particular province in TY 2013 divided by the number of PNs nominated by that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

• PEI had the lowest retention rate of PNs (20.2%) of all provinces and lower than its rate in TY 2011 (22.7%). Of the PNs nominated by PEI between 2008 and 2013, by TY 2013 about 80% were resident in other provinces: 42% of them lived in Ontario, 31% lived in BC and almost 3% in each of Quebec and Alberta.
• In general, retention rates of PNs are lower in Atlantic Canada than in the rest of the country, which is also consistent with the findings in TY 2011. Since 2011, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have seen a significant increase in their retention rates of PNs (from 59.7% to 75.9% and from 59.9% to 72.6% respectively), with Nova Scotia attracting some of those who leave PEI and New Brunswick.
• Ontario had a relatively small Provincial Nomination Program, but retained the highest proportion of its nominees of any province (96.1%). It also was the residence of the largest number of PNs nominated by other provinces (9,955); this is more than two times the number nominated by Ontario itself (4,455). Substantial numbers of nominees from all other province resided in Ontario including: PEI (3,090), Manitoba (2,650), Saskatchewan (1,290) and New Brunswick (1,145). Thus, the net inflow rate is very high (320%) and consistent with the findings in TY 2011.
• Alberta had the second highest retention rate (95.7%) of PNs and the second largest number of nominations. Nevertheless, 1,280 PNs were not resident in Alberta, of which 535 resided in Ontario and another 455 in BC, by TY 2013. On the other hand, 4,820 PNs nominated by other provinces lived in Alberta by 2013, of which most came from Saskatchewan (1,610), Manitoba (1,565) and BC (885). In 2013 about 12% more PNs lived in Alberta than were nominated by the province.
• BC had the third highest retention rate of PNs (92.5%) although 1,580 who were nominated by BC resided in Alberta (885) and Ontario (485) by TY 2013. On the other hand, 5,915 PNs nominated by other provinces resided in BC, of which there was a significant inflow from PEI (2,280), Manitoba, (1,660), Saskatchewan (745) and Alberta (455). In 2013 about 21% more PNs lived in BC than were nominated by the province.
• Saskatchewan had the fourth highest retention rate (85.5%) and the third largest nominee program in Canada. The nominees who did not reside in Saskatchewan tended to be found in Alberta (1,610) or Ontario (1,290). Inflows of other provinces’ nominees did not replace the number of Saskatchewan’s nominees residing in other provinces, which meant that there was a net loss of 12% of Saskatchewan’s nominees.
• Manitoba had the largest number of nominations and a retention rate somewhat lower (85.2%) than Saskatchewan’s. Of the 6,290 nominees not resident in Manitoba, they tended to reside in Ontario (2,650), BC (1,660) and Alberta (1,565).

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes all provincial nominees who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were nominated by and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial mobility of Canadian Experience Class (CECs): Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 5: The case of Ontario as an example

Ontario was the destination of the largest number of Canadian Experience Class and their families (CECs) landing in Canada between 2008 and 2013. The 12,410 CECs who landed in Ontario between 2008 and 2013, comprised 56% of the total number of CECs landing in Canada over the period. Of these, 11, 995 still lived in Ontario in tax year (TY) 2013. Thus, the retention rate for Ontario is 96.7% (11,995/12,410). Ontario had one of the highest retention rates in Canada (lower than that of Nova Scotia which had a very small program).

225 CECs left Ontario and lived in other provinces (out-migration), while 415 who declared a destination province other than Ontario, moved to Ontario (in-migration). Thus, the net of in-migrants and out-migrants for Ontario is -190 (more moved out than moved in). As a result, the net inflow rate was 99.2% (a loss of less than 1% of those who declared Ontario as their destination at landing).

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings, by province, of CECs ^{note 5} who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a province:

Total number of CECs, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their destination province in TY 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of CECs who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of CECs who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 who were not destined to the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

CECs, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of CECs who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrating CECs to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of CECs who resided in a particular province in TY 2013 divided by the number of CECs destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

Canadian Experience Class is a relatively new immigration category, and many provinces have very small numbers which tends to produce exaggerated variations in rates.

CECs who did not reside in their intended destination province tended to reside in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, which were also the main destinations for this category.

