Interesting and relevant way to measure integration and assess emigration rates. Findings make intuitive sense:
…Increased tax-filing rates of immigrants across arrival cohorts
The tax-filing rate in the first full year is a key indicator of immigrant retention, as an earlier study found that over half of immigrants who emigrated did not file income tax in their first year after arrival. This suggests that many immigrants make decisions about leaving shortly after immigration (Aydemir & Robinson, 2008).
Among immigrants aged 20 to 54 at landing, the rate of filing an income tax return in the first full year after landing remained stable from the 1990-to-1994 cohort to the 2000-to-2004 cohort. However, it increased for cohorts that arrived since the mid-2000s (Table 1). About 90% of the 2015-to-2019 and 2020 cohorts filed a tax return in the first full year after immigration, compared with 85% among the 2005-to-2009 cohort. …
The rise in first-year tax-filing rates since the mid-2010s was widespread, spanning both men and women, age groups, educational levels, official language profiles, and most source regions. This increase was also observed across admission programs, except for a slight decline among immigrants in the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP) from the 2010-to-2014 cohort to the 2020 cohort.
The tax-filing rate in the fifth year after immigration increased steadily from the 1990-to-1994 cohort to the 2010-to-2014 cohort. Again, this uptrend was observed across immigrants with diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. However, among PNP immigrants, the filing rate in the fifth year remained relatively stable from the 2000-to-2004 cohort onward, following a decline from the 1995-to-1999 cohort. Additionally, there was a marginal decrease among immigrants from Northern Europe in the 2010-to-2014 cohort.
The tax-filing rate in the 10th year after immigration was higher among immigrants who arrived in the 2000s than among those who arrived in the 1990s. However, there was minimal change between those who arrived in the early 2000s and the late 2000s. These trends remained consistent across immigrants with various sociodemographic characteristics.
Tax-filing rates, specifically in the 5th and 10th years after immigration, were generally lower among immigrants in the Federal Skilled Worker Program and Canadian Experience Class, compared with family class immigrants and refugees. These rates were also relatively lower among immigrants with graduate degrees and those originating from the United States, and Northern and Western Europe. The literature suggests that highly skilled immigrants are more mobile and tend to explore better opportunities in the international labour market or return to their home countries when they cannot fully utilize their skills in the destination country (Aydemir & Robinson, 2008)….
Latest GSS. Interestingly overall observation “Between racialized groups, there were no significant differences in experiences of discrimination.”
But “For instance, nearly half of Black people experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in a workplace setting (48%). This was significantly more than other racialized groups (39%) or non-racialized people (41%). Black people were also more than twice as likely to report discrimination when seeking housing (13%) compared with other racialized groups (6%) or non-racialized people (6%).:
Over one in three people (36%) aged 15 years and older living in Canada have experienced some form of discrimination or unfair treatment in the five years prior to the latest wave of the Canadian Social Survey. These experiences occurred in a variety of settings—while attending school, applying for jobs, working, shopping, and seeking healthcare, among others. The results, based on new data from the survey collected from January to March 2024, suggest that while the proportion of self-reported incidents of discrimination has remained relatively stable since 2021, discrimination and unfair treatment continue to disproportionally affect racialized groups, Indigenous people, women, 2SLGBTQ+ populations, people living with disabilities, and young adults.
Discrimination and unfair treatment is a headline indicator in Canada’s Quality of Life framework. This framework enables the federal government to identify future policy priorities, to build on previous actions to strengthen evidence-based decision-making and budgeting, and to improve the well-being of Canadians.
Racialized people, especially Canadian-born Black people, are more likely to face discrimination
Using pooled data from six waves of the Canadian Social Survey, it is possible to examine the intersection of various characteristics of people who have experienced discrimination. From 2021 to 2024, just over half (51%) of racialized people aged 15 years and older reported experiencing discrimination or unfair treatment within the five years prior to the survey. This was nearly double the proportion (27%) recorded for non-racialized people. Between racialized groups, there were no significant differences in experiences of discrimination.
