Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

What Inter-Provincial Migration Trends Can Tell Us About Good Governance

Published

6 months ago

6 minute read

 

It turns out we move a great deal less than our American neighbors

Government policies have consequences. Among them is the possibility that they might so annoy the locals that people actually get up and head for the exit. Given how parting can be such sweet sorrow (and how it’s a pain to lose out on all that revenue from provincial income, property, and sales tax), legislatures generally prefer to keep their citizens on this side of the door.

Nevertheless, migration happens. And when enough people do it at the same time, they sometimes leave economic and social clues behind waiting to be discovered. This graph represents net migrations since 1971 into and out of the four largest provinces:

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It may just be possible to make out some broad patterns here. Quebec has never had a net inbound migration year (although there’s been plenty of immigration to Quebec from outside of Canada). But nothing matches the mass exodus of anglophones due to concerns over language and separation in the 1970s.

Curiously it seems that Alberta and British Columbia received far more migrants than Ontario around that time – although the actual numbers tell us that they were more likely to have come from Saskatchewan and Ontario than Quebec. By contrast, most disillusioned Quebecers found their way to Ontario. Besides the 70s, Alberta also enjoyed inbound spikes in the mid-90s, mid-00s, and early 10s. And it looks like they’re in the middle of another boom cycle as we speak.

The real value of all this data however, is in using it to test causation hypotheses. In other words, can statistical analysis tell us what it was that caused the migrations? And are some or all of those causes the result of government policy choices? Here are some possibilities we’ll explore:

  • Household income trends
  • Government debt
  • Crime rates
  • Healthcare costs
  • Housing costs

Right off the top I’ll come clean with you: there’ll be no smoking gun here. I could find no single historical measure that came close to explaining migration patterns. However I was able to confidently discard some theories. That’s a win I guess. And other numbers did hint to intriguing possibilities.

Inter-provincial variations in household income, crime rates (specifically murder rates), healthcare costs (including prescriptions, eye care, and dental care), and even housing affordability had no measurable impact on migration. This was true for both correlation coefficients and lag analysis (where we looked at migration changes in the years following an economic event).

Rising unemployment had, at best, a minimal impact on outbound migration. And even then, it was only noticeable for Alberta and Prince Edward Island.

Of all the metrics I explored, the only one that might have had a serious influence in migration was provincial government budget deficits.

Folks from Alberta, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland all responded to growing government debt by clearing out. Now, I doubt this was their way to telling the government what they really thought about bad fiscal management. Rather, people probably decided to move to greener pastures in response to the ripple-effect consequences of deficits, like higher taxes, reduced social services, and deteriorating infrastructure.

I suspect that part of the reason I wasn’t able to find any strong connections between those metrics and migration patterns is because there really isn’t all that much migration going on in the first place.

Take Ontario’s record net population loss of 31,018 residents back in 2021. That may sound like a lot of people, but it’s actually just a hair over two-tenths of one percent of the total Ontario population. And even Quebec’s epic 1979 loss of 46,429 people was still nowhere near one percent. It was 0.7117456, to be precise. Those aren’t significant numbers.

When so few people choose to move, it’s probably because there’s nothing on the macro level going on that’s pushing them. Those who do go, probably do it primarily for personal reasons that just won’t show up in population-scale data.

There’s also the very real possibility that Canadians are smart enough to realize that things probably won’t be any better over there than they already are right here. Fewer than two-thirds of one percent of Ontarians left for other provinces in 2023, while only around one-third of a percent gave up on Quebec.

By contrast, annual state-to-state migration figures in the U.S. typically range between 1 percent to 5 percent of each state’s population. In 2022, that added up to 8.2 million people, according to the Census Bureau.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

In the market for bespoke data analysis?

Custom Reports by The Audit

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 6 hours ago

California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline

Business / 7 hours ago

Trump orders 10% baseline tariff on imports, closes de minimis loophole

Catherine Herridge / 7 hours ago

FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report

Business

California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline

Published on April 3, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By Kenneth Schrupp

California legislators have unveiled a bill to follow through with the governor’s plan of more than doubling the state’s film and TV production tax credits to $750 million.

The state’s own analysis warns it’s likely the refundable production credits generate only 20 to 50 cents of state revenue for every dollar the state spends, and the increase could stoke a “race to the bottom” among the 38 states that now have such programs.

Industry insiders say the state’s high production costs are to blame for much of the exodus, and experts say the cost of housing is responsible for a significant share of the higher costs.

The bill creates a special carve-out for shooting in Los Angeles, where productions would be able to claim refundable credits for 35% of the cost of production.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his proposal last year and highlighted his goal of expanding the program at an industry event last week.

“California is the entertainment capital of the world – and we’re committed to ensuring we stay that way,” said Newsom. “Fashion and film go hand in hand, helping to express characters, capture eras in time and reflect cultural movements.”

With most states now offering production credits, economic analysis suggests these programs now produce state revenue well below the cost of the credits themselves.

“A recent study from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation found that each $1 of Program 2.0 credit results in $1.07 in new state and local government revenue. This finding, however, is significantly overstated due to the study’s use of implausible assumptions,” wrote the state’s analysts in a 2023 report. “Most importantly, the study assumes that no productions receiving tax credits would have filmed here in the absence of the credit.”

“This is out of line with economic research discussed above which suggests tax credits influence location decisions of only a portion of recipients,” continued the state analysis. “Two studies that better reflect this research finding suggest that each $1 of film credit results in $0.20 to $0.50 of state revenues.”

“Parks and Recreation” stars Rob Lowe and Adam Scott recently shared on Lowe’s podcast how costs are so high their show likely would have been shot in Europe instead.