• Alberta, the province with the second highest number of CECs landing, also had a high retention rate (96.4%). Out migration was low (200) and the 265 CECs who were destined to other provinces and resided in Alberta in 2013 more than compensated for those who left Alberta. Thus, Alberta’s net inflow rate was 101.2%--slightly more (1%) CECs resided in Alberta than were originally destined for the province.
• British Columbia was the intended destination of the third largest number of CECs over the period (3,640). Of these, by 2013, 190 resided in other provinces (mainly Ontario (105) and the rest going to Alberta.) At the same time, CECs originally destined for Ontario (120) and Alberta (105) resided in BC. This resulted in a retention rate of 94.8% and a net inflow rate of 101%.
• The other provinces all had around 100 or fewer CECs landing during the period. As a result, retention rates are quite variable and net inflow rates are exaggerated due to small cells.

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes all Canadian Experience Class immigrants who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial mobility of Family Class immigrants: Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 6: The case of Ontario as an example

Ontario was the destination of the largest number of Family Class immigrants landing in Canada between 2008 and 2013. The 150,260 family class immigrants who landed in Ontario between 2008 and 2013, comprised 49.3% of the total number of family class immigrants who landed in Canada over the period. Of these, 144, 305 still lived in Ontario in tax year (TY) 2013. Thus, the retention rate for Ontario is 96% (144,305/150,260), the highest rate in Canada.

5,955 left Ontario and lived in other provinces (out-migration), while 4,320 who declared a destination province other than Ontario, moved to Ontario (in-migration). Thus, the net of in-migrants and out-migrants for Ontario is –1,635 (more moved out than moved in). As a result, the net inflow rate was 98.9% (a loss of just over 1% of those who declared Ontario as their destination at landing).

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings, by province, of family class immigrants ^{Note 6} who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a province:

Total number of family class immigrants, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their destination province in TY 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of family class immigrants who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of family class immigrants who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 who were not destined to the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

Family class immigrants, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of family class immigrants who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrating family class immigrants to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of family class immigrants who resided in a particular province in TY 2013 divided by the number of family class immigrants destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

Family class immigrants have relatively high retention rates compared to other categories, and were also higher across all provinces compared to family class immigrants who arrived between 2006 and 2011.

Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta were the main destinations of family class immigrants. These provinces had the highest retention rates and tended to have the highest flows into their provinces of secondary movers.

• British Columbia was the intended destination of the second largest number of family class immigrants over the period (57,935 or 19%). Of these, by TY 2013, 3,365 resided in other provinces, mainly Alberta (1,500) and Ontario (1,335). At the same time, 2,910 family class immigrants originally destined for other provinces including Ontario (1,460) Alberta (860) and Quebec (255) resided in BC. This resulted in a retention rate of 94.2% and a net inflow rate of 99.2%.
• Quebec was the intended destination of the third largest number of family class immigrants landing (44,590 or 15%). 2,295 lived in other provinces, mainly Ontario (1,385) and Alberta (560) by 2013, resulting in a retention rate of 94.9%, the second highest in Canada. At the same time, 1,325 family class immigrants originally destined for other provinces (mainly Ontario (930)) lived in Quebec in TY 2013; thus the net inflow rate for family class immigrants in Quebec was 97.8%.
• Alberta, the province with the fourth highest number of family class immigrants (37,515), also had a high retention rate (94.3%). About 2,140 resided in other provinces by 2013, while 5,350 whose intended destination was other provinces (mainly Ontario (2,635), BC (1,500) and Quebec (560)) resided in Alberta. Thus, Alberta’s net inflow rate was 108.6%.
• Manitoba was the intended destination of 7,190 family class immigrants. Its retention rate was 89.4% and its net inflow rate was 97.4%.
• Saskatchewan was the intended destination of 3,460 family class immigrants, of which 87.3% were still there in TY 2013. Although about 440 destined to Saskatchewan lived in other provinces by 2013, 835 destined to other provinces lived in Saskatchewan. Thus its net inflow rate was 110.8%. It had about 11% more family class immigrants living there than were originally destined for Saskatchewan.
• All of the Atlantic provinces had smaller numbers of family class immigrants. The largest numbers were destined to Nova Scotia (2,115) and New Brunswick (1,095), which had retention rates of 83% and 82.2% respectively. Newfoundland and PEI had considerably smaller numbers but their retention rates rose significantly from the previous period from 75% to 85.4% and from 66.7% to 72.9% respectively.

