Co-operation between the federal and provincial/territorial (PT) governments in migration management is a particular feature of the Canadian immigration system and attributable to Canada’s federal governance. This chapter first briefly describes the responsibilities of the federal and PT governments, including the Quebec programmes, and their evolution over time. The chapter then compares the profiles of federally and provincially selected immigrants as well as their labour market outcomes, before analysing the inter-provincial mobility of provincially and federally selected immigrants. A final section analyses the settlement patterns of provincially selected immigrants within provinces and territories.
Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Canada 2019
Recruiting Immigrant Workers
Chapter 4. Provincial migration management
Abstract
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
A key question of labour migration management is how to attract migrants into the areas where their skills are in demand. In particular, permanent economic migrants tend to agglomerate more strongly than the native-born in metropolitan areas. At the same time, the scale and structure of labour market needs differ greatly across Canada.
For over twenty years, Canada has aimed to address these key challenges by an increasingly shared management of economic migrant selection between the federal and the provincial/regional governments. In 2018, roughly half of all permanent economic immigrants were selected by provincial governments. Some of these passed through the points-based federal selection system (Chapter 2).
Once selected, permanent labour migrants enjoy the same freedom of mobility as Canadian-born. A key concern is thus how successful provinces and territories are in retaining labour migrants, and the characteristics of movers compared with stayers. Finally, given the relative independence of provinces and territories in designing their migration programmes, the question to which degree PT-selection and federal selection complement or substitute each other is a crucial one.
The interaction between the federal and the provincial governments in selecting labour migrants
The Constitution Act (1867) established shared responsibility for immigration between the federal and the provincial and territorial (PT) governments. In practice however, prior to the 1990s, the federal government exclusively designed and implemented immigration policy. In the last twenty years, the role of PTs in immigration policy increased steadily and according to the rolling multi-year immigration levels plan 2019‑21, provincial governments will select over half of the permanent economic immigrants expected to land in Canada (under the Provincial Nominee Program and those selected by Quebec).
The selection of permanent economic immigrants in Canada is a two-tiered system. Immigrants destined to Canadian PTs are selected either through federal immigration programmes run by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) or through provincial immigration programmes. The only exceptions are Nunavut, which does not have a territorial immigration programme, and Quebec. The Quebec provincial government exclusively selects its economic immigrants, and these cannot apply via federal immigration programmes. In contrast to this shared management of permanent immigration, the federal government alone selects the majority of temporary labour immigrants. The regional implications of temporary labour immigration are discussed in Chapter 3.
Selecting Economic Immigrants: shared competences between federal and provincial governments
Federal and provincial programmes to select economic immigrants
Canada selects permanent labour immigrants through federal and provincial programmes. In the 2019‑21 Immigration levels plan, the target number of PT-selected permanent economic immigrants in 2020 (labour immigrants and spouses and dependants) is over 100 000 individuals, which is slightly over half of all permanent economic immigrants planned for that year. Around two-thirds of these PT selected immigrants, a target number of 67 800 for 2020, are provincial nominees (PN), the remaining third are selected under Quebec’s programmes (IRCC, 2018[1]).
Figure 4.1. Federally and provincially selected labour immigrants, 2007‑17
Source: IRCC, Permanent Residents, July 31, 2018 Data. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
Figure 4.1 presents the number of labour immigrants selected through the PNP, Quebec’s programmes and through the federal programmes over time. In 2007, PAs accepted through the PNP represented less than 12% of all permanent labour immigrants, whereas in 2017, this share had more than doubled to 29%. Over the same period, the number of immigrants selected by Quebec remained relatively stable. The share of labour immigrants selected by Quebec represented 21% of all labour immigrants in 2007 and 18% in 2017.
Between 1996 and 2009, all provinces except Nunavut and Quebec negotiated bilateral agreements with the federal government in order to increase their role in selecting permanent labour immigrants. These programmes are referred to as “the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP)”, but the PNP is in fact not one programme, but the collection of all programmes or “streams” from bilateral agreements between the federal government and the PTs. The PNP has been successful in distributing permanent labour immigrants outside of the larger provinces relative to federal programmes. In 2017, 34% of economic immigrants were destined outside Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, compared to just 10% in 1997 (IRCC, 2018[2]). In fact, in several provinces over 80% of newly-admitted permanent labour migrants are PNs (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Provincial Nominees, agreements and PA admissions by province in 2017
Note: *Provinces take part in Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program, which started in 2017. No agreements are in place between the federal government and the Nunavut territory. Admissions includes only labour immigrants (principal applicants).
Source: IRCC, Permanent Residents, July 31, 2018 Data (RE-18‑0424).
Canada initially designed the PNP as a complement to federal programmes, to allow PTs to select individuals given different provincial economic contexts and priorities, including for admission of those who would not have been selected under federal (high-skilled) programmes. This distinction has become less and less evident in recent years, with the growth in CEC and the establishment of the mid-skilled FST attracting similar profiles as the PNP (IRCC, 2017[3]). In parallel, PNPs are increasingly targeting wider ranges of skills than in the past, including high-skilled professionals and former international students.
The PTs can design their immigration programmes and choose the selection criteria as long as the criteria are consistent with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) and bilateral agreements. Some operate their own points based systems. There are currently more than 60 streams of the PNP with large variation across the different PTs. For instance, Ontario has a specific programme for trade occupations whereas Saskatchewan has a programme for long-haul truck drivers. PTs assess immigrants’ applications and issue a nomination certificate to successful candidates. They are also responsible for monitoring and evaluating their programmes.
The role of the federal government in the PNP is to grant the permanent residence status to the provincial nominees (PN). The PNs must pass an admissibility screening (medical, criminality and security) done by IRCC. Nominees must show that they intend to economically establish and reside in the province of nomination. Successful nominees receive a visa which allows them to land in Canada. The approval rates for PNP are well above 90%.