Reflecting the diversity of intersectional identities in Canada, experiences of discrimination varied across intersecting identities of racialized people and immigrants. Consistent with previous findings, reports of discrimination were more common among the Canadian-born racialized population (57%) than among racialized people who recently immigrated to Canada (48%) or who immigrated more than 10 years ago (49%). This difference was most pronounced among Black Canadians, with Canadian-born Black people being significantly more likely to report having experienced discrimination (71%) than either recent (51%) or established (59%) Black immigrants.
The higher prevalence of experiences of discrimination among racialized groups was perceived to be largely motivated by race or ethnicity. Specifically, discrimination based on race or skin colour was the leading perceived reason for discrimination against racialized people (66%). This was followed by discrimination due to ethnicity or culture (49%), accent (28%), and language (27%).
Discrimination is also more common among other historically marginalized groups such as 2SLGBTQ+populations, Indigenous people, and people with a disability
Chart 1 Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, perceived reason for discrimination, by sex and total population, Canada, 2021 to 2024
Reasons behind discriminatory treatment varied among groups, as did the actual prevalence of discrimination. For instance, the leading perceived reasons behind discrimination and unfair treatment against 2SLGBTQ+ populations were sexual orientation, physical appearance, and sex. This population was also nearly twice as likely as the non-2SLGBTQ+ population to face some form of discrimination or unfair treatment in the five years prior to the survey (61% versus 32%).
Among First Nations people living off reserve, Métis, and Inuit, 46% reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 33% of non-Indigenous people. The reasons for these experiences were largely perceived to be due to Indigenous identity and physical appearance. Indigenous people (23%) were also nearly twice as likely to be discriminated against due to a physical or mental disability compared with the non-Indigenous population (12%).
Elevated levels of discrimination were also recorded for people living with a disability. In all, 44% of people with a disability reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 32% of people without a disability. The most frequently-cited perceived reasons for discrimination against people with a disability were due to physical or mental disability, physical appearance, and age.
Age and sex also played a role in both prevalence of and perceived reason for discrimination. Experiences of discrimination consistently decreased with age, from a high of 45% among those aged 15 to 34 to a low of 17% among people aged 65 years and older. This may be explained by the fact that the racialized population and people who are 2SLGBTQ+tend to be younger.
Perceived reasons for discrimination varied by people in different age groups, with race or skin colour (38%) and physical appearance (38%) being the most common reasons among those aged 15 to 34, and age (50%) being the most common reason for people aged 65 years and older. There were also sex differences in prevalence of discrimination: 37% of women reported experiences of discrimination, compared with 30% of men. Women were more often discriminated against because of their sex or age, while for men, discrimination was more often on the basis of their race or skin colour, ethnicity or culture, language, accent, or religion.
The work environment is the most common context where discrimination is reported
Chart 2 Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, situation in which discrimination was experienced, by sex, Canada, 2021 to 2024
There were differences in the context in which discrimination was experienced across groups, though the workplace (41%) was the most common location of discrimination or unfair treatment, whether it was while working, applying for a job, or seeking a promotion. This was followed by discrimination experienced in a store, bank, or restaurant (33%) and while using public areas (29%).
While differences in the prevalence of discrimination did not significantly differ between racialized groups, the contexts in which they occurred did. For instance, nearly half of Black people experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in a workplace setting (48%). This was significantly more than other racialized groups (39%) or non-racialized people (41%). Black people were also more than twice as likely to report discrimination when seeking housing (13%) compared with other racialized groups (6%) or non-racialized people (6%).
Conversely, Chinese people were less likely than other racialized groups to report experiencing discrimination while attending school (17% versus 23%), in the workplace (26% versus 44%), when crossing the border into Canada (5% versus 8%), and when seeking housing (3% versus 8%). Similarly, reports of discrimination towards Chinese people were lower than reports of discrimination against non-racialized people in the workplace (41%) and against non-racialized people when seeking housing (6%).