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five to six year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes all family class immigrants who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial mobility of refugees: Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 7: The case of Ontario as an example

Ontario was the intended destination of the largest number of refugees between 2008 and 2013 (55,325, or 57%). Of these, 52, 065 lived in Ontario in tax year (TY) 2013. Thus, the retention rate for Ontario is 94.1% (52,065/55,325), the highest retention rate of refugees in Canada.

Nevertheless, 3,260 refugees destined for Ontario lived in other provinces (out-migration), while 2,880 who declared a destination province other than Ontario, moved to Ontario (in-migration). Thus, the net of in-migrants and out-migrants for Ontario is-380 (fewer moved in than moved out). As a result, the net inflow rate was 99.3% (a loss of less than 1% of refugees who declared Ontario as their destination).

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings, by province, of refugees ^{note 7} who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a province:

Total number of refugees, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their destination province in TY 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of refugees who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of refugees who landed between 2008 and 2013 in a province who were not destined to the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

Refugees, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of refugees who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrating refugees to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of refugees who resided in a particular province in TY 2013 divided by the number of refugees destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

Refugees who did not reside in their intended destination province tended to reside in Alberta and Ontario. In 2013, both provinces had significant numbers of refugees originally destined for all other provinces living there, but inflow to Alberta was almost double that to Ontario

• Newfoundland had the lowest retention rate of refugees (45.4%). The rate was lower than the 50% retention rate of refugees who landed 2006-2011 period. Refugees who left the province tended to reside in Alberta or Ontario in TY 2013.
• Alberta, the province with the third highest number of refugees landing, had the second highest retention rate (93.2%). This rate was higher than the 90.9% for the period 2006-2011. A further 4,975 refugees originally destined to other provinces resided in Alberta in 2013, while 625 destined to Alberta resided outside Alberta, mainly in Ontario. Thus, Alberta’s net inflow rate was 147.5%--it had 47% more refugees than originally destined for the province. All provinces contributed to the inflows of refugees to Alberta, but the largest were Ontario (2,050), Manitoba (1,340), Quebec (665), and BC (400).
• Refugees moving to Ontario came from all provinces; the largest contributors were Quebec (1,145 or 40% of incoming refugees to Ontario), BC and Alberta (435 each), Manitoba (305), and Saskatchewan (235) and to a lesser extent all remaining provinces. Ontario’s retention rate rose from the 93.3% in the previous period to 99.3%.
• Quebec was the destination of the second highest number of refugees (17,400). By TY 2013, 2,085 lived in other provinces (mainly in Ontario (1,145) and Alberta (665)) resulting in a retention rate of 88.1% for Quebec, the third highest retention rate of refugees. This was consistent with the 87% experienced during the previous period. At the same time, 630 refugees originally destined for other provinces lived in Quebec. The majority of these came from Ontario (500). Thus, Quebec had a net loss of 1,455 refugees and its net inflow rate was 91.6%.
• British Columbia was the intended destination of the fourth largest number of refugees over the period (6,600). Of these, by 2013, 925 resided in other provinces (mainly Ontario and Alberta) and 580 destined for other provinces resided in BC. This resulted in a retention rate of 86%, a fall of three points from the previous period, and a net inflow rate of 94.8%.
• Manitoba was the intended destination of 4,245 refugees. Of these, 2,435 still resided in Manitoba in TY 2013 resulting in a retention rate of 57.4%, the second lowest retention rate of refugees in Canada. This was lower than the 62.8% of the previous period. Of the 1,810 refugees who left Manitoba, most (1,340) lived in Alberta by 2013 and a further 305 lived in Ontario. At the same time, 330 refugees destined for other provinces lived in Manitoba in 2013, resulting in a net change of -1,480 and a net inflow rate of 65.1%.
• Saskatchewan’s retention rate was 78.4%. The number of its refugees living in other provinces was 455, while 385 originally been destined to other provinces, moved to Saskatchewan thus, the net inflow rate was 96.7%.
• Most of the Atlantic provinces had relatively low retention rates of refugees compared to other provinces, with Nova Scotia being the exception. Its retention rate was 80.8%; its net inflow rate was 88.5%.
• Although PEI has the smallest number of refugees, its retention rate of refugees (60%) was more than twice its retention rate of all immigrants (27.8%) and three times higher than its retention rate of Provincial Nominees (by nomination province).