For the first years of the PNPs operation, the federal government played practically no role in the selection of PNs. In 2009, the federal government imposed annual limits for PNP principal applicants for each province. The limits are determined by a variety of considerations, including labour market information by provinces/territories to support the size of their PNP allocations, and informed by the historical evolution of the programmes and provincial/territorial government direction for the PNP of each respective province.
In 2012, the predecessor of today’s IRCC and provinces agreed to a minimum language standard for lower-skilled (NOC C and D) PNP applicants. PTs were also asked to more clearly gear their programmes towards economic immigrants, and leave family migration to the federal family programmes. Indeed, especially in the early stages, although the PNs are economic immigrants, some streams attributed substantial weight to family connections as these increase the likelihood that PNs remain in the province.
Since the introduction of Express Entry in 2015, PTs that operate a PNP can recruit candidates from the EE pool. Nominated candidates in EE receive a high number of additional points (600 of the maximum 1200), ensuring their timely selection. These “enhanced nominations” via Express Entry complement the “base allocations” which PTs are able to use as they see fit under their PNP criteria and procedures. The difference is that PNs of “enhanced nominations” have to be eligible to the EE-pool, hence fulfill the requirements of one of the federal high-skilled programmes regarding educational attainment, language knowledge and work experience.
As part of the PN agreements, the federal government has committed to priority processing of PN within the economic class of applications for permanent residence. In 2011, IRCC implemented a service standard for all base applications under the PNP, to process 80% of base applications under the PNP within 11 months. The latest IRCC evaluation of the PNP points towards difficulties in meeting this objective. In 2015, it took about 15 months to finalise 80% of applications (IRCC, 2017[3]). This period has grown further since; it took IRCC 15 months in 2016 and 16 months in 2017 to process 80% of base allocations. While Canada was able to meet the processing standard of enhanced allocations, with 80% processed in less than six months, processing time for these 80% of applications also increased from four months in 2015, to five in 2016 and six in 2017. As application intake is growing faster than PNP levels growth, and processing times increase, the inventory of PNP applications under base allocations is growing. The latest PNP evaluation (IRCC, 2017[3]) notes that the prioritisation of EE candidates might be one of the causes of this problem.
Quebec programmes
The Canada-Quebec Accord signed in 1991 allows Quebec to exclusively select its economic immigrants. Immigrants destined to Quebec cannot apply to the federal programmes but must apply through the Quebec programmes. Consequently, Quebec is the only province in which two distinct selections of economic immigrants (by the PT and by the federal government) do not coexist. Quebec has five different programmes to select economic migrants. Two programmes target skilled workers: the Programme régulier des travailleurs qualifiés (PRTQ) and the Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ). The three other programmes target investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed persons (MIDI, 2019[4]).
The Quebec programmes are more similar to the federal programmes than to the PNPs. In fact, the Quebec programmes were created in line with the streams of the federal programmes. Nevertheless, the Quebec government exclusively determines the selection criteria and operates its own point based selection grid. Since September 2018, Quebec also operates its own Expression of Interest system (ARRIMA), which caters the Programme régulier des travailleurs qualifiés (Box 4.1).
The Quebec government sets the levels of immigration, which the federal government takes into account when making the levels plan. The targeted intake of economic immigrants selected by Quebec for 2019 is between 21 700 and 24 300.1
As for the PNP, the Quebec programmes target mainly economic immigrants. With respect to family reunification, the federal government administers the programme and Quebec manages the sponsorship commitments. In the area of humanitarian immigration, Canada is responsible for determining – both in Canada and abroad – whether a person is a refugee. Each year, under the Canada-Quebec Accord, Quebec approves with the Government of Canada on the number of refugees who, once selected, will be admitted into Quebec as government-assisted refugees.
In any case, the federal government has the last word in the admission of immigrants as all immigrants destined to Quebec must pass the admissibility screening (medical, criminality and security) done by IRCC.
Box 4.1. Quebec’s Expression of Interest system
Since September 2018, Quebec runs an Expression of Interest system to select applicants for its Programme régulier des travailleurs qualifiés (PRTQ) – one of the province’s largest permanent immigration programmes for economic migrants which is similar to the Federal Skilled Worker Programme. The introduction of the EoI-system in Quebec intended primarily to better align intake of permanent economic immigrants with the needs of the local economy and labour market, decrease the processing time and improve their integration outcomes.
Interested candidates for the PRTQ are required to file an electronic profile through the portal ARRIMA. EoI candidates above the age of 18 can enter the pool if they meet all entry requirements. The candidate ranking criteria is based on human capital and skill transferability characteristics.
Invitation is based on pool ranking. Quebec may decide to prioritise candidates with certain characteristics, notably those with a valid employment offer or whose profiles meet labour market needs. Pool profiles can be updated and generally expire after one year. Selected immigrants subsequently obtain a Quebec Selection Certificate (CSQ) and are admitted to enter the province, provided they are eligible according to federal rules.
Evolution and relative weight of PNP by province
Figure 4.2 presents the trends by province. The heterogeneity across provinces is striking. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Atlantic Provinces, the number of labour immigrants nominated by the provinces has increased sharply over the decade 2007‑17, and PNPs now constitute the bulk of economic immigrants. In British Columbia and Alberta, the share of PNs has also increased strongly over the period, although most labour immigrants are still federally selected. In Ontario, PNs make up a smaller proportion of labour immigrants due to the large number of federally selected immigrants destined to the province.
These figures show only PAs, who are the labour immigrants selected according to the criteria of each programme. Spouses and dependents (SD) of these immigrants are also accepted as permanent residents into Canada. In most PTs, principal labour applicants represent around 40% of economic immigrants while their spouses and dependants account for the remaining 60% of economic admissions over the 2008 to 2017 period. In this respect, there is little difference between federal and provincial programmes. However, in Ontario and British Columbia, principal applicants under the PNP seem to bring relatively fewer SDs. PNP PAs to these two provinces outnumber their spouses and dependents and account for 53% of economic immigrants admitted. This is in contrast to those landing under federal economic programmes, where the 40:60 ratio observed elsewhere remains.