People who experience discrimination also report lower measures of quality of life
Chart 3 Discrimination in the five years prior to the survey, confidence in selected types of institutions, Canada, 2021 to 2024
Experiences of discrimination and unfair treatment may influence overall perceptions of health and wellbeing. People who experienced discrimination in the five years prior to the survey compared with those who did not were more than twice as likely to report fair or poor mental health (31% versus 14%), were less likely to report high life satisfaction (37% versus 57%) and were less likely to report high levels of meaning and purpose (46% versus 63%). And while two-thirds of people who experienced discrimination (66%) reported that they always or often had someone they could depend on, this was lower than those who had not experienced discrimination (79%).
People who experienced discrimination were also less likely to report a strong sense of belonging to their local community compared with people who did not experience discrimination (39% versus 51%). Furthermore, they were less likely to report confidence in various institutions, including the police, school, courts, Canadian Parliament, and media. These results were consistent with a previous study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic using crowdsourced data.
Noteworthy difference between immigrant and non-immigrant seniors as well as among different visible minority groups:
As Canada’s population gets older and life expectancy keeps increasing, Canadian-born and immigrant seniors may alleviate downward pressures on the overall employment rate through their involvement in the labour market.
Many seniors work past their mid-60s for various reasons. Some find it necessary to keep working because of inadequate retirement savings, mortgage payments, unforeseen expenses, or the responsibility to support children and other family members in Canada or abroad. Others choose to work to provide a sense of personal fulfillment, stay active and remain engaged.
Working by choice rather than necessity may have important implications for the well-being of seniors. Furthermore, data on employment by choice and necessity may help employers and policy makers understand the factors that influence seniors’ retirement decisions.
To shed light on this issue, this article uses data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and examines the degree to which Canadian-born and immigrant seniors aged 65 to 74 worked by choice or necessity in 2022.Note
One in five seniors aged 65 to 74 worked in 2022—almost half of them by necessity
Of all Canadian-born and immigrant seniors aged 65 to 74, 21% were employed in 2022. Nine percent reported working by necessity and 12% reported working by choice. Those working by necessity represented 351,000 individuals that year.Note
Immigrant seniors were more likely than their Canadian-born counterparts to work by necessity in 2022. Of all immigrant men aged 65 to 74, 15% reported working by necessity in 2022 (Table 1). The corresponding percentage was 9% for Canadian-born men.Note Immigrant women (9%) were also more likely than Canadian-born women (6%) to report working by necessity.
….The degree to which immigrants worked by necessity in 2022 varied across population groups. About 20% of Black, Filipino or South Asian immigrant men reported working by necessity that year, compared with 8% of Chinese immigrant men and 12% of White immigrant men. Black immigrant women (12%) and Filipino immigrant women (13%) were also more likely than Chinese immigrant women (6%) to report working by necessity…
Of note, hard to keep up with all the useful studies:
The 2021 Census of Population results showed that most racialized groups generally have higher levels of education than the total population in Canada. This gap in educational attainment between the racialized population and the total population widened from 2006 to 2021. In 2021, racialized women and recent racialized immigrants—who landed in Canada in the 10 years leading up to the 2021 Census—were among the most educated in Canada.
Of interest, with the same standard factors – gender, education, landing year and language skills – playing a role:
“Immigrant-owned businesses were more likely to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic than other businesses, as they were more concentrated in industries requiring in-person contact and were smaller in scale. To support businesses affected by the pandemic, the Government of Canada launched various COVID-19 liquidity support programs, including the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA), the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS) and the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA). These programs were designed to help affected businesses by partially covering their main expenses, such as wages, rent and property expenses. This paper combines data from the Canadian Employer–Employee Dynamics Database with data from these four support programs to study the use of the programs by immigrant-owned businesses and to compare the results with those of businesses owned by Canadian-born individuals. The results indicate that businesses majority-owned by immigrants were more likely to receive the CEBA and the CECRA or the CERS and less likely to receive the CEWS than businesses owned by Canadian-born individuals after controlling for other factors. However, businesses majority-owned by immigrants received slightly higher dollar values than those owned by Canadian-born individuals, regardless of the program. Among immigrant-owned businesses, the characteristics of the owners, such as gender, education, landing year and language skills, played an important role in the use of the liquidity support programs. For example, businesses whose owners arrived in Canada more recently were less likely to receive the CEWS, and they received a lower dollar value. Businesses whose owners spoke neither English nor French were less likely to receive the CERS, the CECRA or the CEWS, and they received the lowest dollar value when all the programs were combined.”
