When I saw the figures, I had a big doubt. What, do our economic immigrants really make better incomes than the Quebec population? And do they really earn more than their peers in Ontario?
Posted at 6:30 a.m.
I have always been convinced of the contrary, hence my surprise. Initially, I wanted to check where the gaps were, in the context of the debate on the immigration thresholds of the electoral campaign.
Because let’s face it: from a strictly economic point of view, immigrants are all the more welcome if they raise our collective standard of living, in particular by earning better wages than the average, and therefore by paying more taxes to finance our services.
I combed through the Statistics Canada data to be sure, and the conclusions remain. With important nuances, however.
First observation, therefore: the so-called economic immigrants, whom we welcome for their particular skills, have a better median income than the population in general, once the adaptation has passed. The data is for the year 2019 – the most recent available – and it is taken from federal income tax returns, among others.
Thus, 10 years after their arrival, principal applicants for economic immigration had a median income of $51,400 in Quebec in 2019, or 38% more than the general population ($37,130), made up essentially of natives of Quebec.
Not only do they earn more than Quebecers, but they also make more than the same economic immigrants from Ontario ($49,800) and British Columbia ($48,500), Statistics Canada data tells me.1. wow!
Isn’t it surprising, knowing that we often see the typical immigrant in Quebec as a maths bachelor who drives a taxi, compared to the high-tech entrepreneur in Ontario?
In fact, immigrants chosen for their skills end up doing more than the population of Quebec, since they have studied more (46% have a university degree, double the number of natives here).
The smartest will tell me that the comparison is biased, since newcomers are younger than the general population, which includes retirees, who are often paid less. Very good.
But here we are, by targeting only 25-54 year olds to erase this composition effect, the advantage favoring principal applicants for economic immigration remains, although the gap is reduced. Their median income in this age bracket rises to $52,500, a difference of nearly 10% with the Quebec population of the same age.
Their counterparts in British Columbia have the same median income ($52,500) and those in Ontario, a little more ($54,300), still 10 years after their arrival in the country. Alberta is in a class of its own ($65,700).
Quebec has a disadvantage: it takes our economic immigrants longer to reach and exceed the median income of the population than elsewhere in the country. Typically, the catch-up here is five or six years after their arrival, while elsewhere, economic immigrants earn almost as much as others upon arrival, according to the data.
Is it a language issue? Recognition of diplomas? Receptivity of the host society? Or is it perhaps the lesser economic strength of Quebec 10 years ago, when they arrived, a disadvantage that has been reversed in recent years?
That said, the picture changes when we include other immigrants, including spouses and dependents of economic immigrants, as well as family-sponsored immigrants and refugees.
All inclusive, and still 10 years after their arrival, the median income of all immigrants aged 25-54 was $42,300 in Quebec in 2019, compared to $47,830 for the population of the same age, i.e. a negative gap nearly 12%.
The consolation: the gap that disadvantages immigrants is greater in Ontario and British Columbia than in Quebec.
The difference favoring Quebec comes from our immigration policy. Here, two-thirds of immigrants admitted are economic immigrants, according to the Statistics Canada database, compared to about 50% in Ontario, which accepts more family reunification.
In short, our so-called principal economic immigrants earn more than the population of the same age, but the other types of immigrants still occupy less well-paid jobs.
Added to this is the fact that the unemployment rate of immigrants remains a little higher than that of natives, as is their rate of overqualification for occupied positions (39% against 26% among natives), even 10 years after being admitted. How is this possible with such a shortage of manpower?
Another element must be taken into account in our assessment of the contribution of immigrants: the future of their children. Often arriving here at an early age, these children study in the local education system and their career prospects are greatly improved.
Even more: according to data from Statistics Canada, immigrant children, at the age of 30, earn much more than Canadians at the same age. The gap favoring them reaches 13% in Ontario and 17% in British Columbia. The reason ? Again, their greater propensity to study than Canadians born here.
In other words, economists are fooling themselves when they analyze only the immediate contribution of newcomers without taking into account the future of their children, 15 to 30 years later.
Unfortunately, Quebec stands out unfavorably from the rest of Canada in this regard. Here, immigrants who arrived in childhood earn nearly 6% less income, at the age of 30, than all Quebecers of the same age, even if they have studied more…
Difficult to understand why. In a previous analysis, I arrived at two conclusions, essentially, to explain the difference with the other provinces. One: There is a clear gap between immigration strains in the propensity to study.
Two: Quebec offers a significantly lower salary than elsewhere in Canada to immigrants who have studied here. For example, a Haitian of origin has a much lower salary in Quebec than in Ontario, even if he has a similar propensity to study2. There would be more discrimination here, in short, although the analysis would have to be taken further, taking into account, in particular, the field of study.
We heard a lot about the number of immigrants to be welcomed each year and their contribution to reducing or not reducing the labor shortage. Immigrants fill jobs, but also require health and education services, as well as housing. It is not easy to settle this debate.
The angle of analysis that I propose, with income, differs from that of the contribution of immigrants to the shortage. The fact remains that it makes it possible to grasp the contours of it, since the more numerous vacancies generally cause wages to rise, in particular those of immigrants, especially in certain positions in great shortage.
Of course, better selection of immigrants would help, as would better francization and integration, but according to my analysis, we also need greater openness in the workplace and a longer-term vision of immigration.
1- Income includes everything, wages, salaries, own-source income, investment income and government transfers. Only landed immigrants are counted, not temporary immigrants. Data are taken from the Immigrant Taxfilers Income Database (43-10-0027-01), updated December 2021. Data for the general population were produced by Statistics Canada at the request of The Press. For the sake of brevity, the term “economic immigrant” at the beginning of the text refers to principal applicants and not their dependents.
2- The data is for the year 2017 and not 2019 (like those in this column).