Figure 4.2. Evolution of federally and provincially selected labour immigrants by province, 2007‑17
Source: IRCC, Permanent Residents, July 31, 2018 Data. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
Federal versus provincial programmes: a comparison between Canada and Australia
Canada as a settlement country is often compared to the United States and Australia. Despite all three countries being federal countries, the roles of the federal and regional governments in immigration policy are different. In the United States, immigration policy is the sole responsibility of the federal government; whereas in Canada and Australia the regional governments play a role in selecting immigrants. The interaction between the provincial and federal governments in immigration policy in Canada is nevertheless quite different from the one in Australia.
Australia first introduced regional selection of immigrants in 1996, the same year that Manitoba signed the agreement with the federal government, which led to the first PNP. The Australian State Specific and Regional Migration (SSRM) initiatives are diverse and have similar objectives as the PNP. They are designed to allow regions to "address skill shortages that may exist in their jurisdiction; attract overseas business people to establish new or joint ventures in their regions; [and to] encourage a more balanced settlement of Australia's skilled migrant intake" (Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs, 2019[5]).
In Australia, state and territory governments can also nominate intending migrants under the state/territory nomination (STN) scheme for permanent (190) or temporary (489) visas. STN visas are points-tested and applicants get additional five points for a nomination under the permanent and ten for a nomination under the temporary visa. Applications are made via the Expression of Interest system (OECD, 2018[6]). As mentioned in Chapter 2, in contrast to Canada’s Express Entry, the Australian Expression of Interest system (SkillSelect) operates with occupation lists and caps. It first allocates available places to Skilled Independent visas (subclass 189) and the remaining to Skilled Regional (Provisional) visas (subclass 489). If all places are taken up by subclass 189 visas, then there will be no invitations issued for subclass 489 visas in these occupations. In contrast, in Canada, the Expression of Interest System that manages a share of provincial nominees (Chapter 2), ensures the timely selection of PT nominated applicants, due to a relatively large number (half of all available) points.
Furthermore, Australia has an employer-sponsored category (The Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, subclass 187) available to employers in regional areas to sponsor workers for permanent residence to fill skilled vacancies in their businesses. The RSMS encourages migration to areas outside the major metropolitan centres and most populated regions (Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong and Melbourne).2 The demand-driven programme complements the state- and territory-nominated (STN) streams for meeting regional and local skill needs. Employers can identify workers for nominations through their own channels. Until April 2018, employers had access to SkillSelect3 and could choose migrants who had expressed an interest in being sponsored by an employer on a permanent or temporary basis. Once nominated by an employer, applicants do not need to continue under SkillSelect but receive an invitation to apply for a visa. The RSMS category is thus not points tested, and applicants may be overseas or already in Australia on a temporary visa. Canada also runs a regional employer-driven programme outside of EE, but only for the Atlantic Provinces (Box 4.2).
A key distinction between the two systems is that in Australia, state/territory-nominated permanent immigrants must reside and work in the sponsoring region for at least two years after landing. In Canada, all provincial nominees and Quebec-selected immigrants enjoy free mobility rights as permanent immigrants as soon as they land.
Australia also has a four-year temporary visa (subclass 489) in which immigrants are first temporary workers and then apply for permanent residency when already living in the country. The subclass requires visa holders to live and seek work in a regional or low-growth metropolitan area if they wish to be considered for a pathway to permanent residency.
Furthermore, some Australian regions do not accept applicants under the regional migration streams to their region if they are currently residing in other regions of the country. This has been introduced to counter the risk of these persons returning to their original state/territory of residence after receiving a permanent visa elsewhere. Such provisions do not exist in Canada, however.
Economic immigrants selected by federal and by provincial governments: A comparison
This section compares the characteristics and outcomes of immigrants selected by the federal and the provincial governments. For education, occupation and income, it uses data from the Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB), which pools immigrants who first filed taxes in Canada from 2005‑15. For other indicators, it uses data provided by IRCC from 2007 to mid-2018. The chapter considers labour immigrants (principal applicants) of the PNP and all federal economic programmes.
A profile of federal and provincial economic immigrants
Apart from the introduction of minimum language criteria and a stronger focus on labour-market links since 2012, the selection criteria of the PNP differ widely across PTs, as do the profiles of PNs across PTs. In addition, the profiles of federally selected immigrants may also differ across PTs, as different PTs attract different types of immigrants – even when submitted under the same selection grid. This section compares socio-demographic characteristics of provincial nominees with those of economic immigrants federally selected who choose to live in the province. This comparison gives an overview of how the federal and provincial programmes interact in terms of selecting immigrants with similar or different characteristics.
Labour immigrants are more likely to be men, in both federal and provincial programmes. However, a larger share of PN-selected labour immigrants are men than among federally selected PAs. In fact, in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, the share of men among provincial PAs is 14 to 18 percentage points higher than among federal PAs (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3. Share of women among PNs and non-PNP selected labour immigrants, 2008‑18
Source: IRCC, Permanent Residents, July 31, 2018 Data. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
Immigrants who arrive at an early age in the host country have been shown to progress faster in the labour market, and to contribute more to the host country economy. Consequently, age is taken into account in several point systems when selecting economic immigrants. Economic immigrants in Canada arrive at a relatively young age, especially since the introduction of EE which favoured younger applicants (see Chapter 2). In 2017, about half of admissions under EE were younger than 30 years of age. With the exception of Ontario, PNs tend to be above that age-range, especially in the Atlantic Provinces.