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes all refugees who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial mobility of government-assisted refugees (GARs): Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 8: The case of Ontario as an example

Ontario was the destination of the largest number of government-assisted refugees (GARs) landing in Canada between 2008 and 2013. The 8,730 GARs who landed in Ontario between 2008 and 2013, comprised 37% of the total number of GARs landing in Canada over the period. Of these, 8,020 still lived in Ontario in tax year (TY) 2013. Thus, the retention rate for Ontario is 91.9% (8,020/8,730). Ontario had the second highest retention rate in Canada (after Alberta).

710 GARs left Ontario and lived in other provinces (out-migration), while 1,245 who declared a destination province other than Ontario, moved to Ontario (in-migration). Thus, the net inflow of in-migrants and out-migrants for Ontario is +535 (more moved in than moved out). As a result, the net inflow rate was 106.1% (a gain of 6% over those who declared Ontario as their destination at landing).

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings, by province, of GARs ^{note 8} who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a province:

Total number of GARs, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their destination province in TY 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of GARs who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of GARs who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 who were not destined to the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

GARs, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of GARs who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrating GARs to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of GARs who resided in a particular province in 2013 divided by the number of GARs destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

GARs who did not reside in their intended destination province tended to reside in Alberta and Ontario. In 2013, significant numbers of GARs originally destined for all other provinces lived in Alberta and Ontario.

• Newfoundland had the lowest retention rate of GARs in Canada (45.1%). GARs who left the province tended to reside in Alberta or Ontario in TY 2013.
• Alberta, the province with the third highest number of GARs landing, had the highest retention rate (94.4%). In addition, a further 1,460 GARs destined to other provinces resided in Alberta in TY 2013, while only 170 of those destined to Alberta resided outside Alberta, mainly in Ontario. Thus, Alberta’s net inflow rate was 142%--it had 42% more GARs than originally destined for the province.
• Ontario was the destination of the largest number of GARs (8,730). GARs moving to Ontario came from Quebec (505 or 40% of incoming GARs to Ontario), Manitoba (125), BC (120), Alberta (115), Newfoundland and New Brunswick (100 each) and to a lesser extent all remaining provinces.
• Quebec was the destination of the second highest number of GARs landing in Canada (4,985). By TY 2013, 885 lived in other provinces (mainly in Ontario (505) and Alberta (260)) resulting in a retention rate of 82% for Quebec. At the same time, 100 GARs originally destined for other provinces lived in Quebec in 2013. Thus, there was a net loss of 785 GARs and the net inflow rate was 84%.
• British Columbia was the intended destination of the fourth largest number of GARs over the period (2,540). Of these, by TY 2013, 405 resided in other provinces (mainly Alberta and Ontario) and 190 destined for other provinces resided in BC. This resulted in a retention rate of 84% and a net inflow rate of 92%.
• About 1,250 GARs declared Manitoba as their intended destination. Of these, 915 still resided in Manitoba in 2013 resulting in a retention rate of 73.2%. At the same time, 195 GARs destined for other provinces lived in Manitoba in TY 2013, resulting in a net inflow rate of 89%. GARs destined for Manitoba who resided in other provinces in 2013 tended to live in Albert and Ontario.
• Saskatchewan’s retention rate was 81.4%; most of its GARs living in other provinces were in Alberta.
• Many of the Atlantic provinces had lower retention rates of GARs than the other provinces, but relatively speaking, their retention of GARs was higher than their retention of many other immigrant categories.
• One exception to the lower retention rates in the Atlantic provinces was Nova Scotia. Its retention rate was 84.2%, and its net inflow rate was almost 90.7%.
• Although PEI has the smallest number of GARs, its retention rate of GARs was significantly higher than its retention rate of all immigrants and three times higher than its retention rate of Provincial Nominees (by nomination province). GARs who left PEI tended to reside in Ontario in TY 2013.

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes all GARs who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to or nominated by, and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).

Interprovincial Mobility of Privately Sponsored Refugees (PSRs): Retention rates and net inflow rates province, 2008-2013 landings

Source: IMDB 2013 (released Feb 2016)

Reading Table 9: The case of Ontario as an example

Ontario was the destination of the largest number of privately sponsored refugees (PSRs) landing in Canada between 2008 and 2013. The 10,040 PSRs who landed in Ontario between 2008 and 2013, comprised 49.7% of the total number of PSRs landing in Canada over the period. Of these, 9,190 still lived in Ontario in tax year (TY) 2013. Thus, the retention rate for Ontario is 91.5% (9,190/10,040). It had the second highest retention rate in Canada (after Alberta).