Interesting study on part of the immigration churn:
Immigration is an increasingly important facet of Canada’s migration dynamics.
According to the emigration criterion developed in this study:
5.1% of immigrants admitted between 1982 and 2017 emigrated within five years of landing;
This percentage rises to 17.5% 20 years after admission;
Annual probabilities of emigrating peak three to seven years after admission.
Several immigrant characteristics are linked to emigration:
Immigrants born in Taiwan, the United States, France, Hong Kong or Lebanon are more likely to emigrate. Conversely, those born in the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka or Jamaica are less likely to leave Canada;
Immigrants who never had children in their tax family were substantially more likely to emigrate than those who had children. This effect remains strong when other factors are considered;
Immigrants admitted to the country at age 65 or older and those with Nova Scotia as their intended province of destination are somewhat more likely to emigrate than those who landed at a younger age. However, these effects disappear when other factors associated with immigrant emigration are taken into account;
Immigrants admitted in the investor and entrepreneur categories are more likely to emigrate, while those admitted in the caregiver and refugee categories are less likely to emigrate;
Emigration follows a clear gradient based on level of education. Individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to migrate than less educated immigrants;
Immigrants who held a non-permanent resident study permit prior to being admitted are especially likely to leave Canada. However, this results mainly from the fact that these immigrants present several characteristics associated with emigration, such as higher levels of education.
Another useful study, highlighting that two-step immigrants had better economic outcomes (annual earnings) than one-step immigrants:
Since the early 2000s, the two-step immigration selection process, through which economic immigrants are chosen from the pool of temporary foreign workers, has expanded rapidly. Previous research indicated that following their landing, high-skilled two-step immigrants had higher earnings than comparable one-step immigrants—those directly selected from abroad. However, an important question that has not been fully examined is whether the earnings advantage of two-step immigrants over one-step immigrants persisted if the two groups were compared from their arrival year rather than the year when they became permanent residents. At that point, neither group possessed any Canadian work experience, eliminating its potential influence on their earnings differences. The results of this study reveal that two-step immigrants consistently had higher annual earnings than their one-step counterparts within the same admission class when the comparison started from their initial arrival year. These earnings differences, although reduced, remained substantial after accounting for sociodemographic differences between the two groups and after 10 years following the initial arrival. Furthermore, these patterns generally held across successive arrival cohorts. The conclusion includes a discussion of the implications of these findings and explores potential reasons for these outcomes.
Of note, clear difference between lower and higher skilled:
Temporary foreign workers with lower-skill occupations transition to permanent residency at a lower rate than those with higher-skill occupations and study permit holders in the accommodation and food services industry
Overall, five years after immigration, nearly 40% of TFWs with lower-skill occupations who became permanent residents from 2011 to 2015 stayed in the accommodation and food services industry. By comparison, the rate was higher among TFWs with higher-skill occupations (52%) but lower for study permit holders (16%).