Speaking the host country language is another important factor for successful labour market integration. As of 2019, all federal and provincial immigration programmes require a minimum level of English or French. The level depends on the programme. A large majority of the federal and provincial immigrants speak English. With the exception of Quebec, over 80% speak English irrespective of their programme.
The top source countries of federally and provincially selected immigrants destined to the same province are practically the same. Some countries belong to the top five source countries for most provinces: the Philippines, China, the UK, and India. Only the source countries of immigrants to Quebec are different, given the language requirements. Three among the top five source countries are francophone countries.
The main difference between the PNP and the federal programmes is the fact that the PNP allows PTs to select immigrants with different skills than those required by the federal programmes. The difference in skills between federally and provincially selected immigrants, as measured by the educational attainment and by the intended occupation of immigrants, differs across provinces.
Most federally selected immigrants have a university degree (Table 4.2). In fact, among federally selected PAs during the period 2005‑15, more than 75% have a university degree, except in British Columbia where the percentage is 71%. PNs are less likely to have a university degree. The percentage of PNs with a university degree is 25 to 40 percentage points lower than that of federal immigrants who live in the same PT. The smallest difference is in BC, due to the fact that federal-select immigrants in this province are less likely than elsewhere to have a university degree. This difference in university education does not mean that most PNs only have secondary education. In fact, over 25% of PNs in all provinces have a non-university tertiary education. This is also the case in Quebec, where 24% of PAs have a non-university tertiary degree, and a relatively lower share has a university degree (69%).
Table 4.2. Education level of provincially and federally selected labour immigrants (PAs)
Note: “Skilled workers programmes” refers to the federal programmes FSWP and CEC, as well as the Quebec programmes PRTQ and PEQ.
Source: IMDB 2005‑15.
Only PAs are selected through the immigration programmes. However, SDs often participate in the labour market. The differences in university graduation of SDs mimic those of PAs rather closely. SDs of PNs are 24 to 30 percentage points less likely to have a university degree than SDs of federally selected PAs, except in Alberta and British Columbia where the difference is smaller. The share of immigrants with a tertiary non-university degree is more similar among federal and provincial SDs than among PAs. In Quebec, the share of SDs with a tertiary non-university degree is again the highest, with 33%.
Federally and provincially selected migrants also intend to work in different occupations (Table 4.3). Over the period 2005‑15, over 30% of FSWs in all provinces apart from Manitoba, intended to work in Natural and Applied Sciences, and between 17 to 29% in occupations in Education, law and social, community and government services. In contrast, few PNs intended to work in these occupations. Over one in five PNs in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba intended to work in sales and services occupations, and between 17 and 25% of PNs intended to work in trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations. While a very small share of FSW intends to work in occupations in manufacturing and utilities, the share among PNs is much higher in all provinces. Perhaps surprisingly given the lower levels of formal qualifications, a relatively large share of PN immigrants to the Atlantic Provinces and Ontario intend to work in management occupations. Immigrants to Quebec are similar to federally selected immigrants in terms of their distribution of skill types, except for a larger share of immigrants intending to work in occupations in manufacturing and utilities.
Table 4.3. Skill type of intended occupations of provincially and federally selected labour immigrants
Source: IMDB 2005‑15.
Intended occupations in most provinces reflect the differences in education levels. According to the NOC classification, occupations classified as skill level A require a university degree; those classified as skill level B require college education or apprenticeship training; those classified as skill level C require secondary school and/or occupation-specific training; and those classified as skill level D require only on-the-job training. Figure 4.4 provides an overview of intended occupation by NOC type, for those applicants where this data is available, excluding individuals intending to work in management (NOC 0). For all provinces, the share of federally selected immigrants intending to work in an occupation of skill level A or B is close to 90% and higher. The skill level of intended occupations of PNs is as expected more diverse, and varies across provinces. The share of PNs who intend to work in occupations of skill level C and D is 30% and above in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, but much lower in the other provinces. The share of PNs intending to work in occupations of skill level D is highest in Alberta and Saskatchewan, at close to 17%.
Figure 4.4. Skill level of provincial and federal labour immigrants by province of intended residence, 2008‑18
Note: Data for 2018 until July. The graph excludes individuals intending to work in management positions (NOC 0) and individuals for which this data is not available.
Source: IRCC, Permanent Residents, July 31, 2018 Data. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
Considering the principal applicants to the FSW programme and Quebec’s PRTQ between 2008 and July 2018, the share of immigrants in Quebec intending to work in NOC B occupations is at 27% very similar to the 26% of federally selected in the other provinces. However, PRTQ immigrants to Quebec are more likely to intend work in intermediate and clerical jobs NOC C (10%) than federally selected (5%) and somewhat less likely to intend to work as professionals (63% and 69%).4
In summary, federally and provincially selected immigrants tend to have different characteristics and (intend to) work in different occupations. This suggests that the programmes complement, rather than substitute each other – in spite of some programme convergence.
Labour market outcomes of federal and provincial economic immigrants
One question that arises is whether federally or provincially selected immigrants integrate better in the Canadian labour market. As a first measure of integration in the labour market, Table 4.4 presents the share of immigrants who declare employment income by province of landing (and nomination for PNs) one year, three years and five after landing in Canada. A first observation is that there are large differences in the shares of immigrants who declare employment income across provinces, both for federally and provincially selected immigrants.
Table 4.4. Share of immigrants reporting employment earnings by PT of landing and immigration programme
Note: Data only considers employment earnings, 2005‑15.
Source: Longitudinal Immigrant Database (IMDB) 2015. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
Immigrants destined to the Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) are the most likely to declare income from employment. In these provinces, both provincially and federally selected labour immigrants have employment rates higher than 85% in the first year, although PNs are slightly more likely than federal immigrants to declare income from employment. Federal immigrants destined to the largest receiving provinces, Ontario and BC, as well as immigrants destined to Quebec, are less likely than in the Prairie Provinces to declare income from employment one year after arrival. Nevertheless still approximately three quarters of economic PAs do so. The employment rate of PNs in British Columbia and Ontario is higher than that of federal immigrants.