850 PSRs left Ontario and lived in other provinces (out-migration), while 935 who declared a destination province other than Ontario, moved to Ontario (in-migration). Thus, the net of in-migrants and out-migrants for Ontario is +85 (slightly more moved in than moved out). As a result, the net inflow rate was 100.8% (a gain of slightly less than 1% over those who declared Ontario as their destination at landing).

Definitions:

Destined at Landing:

Total landings, by province, of PSRs ^{note 9} who arrived between 2008 and 2013 and still resided in Canada in tax year (TY) 2013 (according to Revenue Canada).

Out-Migration from a province:

Total number of PSRs, who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in Canada but not in their desti0tion province in TY 2013, by province of destination.

Destined and Resident in 2013:

Total number of PSRs who landed between 2008 and 2013 and who still resided in their destination province in TY 2013.

In-Migration to a Province:

Total number of PSRs who landed in a province between 2008 and 2013 who were not destined to the province in which they resided in TY 2013, by province.

Resident in 2013:

PSRs, by province who resided in the province to which they were destined plus in-migration.

Retention Rate:

The percentage of PSRs who arrived between 2008 and 2013 who resided in their province of destination in TY 2013, by province.

Net Change:

The number of in-migrating PSRs to a particular province less those who left the province for another province.

Net Inflow Rate:

The number of PSRs who resided in a particular province in TY 2013 divided by the number of PSRs destined to that province between 2008 and 2013, expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The following analysis puts the information from the table above in context (of earlier year’s analyses) and also provides the reader with a more complete understanding of mobility patterns and retention rates. Given the space limitations, some data tables from which the analysis is drawn are not presented. Please contact R&E if you require more detailed information.

PSRs who did not reside in their intended destination province tended to reside in Alberta and Ontario. Alberta had more than twice as many PSRs migrating to the province as Ontario (2,025 in-migrating PSRs compared to 935 for Ontario).

Newfoundland and PEI had small numbers of PSRs landing. New Brunswick also had very small numbers.

• Manitoba was the destination of the third largest number of PSRs (2,760), but had the lowest retention rate (48.7%). Of the 1,415 PSRs who left the province, most (1,135) resided in Alberta or Ontario (180) in TY 2013. A few PSRs not destined to Manitoba resided in the province in 2013, and thus the net inflow rate was 50.5%.
• Nova Scotia had only 70 PSRs landing but retained 92.9% (the highest retention rate).
• Alberta, the province with the second highest number of PSRs landing, had the second highest retention rate (92.4%). A further 1,985 PSRs destined to other provinces resided in Alberta in TY 2013 (the largest in migration of all provinces), while only 210 of those destined to Alberta resided outside Alberta, mainly in Ontario (185). Thus, Alberta’s net inflow rate was 164%--it had 64% more PSRs than originally destined for the province.
• PSRs moving to Ontario were fairly evenly distributed from all provinces.
• Quebec was the intended destination of the 1,905 PSRs. Of these 1,595 still resided in Quebec in TY 2013. The majority of those living in other provinces, lived in Ontario (185). Quebec’s retention rate was 83.7%. Only 60 PSRs moved to Quebec, so its net inflow rate was 86.9%.
• British Columbia was the intended destination of 1,925 PSRs. Of these, by TY 2013, 335 resided in other provinces (mainly Ontario (245) and Alberta (80)) and 165 destined for other provinces resided in BC. This resulted in a retention rate of 82.6% and a net inflow rate of 91.2%.
• Saskatchewan’s retention rate was 74.8%, but its net inflow rate was 89.5%. Most of its PSRs living in other provinces were in Ontario (135).

Methodological notes:

Due to the nature of income tax data, the data lags the current year by two to three years.

The methodology used to calculate retention rates uses a five year period of immigration, which tends to smooth retention rates over time. This is preferable to dramatic year-over-year changes due to economic cycles.

The population analysed includes privately sponsored refugees who became permanent residents between 2008 and April 30th 2013, filed taxes in 2013 and were destined to and reside in one of the ten provinces (numbers for territories have small cells).