Retention in the food manufacturing industry decreases for temporary foreign workers with lower-skill occupations
The percentage of TFWs who stayed in the food manufacturing industry fell gradually over the first five years after immigration. Among TFWs with lower-skill occupations who became permanent residents from 2011 to 2015, the retention rate decreased from 73% in the year of immigration to 36% five years later. The degree of retention of TFWs with lower-skill occupations fell with each successive landing cohort. One year after becoming permanent residents, the percentage of TFWswho stayed in the industry decreased from 69% for the 2006-to-2010 landing cohort to 57% for the 2016-to-2019 landing cohort.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that higher proficiency in the language spoken in the destination country improves immigrant labour market outcomes. However, because of a lack of objective measures of language skills, previous studies have mainly drawn on subjective measures of language proficiency and were confined to the effect of only one dimension or general language skills. This study examines the effects of test-based measures of official language proficiency in four dimensions—listening, speaking, reading and writing—on immigrant employment and earnings. The analysis focuses on economic principal applicants admitted through the Express Entry (EE) system who immigrated to Canada from 2015 to 2018. A self-reported language measure based on self-reported knowledge of official languages at immigration and mother tongue is also examined for comparison.
The analysis of employment outcomes shows that in the initial years after immigration, test-based language measures in all four dimensions, as well as the self-reported language measure, had little effect on the incidence of employment. The analysis of earnings, however, shows that the predictive power and the marginal effect of each of the four dimensions of test-based language measures were much stronger than those of the self-reported measure, indicating that using the latter can considerably underestimate the effect of language skills on earnings. The four test-based measures of official language skills all had independent positive effects on earnings. Reading tended to have a stronger predictive power and a larger marginal effect than the other three dimensions, but the differences across the four dimensions were generally small. The tested official language skills were as important as pre-immigration Canadian work experience and more important than the educational level and age at immigration in predicting initial earnings of principal applicants admitted under the EE system.
In response to Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, Statistics Canada’s Centre for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics is releasing a second set of five data tables on social inclusion. Over 20 new indicators, for a total of over 120 indicators, can now be used to examine various socioeconomic facets of racialized Canadians. For more information on the new indicators released today, please see the Note to readers.
Using data from the 2016 and 2021 censuses, this release presents some indicators of the social inclusion of racialized groups under the theme of basic needs and housing, more specifically, the population in core housing need and the population living in a dwelling owned by one or some members of the household.
Living in acceptable housing can play a key role in the satisfaction within a given community and in the social connections in the neighbourhood. Housing is also an anchor that offers security and access to local and essential services, such as transportation, education services, public facilities and green space for leisure.
For these reasons, housing characteristics, such as core housing need and home ownership, are indicators of social inclusion relevant to developing anti-racism and anti-discrimination policies that aim to improve inclusivity.
The proportion of racialized Canadians in core housing need is on the decline
The COVID-19 pandemic shook the housing and rental market and, in many ways, redefined the needs for and functions of housing in the world of work, education and health. For some population groups, including racialized groups, finding adequate and suitable housing that is within their budget and meets their space requirements may have been particularly challenging.
The term “core housing need” refers to a household whose dwelling does not meet the threshold of at least one of the housing adequacy, affordability or suitability indicators and that would have to spend at least 30% of its total before-tax income on the median rent of another acceptable dwelling. For more information on the measure of each indicator, see Core housing need in the Dictionary, Census of Population, 2021.
Living in core housing need can have a negative impact on a variety of aspects. For example, unaffordable housing can constrain a household’s financial capacity to cover other essential expenses, such as groceries, transportation and clothing, especially for those with lower incomes. Poor housing conditions, such as the need for major repairs and overcrowding (i.e., unsuitable dwelling), can increase the risk of infectious or chronic diseases and injuries and affect children’s development and educational attainment.
In 2021, 11.3% of racialized Canadians lived in a household in core housing need, a decrease of 6.5 percentage points from the 2016 Census.
However, these proportions were higher than those observed in the total population in both the 2016 and 2021 censuses.
Among racialized groups, West Asian, Korean and Arab populations have the highest proportions of people in core housing need
Among racialized groups, West Asian (19.5%), Korean (18.7%) and Arab (14.9%) Canadians were the most likely to be in core housing need, while Filipino (5.1%), South Asian (9.1%) and Japanese (9.4%) Canadians posted the lowest proportions.