Federal immigrants destined to the Atlantic Provinces have employment rates comparable to those of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. These are the only provinces where PNs have lower employment rates than federal immigrants. However, small numbers of immigrants arrive in these provinces.
Not surprisingly, SDs have lower employment rates than PAs across all provinces and programmes. The patterns found across provinces for PAs are reflected in those of SDs. In Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, more than 70% of SDs, both federal and provincial, declare employment income. SDs in Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec and British Columbia have much lower likelihood of having employment income.
One of the stated concerns about the PNP has been that the programmes may be focused on the short term labour market needs of the PTs, and may not meet long-term objectives.5 The worry is thus that in the longer run, the labour market integration of PNs may not be as successful as that of federal immigrants. Looking at the share of immigrants arriving between 2005‑15 reporting employment earnings three and five years after landing suggests that among PNP principal applicants’ shares of immigrants who report employment earnings decline while they remain stable or increase among federally and Quebec selected immigrants. Nevertheless, five years after arrival shares of PNP immigrants declaring employment income are still higher than among federally selected immigrants – with the exception of the Atlantic Provinces and Ontario. In the short-to medium-run, there is no evidence of worse outcomes of PNs.
This is consistent with research on earnings, which found that PNP PAs have high earnings in the years after arrival but their income curve is flatter compared to other admission classes such as the FSW and CEC (Pandey and Townsend, 2013[7]; Warman, Webb and Worswick, 2019[8]). This is most likely due to the fact that many have pre-arranged employment or other existing networks prior to landing but overall lower human capital endowment than federal high-skilled immigrants.6
Considering employment rates is a partial measure of labour market performance. An important issue affecting immigrants in the host country labour market is the mismatch between the immigrants’ skills and the skills required for the jobs held by the immigrants. In order to analyse whether this is an issue for provincial relative to federal immigrants, one would need information on the occupations held by immigrants over time by immigration programme. The IMDB is based on tax records matched to landing cards. The data contains information on the intended occupation of the immigrant upon landing, but does not contain information on the actual occupation held over time. Other sources with rich information on the occupation of workers, such as labour force surveys, do not contain information on the immigration programme.
There is nevertheless some evidence on this issue given by a survey from IRCC in the context of the 2017 PNP Evaluation. In this survey, 5 818 PNs who landed in Canada between 2010‑15 were interviewed Most PNs had their first employment in Canada in a high skilled occupation and 77% reported currently working in an occupation that is commensurate with their intended skill level or higher. This is a higher share than the 70% reported in the previous PNP evaluation. Skill mismatch seems to be somewhat a larger problem in Manitoba, where over 40% of survey respondents held a job at the time of the survey that was not commensurate with the skill level of their intended occupation (IRCC, 2017[3]). Further research should compare the skill mismatch of PNs to the skill mismatch of federally selected immigrants in the same provinces.
Onshore transitions and the question of structural vs. temporary labour needs
Regarding federal selection, several recent changes in the permanent immigration management discussed in Chapter 2 increased two-step (temporary to permanent) migration. Against this backdrop, the role of employers in selecting temporary immigrants, and hence the possibility to make a first selection of permanent residents who immigrate in a two-step migration process, has increased over the past decade.
In recent years, about two-thirds of the PNs held a temporary work or study permit prior to being nominated by a PT. Indeed, nine out of 11 territories have PNP streams that require work experience in the PT of nomination.
Likewise, in 2016, 40% of individuals with previous work permits transitioning into permanent residence under an economic programme were part of the PNP (IRCC, 2017[9]); i.e. onshore transitions through employment pass disproportionately often through the PNP. One issue that arises when the role of employers in immigrant selection increases is whether the immigrants selected are addressing real long-term labour market needs. The overwhelming majority of individuals transitioning into a PNP were previously part of the International Mobility Program (94%), which does not require a labour market test. In contrast to those transitioning to high-skilled federal immigration classes, it is not clear to what extent those transitioning to the PNP respond to long-term labour shortages especially given the often lower skill levels (see below). In addition, it is not clear to what extent PNP might be a response of PTs to attract labour to their region – outside of employer driven selection – for de facto temporary needs, especially in a context of limited possibilities for managed temporary labour migration and the lack of a regional element therein (see also Chapter 3).
Inter-provincial mobility of labour immigrants
One of the rationales to establish the PNP and its expansion was to attract immigrants to regions in Canada with few federal immigrants in order to distribute the gains from economic immigration. In fact, a measure of success of the programme has been the fact that it attracted immigrants to PTs with little prior immigration. Although PTs select their immigrants, as mentioned these are free to move and live in any PTs as soon as they land. PNs are permanent residents and as such enjoy free mobility in Canada. Consequently, a second measure of success of the PNP is the retention rates of immigrants, that is the share of immigrants destined to a PT who remain living in the PT. This section thus analyses the inter-provincial mobility patterns of labour immigrants and the issues raised by their mobility.
Mobility of provincially selected labour immigrants
Figure 4.5. Mobility matrix for principal applicants under the PNP by province of residence and province of destination
Note: Numbers below 50 are excluded. Diagonal indicates migrants still living in their original province.
Source: Longitudinal Immigrant Database (IMDB) 2015. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
Figure 4.5 depicts a mobility matrix of PNP PAs of the 2005‑15 cohorts one year after landing in Canada. The diagonal shows that the vast majority of immigrants live in the province of nomination one year after landing. Some provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, received PNs destined to other provinces. Other provinces, such as the Atlantic Provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan lose PNs to other provinces. In absolute numbers over the ten immigration cohorts considered, Manitoba and Saskatchewan lose a similar number of immigrants, 2 900 and 2 500 respectively, while the Atlantic Provinces over the same period lost over 3 800 PNs – especially those selected to Prince Edward Island. In fact, proportionally to the intake of PNs of each province, 36% of the PNs destined to the Atlantic Provinces live in other provinces one year after landing; while this is the case for only 5% to 15% of immigrants destined to other provinces, and for 18% of those landing in the territories.
