Overview

Abstract (English)

The goal of this study was to conduct an IMDB data analysis to estimate cumulative 5-year cohort retention rates at 5 years after landing for immigrants landed within the 2002-2006 and 2007-2011 time periods. The geographic scope of the study included census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and census agglomerations (CAs) in Ontario. We applied an adjustment for non-mobility related factors (death, becoming non-resident in Canada in a tax year, stopping tax filing) to the retention rate formula to estimate the proportion of stayers. This adjustment allowed us to estimate retention outcomes related only to mobility that can be influenced by policy interventions. Three key immigrant groups of interest were identified for this study. Group 1 included those who were destined to and resided in Ontario in year i or year i+1. Group 2 included those who were destined elsewhere in year i but filed taxes in the province in that year (i) or a year later (i+1). Group 3 included those who were destined to Ontario but resided elsewhere in year i or year i+1. Considering that intended location at landing and location of actual residence can differ, the report examined residence-to-destination ratios, defined as the proportion of immigrants who reside at the place of intended destination. CMAs receiving high immigration volumes also enjoy high residence-to-destination ratios. For immigrants destined to a CMA, if they chose to reside elsewhere, it is likely to be another CMA. The overall picture for Large (L), Medium (M), and Small (S) CAs is less straightforward, and it truly depends on a community. Large CAs are most likely to lose their destined residents to CMAs. Overall, compared to CMAs, all groups of CAs are more involved in the geographic destination-to-residence exchange with other CAs, not just with CMAs. There is an overall trend of immigrants destined to smaller communities not residing in those intended destinations. Redistribution of immigrants between destinations in Ontario can compensate for a loss of destined immigrants in a community by an inflow from another destination. Over time, Toronto has strengthened its position as a destination in the intra-Ontario destination-to-new-residence exchange. For Medium and Small CAs, there is a persistent issue of either zero or negative net results for many communities. For such communities, their migration effectiveness rates mean they are not compensated for losses by an inflow from other areas, and as a group they are losing. Ontario also receives immigrants destined to other provinces as new residents (Group 2) and loses some of its destined immigrants to other parts of Canada (Group 3). At a community level, a loss experienced by an outflow from a destination can be compensated by a positive gain from an immigrant exchange with other provinces. In Ontario, many communities benefit in the Group 2-to-Group 3 exchange. Toronto, while ‘donating’ immigrants to other communities in Ontario, has a positive gain from other provinces. However, a number of communities lose to other communities in the province and to other parts of Canada. There are 9 communities that are in a troubling position: Centre Wellington (M), Cobourg (S), Hawkesbury (ON part) (S), Kenora (S), Midland (M), Norfolk (L), Pembroke (M), Port Hope (S), and Timmins (M). These communities had a negative balance in intra-Ontario destination-to-residence mobility, and their losses were not compensated by the exchange with other regions of Canada. They are losing their destined immigrants to other locations in Ontario and to other provinces. There are also several communities that are doing well in this regard, such as Brockville (M), Sault Ste. Marie (L), Sarnia (L), Leamington (L), Owen Sound (M), Stratford (M), and Cornwall (L). If communities lose some of their destined immigrants at the time of landing and gain others, do they retain the ones who do reside there? The retention outcomes for Group 1 and Group 2, both unadjusted and Non- mobility factors (NMF)-adjusted, point to the fact that the largest communities have higher retention rates. Retention rates are dependent on urban area ‘magnetism’. This is confirmed with the fact that most Group 1 immigrants who leave their communities within 5 years chose to reside in a CMA. Capacity to retain is related to capacity to attract, with NMF-adjusted retention rates varying from over 90% for Toronto – the biggest CMA in the province – to just over 30% for Hawkesbury – one of the small communities (Group 1, 2002-2011 cumulative cohort). With a close to linear relationship between ‘immigration stock’ and retention rates, a number of Medium and Small CAs (e.g., Ingersoll, Petawawa) are in double jeopardy: ranked lower on ‘immigrant stock’, these communities also do not retain immigrants well. However, there are also some Medium and Small communities that are low in resident immigrant counts but do better in retention rates (e.g., Kenora, Centre Wellington). Group 2 immigrants (destined elsewhere in Canada but live in Ontario at landing) tend to have lower retention rates compared to Group 1 immigrants (destined to Ontario and live in Ontario at landing). Originally arriving to reside in Ontario from intended destinations outside of the province, this group tends to stay in the chosen community at a lesser rate and is more likely to move to another province again by the i+5-year timepoint than immigrants in Group 1. Identification of immigrant Group 3 (destined to Ontario but live elsewhere at landing), and examination of its outcomes in terms of living in Ontario in later years, was to answer the question: if immigrants destined to Ontario do not choose to reside in Ontario upon landing, do they return to the communities of destination in later years? We determined ‘return rates’ for this group of immigrants, which indicated that the majority of immigrants destined to Ontario communities who do not live there upon landing but instead reside in another province do no return to their original destinations. While at 5 years after landing Toronto and Ottawa received back 10.0% and 7.6% of these immigrants, respectively, the remaining communities in Ontario saw only 4.3% returning (for the 2007-2011 landing cohort). Immigrants can come back to the province, but not to their original location of destination; in returning back to Ontario, the direction ‘to Toronto’ overshadows the ‘return to original destination’.

Abstract (French)

Please note that abstracts only appear in the language of the publication and might not have a translation.