Just as the overall trend, the percentage of each racialized group in core housing need saw a decline from 2016 to 2021. West Asian, Arab, Korean, South Asian and Black Canadians reported the largest declines in percentage points.
These results can be explained in large part by the temporary pandemic income supports, especially for people with lower income. In 2016, the West Asian, Korean and Black racialized groups were among those that posted the lowest average employment income and average weekly earnings of full-time employees. The additional source of income during the pandemic reduced the share of income dedicated to housing cost and contributed to improved housing conditions by allowing some people to live in more affordable housing.
Chart 1 Racialized groups living in core housing need, by group, 2016 and 2021
Racialized Canadians who came to Canada as immigrants are more likely to be in core housing need than their non-immigrant counterparts
One of the factors behind the prevalence of living in core housing need is related to the socioeconomic situation that can be transitory for certain population groups, such as those who were born outside Canada and recently arrived through the immigration process.
Overall, and for most racialized groups, core housing need was higher among individuals who were members of racialized groups and were also immigrants (11.4%) than among their non-immigrant counterparts (9.8%).
In terms of the period of immigration, the gap was larger between immigrants who have established in Canada in the past 10 years (13.2%), from 2011 to 2021, and immigrants who came to the country more than 10 years ago (10.5%).
The Arab, Chinese and West Asian Canadians who have established in Canada in the past 10 years were among the racialized groups that posted the largest differences in percentage points compared with their counterparts who have been in the country for more than 10 years.
Among racialized Canadians who settled in Canada in the past 10 years, West Asian (22.3%), Arab (21.5%) and Chinese (19.4%) people were also among the groups that were most likely to be in core housing need.
The prevalence of living in core housing need is lower in urban centres of Quebec
The housing conditions of racialized groups varied by census metropolitan area (CMA).
In 2021, among the 10 CMAs with the highest proportion of the racialized population in core housing need, 6 were in Ontario: Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) (14.3%), Toronto (14.2%), London (12.4%), Barrie (11.8%), Guelph (10.9%) and St. Catharines–Niagara (10.2%). Conversely, 6 of the 10 CMAs with the lowest proportion of the racialized population living in core housing need were in Quebec. The proportions ranged from 5.5% (Drummondville) to 2.7% (Trois-Rivières).
Chart 2 Racialized groups living in core housing need, by census metropolitan areas, 2021
Among racialized groups, Chinese, South Asian and Southeast Asian populations are most likely to live in owner household
In addition to being an investment, home ownership may provide stability and indicate a long-term settlement in a given community. However, it can also constitute a larger financial burden. The 2021 Census results on housing show a decline in the proportion of Canadian households that own their home.
While the racialized population is no exception to this general trend, some groups have remained more likely over time to live in a dwelling owned by one or some members of the household.
In 2021, among racialized groups, Chinese (84.5%), Southeast Asian (71.9%) and South Asian (70.3%) populations had the highest proportions of home ownership.
In contrast, the Black (45.2%), Arab (48.0%) and Latin American (48.6%) populations were least likely to live in a dwelling owned by one or some members of the household. For the total Canadian population, the proportion was 71.9% in 2021.
Chart 3 Racialized groups living in a dwelling owned by one or some members of their household, by group, 2016 and 2021
Looking ahead
The indicators published today complement those currently available in the Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics Hub. They are part of a broader conceptual framework that covers a total of 11 themes for the analysis of the social inclusion of racialized groups. These themes are participation in the labour market, representation in decision-making positions, civic engagement and political participation, basic needs and housing, health and well-being, education and skills development, income and wealth, social connections and personal networks, local community, public services and institutions, and discrimination and victimization.
Statistics Canada will continue to update the indicators using the latest available data. The currently available tables are based on the 2006 and the 2016 censuses, 2011 National Household Survey, 2021 Canadian Housing Survey, 2021 Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, 2020 Canadian Community Health Survey, 2020 General Social Survey – Social Identity and 2019 General Social Survey – Victimization.
Multicultural Meanderings 