Quebec is excluded from the figure given that there is no PNP in Quebec. Nevertheless, the province receives some small numbers of PNs destined to other provinces. In the ten years considered, approximately 290 PAs of the PNP moved to Quebec from other provinces, out of which 120 initially were destined to the Atlantic Provinces.
Mobility of federally and Quebec-selected labour immigrants
Figure 4.6. Mobility matrix for labour migrants selected by the federal government and by Quebec, by province of residence and province of destination
Note: Numbers below 100 are excluded. Diagonal indicates migrants still living in their original province.
Source: Longitudinal Immigrant Database (IMDB) 2015. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
Figure 4.6 presents a mobility matrix for immigrants selected by the federal government and by Quebec prior to the introduction of EE.7 The four provinces that receive the largest numbers of immigrants (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta) are also the provinces that receive more immigrants who were destined to other provinces. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are the provinces receiving the largest number of federal immigrants destined to other provinces during this period. However, the number of federally selected immigrants moving to Alberta from other provinces is over a quarter the number of all federally selected immigrants landing in Alberta, whereas immigrants moving to Ontario and British Columbia represent only 8% and 11% of all the federally selected immigrants landing in these provinces.
The interprovincial mobility of immigrants (provincial- and federal-selected) are to some extent similar to general interprovincial population movement patterns in Canada (Saunders, 2018[10]). The largest interprovincial population flows between 2005‑15 involve exchanges between Ontario (both in and outflows), Alberta and British Columbia (inflows) and Quebec (outflows). The Atlantic Provinces had interprovincial population outward movements, which offset the population gains from international migration, a pattern also observable for Manitoba. The only two provinces with a large positive interprovincial balance of population movements are Alberta and British Columbia. Ostrovsky, Hou and Picot (2011[11]) show that immigrants’ interprovincial migration response to the economic boom in Alberta was larger than among natives. While overall population movements seem to broadly match mobility patterns of recent arrivals, the only province which saw net interprovincial overall population outflows between 2005‑15 has been negative while at the same time observing net interprovincial gains from mobility of recent-arrived immigrants is Ontario.
Mobility of labour immigrants by years since landing
The previous section analysed mobility patterns one year after landing. However, it may be that with years spent in Canada, inter-provincial mobility increases. Figure 4.7 suggests that this is indeed the case. However, comparing one year and three years after landing for the 2005‑15 immigration cohorts, both for federal and provincial immigrants, the difference in the geographic distribution of immigrants three years after landing is not large. With the exception of the Atlantic Provinces, the difference in retention rate one year and three years after landing is less then five percentage points in all provinces for provincial nominees, and lower than five percentage points in the four provinces that receive the highest numbers of federally selected immigrants (Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta).
Figure 4.7. Retention rate of principal applicants of the PNP and other labour immigrants
Note: The data covers landing years between 2005‑15.
Source: Longitudinal Immigrant Database (IMDB) 2015.
Hence, if immigrants move they are more likely to do so in the first year after landing than in the following two years. In addition, provincially selected immigrants are more likely to reside in their province of landing three years after arrival than those federally selected with the exception of Ontario and Prince Edward Islands.
Figure 4.8 combines the two previously presented mobility matrices and shows moving patterns one year after landing for federally and provincially selected immigrants. This figure gives an overview of the mobility of all economic PAs.
Figure 4.8. Mobility matrix for federally, provincially and Quebec-selected labour migrants
Note: Not all provinces/territories had PNPs in place in 2005, compare to Table 4.1. Diagonal indicates migrants still living in their original province.
Source: Longitudinal Immigrant Database (IMDB) 2015. Data request tracking number: RE-18‑0424.
In absolute numbers, there are more federal immigrants living outside of their province of destination than provincially selected immigrants. This confirms the previous observation that the retention rates are higher for provincial than for federally selected immigrants. It is in line with previous evidence. Pandey and Townsend (2011[12]) find that “after taking account of provincial economic conditions, the introduction of PNPs did not lead to a decrease in the retention rates for any province. In fact, when comparing the retention rates of immigrants through the federal programmes to those through the PNPs, the retention rates of nominees were higher for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, and similar to those of immigrants admitted through the federal programme in the Atlantic Provinces.” The period considered covers the immigration cohorts until 2005, but the patterns are similar to those of the later cohorts considered here.
Although the comparison between the retention rates of federal and provincial immigrants is interesting, it remains that the issues raised by the mobility of the two types of immigrants are different. Whether federally selected immigrants decide to settle or not in the province of destination, is a zero sum game for the federal government, as long as they remain in Canada. However, if PNs decide to leave the province of nomination, it indicates that the selection of the PT may have been inefficient. The province invested in nominating the immigrant but did not receive the benefit of doing so. This may be particularly problematic if the immigrants who leave are the most qualified and those faring better in the labor market.
In terms of labour market outcomes, leavers and stayers are overall similar. The percentage of immigrants declaring employment income one year after landing is only slightly higher for PNs residing in their province of nomination. Alternative measures of labour market integration such as the percentage of immigrants declaring employment insurance benefits or social assistance benefits are also very similar. The only exception are the Atlantic Provinces. Immigrants who settle in the nominating provinces are more likely to declare employment income one year (three and five years) after landing than those who settle elsewhere.
PNs are selected based on the criteria of the nominating province. When PNs decide to live outside of the nominating PT, this is not only an issue for the nominating province, but it may also be an issue for the receiving province. In fact, PTs choose PNs to address labour market needs based on defined criteria. The results in the previous section show that the characteristics of PNs are quite different from those of federal immigrants, and differ across PTs.
