Why Canada Needs Immigrants in Rural and Remote Areas

Canada is at a demographic crossroads, and immigration is its best solution. Canada’s low fertility rate — 1.3 children born per woman — means that we now rely on immigration for virtually all our population growth. Canada restricted the number of immigrants admitted to the country in 2024, in sharp contrast to the expansion of immigration in the two years prior. Nevertheless, if the Canadian population has remained stable since the beginning of 2025, it is due to international immigration, through which approximately 100,000 newcomers are added each quarter (Statistics Canada, 2025a, 2025b). However, this is not a new development, as Statistics Canada (2024a) estimated that 97.6 per cent of population growth in 2023 came from immigration.

Yet the benefits of immigration are unevenly distributed across Canada. Most newcomers settle in large urban centres, leaving most, though not all (IRPP, 2026), smaller and rural regions to face an aging population, economic contraction and little to no population growth. Consider that roughly one-third of the population lives in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, and that 75 per cent of Canadians reside in one of the country’s 41 CMAs (Statistics Canada, 2025c).

Even more striking, these urban areas comprise less than two per cent of Canada’s land area (Brown et al., 2025). While Canada is second in size only to Russia in land mass, its population of 41 million gives it one of the world’s lowest population densities, at 4.5 people per square kilometre. Its geographic size compounds the challenges posed by demographic change and where people choose to live.

Heavy population concentration in urban areas is deeply problematic because rural and remote areas remain vital to Canada’s economy and environmental sustainability, especially where carbon sequestration, regenerative agriculture and renewable energy infrastructure are concerned (Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation, 2024; Krawchenko, 2025; Pinchin, 2024). Limited attention is given to the critical role rural landscapes play in the country’s overall well-being, perhaps because research tends to show that urban areas are crucibles of innovation, wealth accumulation and creativity, and that, without cities, most of the goods and services we enjoy simply would not exist (Glaeser, 2012).

But as much as rural Canada needs urban Canada, the inverse is also true. Rural regions in Canada contribute roughly one-quarter of the country’s GDP and are essential for key economic sectors such as agriculture, energy and resource extraction (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, n.d.). They also provide much of Canada’s clean water, air and food.

The demographic decline of rural areas is problematic in two specific and important ways.

The first is the creation of serious labour shortages, wherein employers cannot find workers with appropriate skills. These shortages arise from difficulties in attracting newcomers and the continual urban exodus from smaller communities as people seek alternative employment opportunities. This, in turn, limits the pool of individuals in rural areas who can help provide key services to all Canadians — a problem that will only get worse over time if a shift is not seen.

The second is the resulting threat to long-term regional viability, as an aging population places an increased burden on public services and infrastructure. Health-care services are already limited in smaller regions across the country. As populations in these places continue to age, these services will become more critical but difficult to obtain. This puts pressure on governments not just to fund essential services, but also to invest in the infrastructure and amenities needed to attract workers — all while receiving less income tax revenue from the very places that require these services as their populations age (Marre, 2020).

This brief examines how we can encourage immigrants to move to rural or remote communities and to stay and thrive there. It brings together historical insight, program evaluation, international comparisons and demographic analysis to better understand what works — and what does not — when it comes to encouraging immigration to the places in Canada where we need people most.

Canada’s Dynamic Duo of Economic and Population Growth

The spatial distribution of a country’s population is integrally linked to its economic and demographic composition. Canada’s agrarian structure of the 1700s to early 1900s relied on thinly dispersed family farms dotted across a rural landscape.

To maintain and promote this population distribution and the economic system it supported, government policies encouraged the growth of a young, predominantly low-skilled population. Most famous among these initiatives was Clifford Sifton’s “open door” policy, which drew hundreds of thousands of people to Canada, most of them farmers, in pursuit of free (or nearly free) parcels of land. Sifton, federal minister of the interior at the time, explicitly targeted settlers whose “forefathers have been farmers for ten generations” (Sifton, 1922, p. 16).

With inventions that ranged from light bulbs to alkaline batteries, Canada, especially urban Canada, conceived and manufactured many wonders of the modern world. Canada evolved throughout the 1900s, shifting its economy to manufacturing before later progressing into areas such as hospitality and service provision.