“It’s cheaper to bring 100 American people to Ireland than to walk across the lot at Fox past the sound stages and do it and do it there,” said Lowe.

“Do you think if we shot ‘Parks’ right now, we would be in Budapest?” asked Scott, who now stars in “Severance.”

“100%,” replied Lowe. “All those other places are offering 40% — forty percent — and then on top of that there’s other stuff that they do, and then that’s not even talking about the union stuff. That’s just tax economics of it all.”

“It’s criminal what California and LA have let happen. It’s criminal,” continued Lowe. “Everybody should be fired.”

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, housing is the single largest expense for California households.

“Across the income spectrum, 35–44% of household expenditures go to covering rent, mortgages, utilities and home maintenance,” wrote PPIC.

The cost of housing due to supply constraints now makes it nearly impossible for creatives to get their start in LA, said M. Nolan Gray, legislative director at housing regulatory reform organization California YIMBY.

“Hollywood depends on Los Angeles being the place where anybody can show up, take a big risk, and pursue their dreams, and that only works if you have a lot of affordable apartments,” said Gray to The Center Square. “We’ve built a Los Angeles where you have to be fabulously wealthy to have stable and decent housing, and as a result a lot of folks either are not coming, or those who are coming need to paid quite a bit higher to make it worth it, and it’s destroying one of California’s most important industries.”

“Anybody who arrived in Hollywood before the 2010s, their story is always, ‘Yeah, I showed up in LA, and I lived in a really, really  dirt-cheap apartment with like $10 in my pocket.’ That just doesn’t exist anymore,” continued Gray. “Does the Walt Disney of 2025 not take the train from Kansas City to LA? Almost certainly not. If he goes anywhere, he goes to Atlanta.”

Continue Reading

Business

Trump orders 10% baseline tariff on imports, closes de minimis loophole

Published on April 2, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By 

Reciprocal tariffs higher on many nations

President Donald Trump on Wednesday put the biggest piece of his new trade policy in effect by signing executive orders that place a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and much higher rates on nations that put taxes on U.S. products.

It could be the opening salvo in a global trade war, or, as Trump sees it, the beginning of a “Golden Age” for U.S. trade.

Trump also closed the small value packages loophole that allowed China to avoid taxes on packages valued at less than $800. Companies such as Temu and Shein used the loophole to ship billions of dollars worth of products directly to U.S. consumers and avoid paying the tax, as The Center Square previously reported.

President Trump speaks about tariffs at a Make America Wealthy Again event
White House

Trump’s moves on Wednesday, which he termed “Liberation Day” for U.S. trade, marked the most significant shift in U.S. trade policy since the end of World War II.

In a speech from the White House’s Rose Garden, Trump said foreign nations for decades have stolen American jobs, factories and industries. He said the tariffs would bring in new jobs, factories and industries and return the U.S. to a manufacturing superpower.

“Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years,” Trump said. “But it is not going to happen anymore.”

Trump’s supporters praised the trade overhaul. U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said it was time for foreign nations to pay up.

“If you want to do business in America, you need to play by our rules,” she said. “For too long, American businesses, big and small, have been ripped off by bad trade deals and unfair competition. President Trump is putting a stop to it. He’s standing up for our workers, our companies and our consumers.”

Critics slammed Trump’s trade plans.

“Donald Trump may want to call this ‘Liberation Day,’ but there is nothing liberating for working families who are grappling with the high costs of food, housing, and utilities,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat. “Tariffs are a tax. They are a tax on working families, a tax on groceries, and a tax on other everyday necessities.”

Other countries planned their own responses. The European Union plans to retaliate with its own measures.

“Europe has not started this confrontation,” EU boss Ursula von der Leyen said in a speech. “We do not necessarily want to retaliate but, if it is necessary, we have a strong plan to retaliate and we will use it.”

She said tariffs are taxes “paid by the people.”

“But Europe has everything to protect our people and our prosperity,” she wrote on X. “We will always promote & defend our interests and values. And we will always stand up for Europe.”

China, the world’s second-largest economy, said Monday that it was planning to coordinate its response to U.S. tariffs with Japan and South Korea.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said Tuesday that he was willing to fly to the U.S. to meet with Trump to get an exemption for Japanese vehicle makers. He also said the government will take steps to minimize the impact of U.S. tariffs on Japanese industries and jobs.

Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries that will take effect April 5, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT. Trump will impose an individualized reciprocal tariff on the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits, including China, India and Vietnam, among others. All other countries will continue to be subject to the 10% tariff baseline, according to the White House.

“These tariffs will remain in effect until such a time as President Trump determines that the threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying nonreciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump’s executive order also gives him authority to increase the tariffs

“if trading partners retaliate” or “decrease the tariffs if trading partners take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align with the United States on economic and national security matters,” according to the White House.

“Foreign cheaters have stolen our jobs, ransacked our factories and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream,” Trump said in the Rose Garden.

For China, the tariff rate will be about 34% on imports from the world’s most populous nation. For European Union countries, it will be 20%. For Japan, the duty will be 24%. Imports from India will get a 26% tariff. Cambodia will get hit with a 49% tariff, among the highest Trump outlined on Wednesday.

For months, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned that tariffs could increase costs for U.S. consumers and hurt businesses. Neil Bradley, the chamber’s chief policy officer, said businesses large and small don’t want tariffs.

“What we have heard from business of all sizes, across all industries, from around the country is that these broad tariffs are a tax increase that will raise prices for American consumers and hurt the economy,” he said.

Last week, Trump announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles and auto parts, duties that he said would be “permanent.” The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue.

Trump said he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two. Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.

Continue Reading

Trending

X