To put the extent to which receiving PNs from other PTs is an issue for the receiving PTs into perspective one should look at the size of the inflows of PNs; on how the characteristics of these PNs differ from those of the immigrants living in the PT; and on the labour market integration of the PNs in the new destination PT. As seen above, the flows of PNs to PTs other than the nominating PTs represent in some cases a large share of the immigrants destined to the nominating province. This is mostly the case for the Atlantic Provinces. However, PNs moving to other provinces only represent a small share of immigrants in their new destination PTs.
Box 4.2. The Atlantic Immigration Pilot
The Atlantic Immigration Pilot, which is part of Canada’s Atlantic Growth Strategy, aims to attract and retain skilled workers to fill long-term labour market needs in the Atlantic Provinces. It is a partnership between the federal government and provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, launched in January 2017.
The pilot is employer-driven, meaning that employers (businesses and not-for-profit organisations) apply to a province to become designated under the pilot and can then offer jobs to skilled foreign workers and recent international graduates from Atlantic educational institutions. These jobs must be in the province where the designated employer is located. For each job offer, employers must demonstrate they have not been able to fill that job with local talent, but they do not need a formal LMIA. The province where the candidate will work must endorse the job offer. After the endorsement, the candidate can apply for permanent resident status, and if approved can live and work in Canada permanently.
The Atlantic Immigration Pilot has three programmes for hiring workers. A High-Skilled, an Intermediate-Skilled, and an International Graduate Program. Each programme has specific requirements for the employer and the candidate. All candidates must meet language, educational and work experience requirements and have sufficient funds to support themselves and their families when coming to Canada. The programme offers six-month expedited processing, rather flexible criteria for employers, and significant settlement support for the entire family.
While initial uptake of the Atlantic Immigration Pilot (which began accepting applications in March 2017 was slow), the programme has picked up significantly, with more than 1 400 persons (principal applicants, and spouses and dependents) granted permanent residence under the programme by the end of 2018.
As of December 31, 2018, more than 2 400 graduates and skilled immigrants have received job offers, personalised settlement plans, and endorsement from a province to submit an application to immigrate to Canada. Moreover, over 1 700 employers had been designated to participate in the pilot and over 400 employers use IRCC’s dedicated service channel reserved specifically for AIP designated employers.
Settlement of provincially selected immigrants within provinces
Settling immigrants in rural and intermediate regions is a challenge for many OECD countries; s especially so in the case of Canada where population – and especially past immigrant settlement – was heavily concentrated in a few large metropolitan areas. In international comparison, Canada has been successful increasing the share of those living in rural areas (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9. How shares of immigrants in rural areas have evolved, relative to change in urban regions
Note: This data includes individuals landing as economic, family and humanitarian migrants.
Source: OECD/EU (2018[13]).
As mentioned, the PNP has been and still is successfully sharing the benefits of immigration across the provinces of Canada. However, most of these PNs – as do federal-and Quebec-selected immigrants – settle in only certain metropolitan and agglomeration areas within these provinces.8 Among all PNP-selected immigrants between 2006‑16, a full 80% landed in a metropolitan area including in Toronto and Vancouver.9 While the total number of those migrating to other parts of the country has increased by five times and more over this period, their share remains stable at around 12% landing in agglomerations and around 8% landing in rural areas in the rest of the country (Figure 4.10).
Figure 4.10. Provincial nominee principal applicants by year of landing and place of landing
Note: Not all provinces/territories had a PNP in the first years shown in this graph. For instance, Ontario did start its PNP only in 2007, with admissions in the following years. Hence, the PNs living in Toronto during 2006‑08 were selected by other jurisdictions.
Source: Statistics Canada, Table 11‑10‑0239‑01. Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas.
A different picture evolves when looking at provinces separately. Overall, the Atlantic Provinces are more successful in attracting PNs to the more rural areas. One should note however, that the Atlantic Provinces are much smaller than the other PTs, and thus census agglomerations are generally closer than in the rural countryside in the rest of Canada.10 In turn, in the four provinces British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, fewer than 30% of PNs land outside the census metropolitan areas. While Ontario receives a small number of PN-selected immigrants relative to the many federally selected immigrants, virtually all of these PNs land in one of the census metropolitan areas and a full 75% in Toronto alone. In BC, an almost equal share (74%) of PNs land in the largest census metropolitan area (Vancouver), but the province also attracts over 8% of its provincial nominees to rural areas. In fact, while PNs are slightly more likely to settle in rural areas, their settlement patterns are overall similar to those of all labour immigrants in each province. Even PNs are much more likely to live in metropolitan areas than the overall Canadian population, regardless of the PT concerns (Figure 4.11).
Figure 4.11. PNs (principal applicants) landing years 2006‑16 by agglomeration size, compared with the total population, 2016
Note: A census metropolitan area (CMA) must have a total population of at least 100 000 of which 50 000 or more live in the core. A census agglomeration (CA) must have a core population of at least 10 000.
Source: For PNP-PAs Statistics Canada, Table 11‑10‑0239‑01 Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas. For population Statistics Canada - 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98‑400-X2016202.
It is against this backdrop, and the labour needs of many rural areas facing population decline, that Canada announced a new pilot programme in January 2019: the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot Program. The programme differs in its approach to the employer-driven Atlantic Immigration Pilot by piloting a community-driven approach to economic immigration. From January 2019 until 11 March 2019, IRCC accepted applications from interested communities that are outside of Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
IRCC thereafter announced a number of communities in rural Canada that participate in this immigration pilot programme. Communities must have a population of maximum 50 000 people and be located at least 75 km from the core of a Census metropolitan area, or they must have a population of between 50 000 and 200 000 people and be remotely located from other larger cities.11 Organisations responsible for providing economic development services in the community could submit an application and will, if selected, manage the pilot for the community.
Conclusion
Ensuring that the benefits from labour migration are equally shared within the country, and that policies respond to different local needs while maintaining a consistent migration management structure is a key challenge for many countries.
Together with Australia, Canada has been at the forefront among OECD countries in the regionalisation of permanent labour migration. Indeed, in Canada this is a shared responsibility between the federal government on the one side and the provincial and territorial governments on the other. The increased role played by the latter in migrant selection has resulted in a more balanced geographic distribution of permanent labour migrants across the country over the past two decades.
As permanent migrants enjoy free mobility across Canada, the rather high PT-retention rate of PT-selected labour migrants and their different skill profile suggest that these streams are indeed complementary to the federal programmes. What is more, short-to-mid-term labour market outcomes of PT-selected migrants to date tend to be largely favourable, with a few exceptions. However, given the significant growth of the programme in recent years, a continued monitoring seems warranted.
A challenge that remains is the unequal distribution of migrants within PTs. To address this, a community-driven programme to attract labour migrants to the rural regions is now being tested. This new and innovative approach builds on another recent innovation to link selection with retention in the Atlantic provinces.
References
[5] Australian Government - Department of Home Affairs (2019), Fact Sheet - State specific regional migration, https://archive.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/26state (accessed on 18 February 2019).
[2] IRCC (2018), 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, http://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2018/report.html (accessed on 2 January 2019).
[1] IRCC (2018), Notice – Supplementary Information 2019-2021 Immigration Levels Plan - Canada.ca, http://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/supplementary-immigration-levels-2019.html (accessed on 24 January 2019).
[3] IRCC (2017), Evaluation of the Provincial Nominee Program, http://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/provincial-nominee-program-2015.html (accessed on 3 January 2019).
[9] IRCC (2017), Facts and Figures 2016: Immigration Overview - Temporary Residents, http://www.cic.gc.ca/opendata-donneesouvertes/data/Facts_and_Figures_2016_TR_EN.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2019).
[4] MIDI, M. (2019), Immigration, Diversité et Inclusion Québec - Selecting one of the three immigration programs for businesspeople, http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/immigrate-settle/businesspeople/applying-business-immigrant/three-programs/index.html (accessed on 19 February 2019).
[6] OECD (2018), Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Australia 2018, Recruiting Immigrant Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264288287-en.
[13] OECD/EU (2018), Settling In 2018: Indicators of Immigrant Integration, OECD Publishing, Paris/European Union, Brussels, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264307216-en.
[11] Ostrovsky, Y., F. Hou and G. Picot (2011), “Do Immigrants Respond to Regional Labor Demand Shocks?”, Growth and Change, https://www.academia.edu/24373116/Do_Immigrants_Respond_to_Regional_Labor_Demand_Shocks (accessed on 22 February 2019).
[7] Pandey, M. and J. Townsend (2013), “Provincial Nominee Programs: An Evaluation of the Earnings and Settlement Rates of Nominees”, Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 39/4, pp. 603-618, http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/CPP.39.4.603.
[12] Pandey, M. and J. Townsend (2011), Canadian Public Policy Quantifying the Effects of the Provincial Nominee Programs, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23074918.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A352b7375546cbf1ca41572512359daaa (accessed on 22 February 2019).
[10] Saunders, D. (2018), Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada: Internal Migration: Overview, 2015/2016, Statistics Canada.
[8] Warman, C., M. Webb and C. Worswick (2019), “Immigrant category of admission and the earnings of adults and children: how far does the apple fall?”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 32/1, pp. 53-112, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00148-018-0700-5.
Notes
← 1. Quebec used to have an allocation of economic immigrants under the abolished Live-in Caregiver Program. This is, however, no longer the case for the federal pilot programmes in the caregiving sector (Caring for Children and Caring for People with High Medical Needs). These were introduced in 2014, when Canada terminated the Live-in Caregiver Program. Many provinces have since created their own caregiving programmes under the PNP, but not Quebec. If a Quebec private household desired to hire a caregiver, they had to do so through other channels, such as the temporary worker programme (generally with an LMIA). Provisions for the new caregiver pilots that started in June 2019 are discussed in Chapter 3 of this review.
← 2. A 2019 announced pilot programme in Canada (Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot) explores a similar idea which is however not employer-driven but community-driven and discussed in subsequent parts of this chapter.
← 3. SkillSelect is Australia’s Expression of Interest pool, similar to the Express Entry pool in Canada.
← 4. The shares are based on data that exclude individuals intending to work in a management position (NOC 0) and cases where the intended NOC is not available.
← 5. The IMDB 2011 report states that "since the inception of the PN Program in 1998, the focus has been on immediate occupational needs identified by the participating provinces."
← 6. This comparison is only partially informative since immigrants that are federally and provincially selected have different education levels, skills and intended occupations. Ideally, one would also want to compare immigrants with the same skills levels from the different programmes, and with native-born of the same skills.
← 7. Given the high number of bonus points for provincial nominations, and the different selection criteria of EE compared to the PNP, it would be of interest to study mobility patterns of EE-selected PNs and non-EE-selected PNs. Given the time lags involved, this analysis will only be possible in a few years time, however.
← 8. Note that this is a different definition from the rural/urban distinction shown in Figure 4.9; parts of census agglomerations may be classified as rural.
← 9. A census metropolitan area has a total population of at least 100 000 of which 50 000 or more live in the core. A census agglomeration has a core population of at least 10 000.
← 10. Neither Prince Edward Island nor the territories have a city defined as a Census Metropolitan Area.
← 11. IRCC uses Statistics Canada’s Index of Remoteness to help define which communities are considered remote and includes communities with a remoteness index equal to, or greater than 0.25. The Index of Remoteness is an experimental research product determined by distance from another city that offers public services and by population size.