To accommodate the country’s emerging industrial structure and the rise of the service economy, where and how people lived had to change. People moved en masse, creating multiple large urban clusters across the country’s manufacturing heartland. The populations of Kitchener, London, Ottawa and Toronto more than tripled in size between 1951 and 2001. The primary driver of population growth in each case was the in-migration of people from other parts of Canada and the world, many in search of the new jobs created through industrialization.

This movement away from an agrarian society pushed hundreds of thousands of people to urban centres. Our calculations show that, while the overwhelming majority of the adult population was involved in farming in 1901, only three per cent farmed in 2021. Thus, with industrialization came a new structure — manufacturing required dense urban areas, with large pools of labour untethered from the land and available for long shifts. Subsequent de-industrialization led to occupations predominantly in sectors such as finance, retail and health care (Statistics Canada, n.d.). Urban areas grew while rural areas did not.

Canada’s Rural Reality

Even with these economic changes and the rural exodus, high birthrates meant enough young people could remain to farm the lands. Indeed, the national fertility rate was roughly four children per woman in 1960 (Statistics Canada, 2024b). In recent decades, however, Canada’s fertility rate has dropped to 1.3 children per woman, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. Canada’s natural population increase, defined as the surplus of births over deaths, remains slightly positive nationally (Statistics Canada, 2025c), but has fallen into the negative in most rural areas. In this way, economic shifts have come with a dramatic change in natural population growth.

Yet Canada’s population continues to remain stable. The recent growth is almost entirely due to immigration. Moreover, where immigrants live has also changed over time, shifting from farmlands to urban areas. As a result, large parts of rural Canada are experiencing rapid population aging and, in many places, population decline. Considering that urban Canada needs rural Canada as much as ever, it is all the more troubling that a gap remains between where immigrants live and where they are needed.

Figure 1 shows the stark difference in the age distribution of rural and urban Canada (Statistics Canada, 2026). Beginning in the 1960s, those living in rural areas are, on average, older than those in urban areas.

Empirical evidence on retention

Since the beginning of the 2000s, 19 to 30 per cent of immigrants arriving in Canada have opted to reside in small and mid-sized communities. However, many subsequently move to a large urban area: approximately 91 per cent of all immigrants to the country are ultimately found in more densely populated urban landscapes (Patel et al., 2019).

Figure 2 shows the population in rural Canada grew 0.4 per cent between the censuses of 2016 and 2021 — 15 times slower than that of urban Canada, which increased at a rate of 6.3 per cent in the same timeframe (Statistics Canada, 2022).

In short, while most communities may be expanding, the rate of this growth varies considerably by community size. The reasons are potentially twofold:

1. Differences in fertility rates by location (as outlined above).
2. Differences in in- and out-migration rates by location, with those living in smaller communities exiting them over time.

Differential fertility

A study by the Vanier Institute of the Family (Battams, 2025) found that for women aged 15 to 44, fertility in rural Canada increased from 1.39 children per woman in 1990 to 1.52 in 2017. In contrast, fertility rates in urban Canada decreased from 0.98 to 0.92 children per woman over the same period (figure 3). However, despite higher fertility rates in rural communities, without a healthy intake of immigrant arrivals, the growth is well outside the natural replacement level of 2.1 children per woman required for population stability.

In- and out-migration

Our recent studies (Finlay & Haan, 2024, 2025) point out that upward of 80 per cent of the Canadian population resides in urban locations. Finlay and Haan (2025) find that, of the individuals included in the study sample, only seven per cent migrated out of urban environments to smaller, more rural areas.

Most of these urban-to-rural movers were Canadian-born, white and third-plus generation residents. Additionally, the vast majority were between the ages of 30 and 59, married, without children, living in Ontario or Quebec, with at least a college or high school education, working in fields such as construction or health care and social assistance, or not working at all (figure 4). People may have various reasons for moving to rural Canada, including access to cheaper housing, open space and growth in amenities. Our studies suggest the profile of rural residents has not altered substantially, even over a 30-year window.

Of the immigrants who moved to rural areas, more than half arrived in Canada prior to the 2000s. Further analysis confirms that, when considering immigrant-specific characteristics, the odds of living in a rural location are lower for non-whites, more recent immigrant arrivals, and first- and second-generation arrivals. This is especially the case for non-permanent residents and refugees, followed by, in decreasing likelihood, economic, family-sponsored and pre-1980s arrival immigrants.

Direct comparisons across time also show that, while propensities for living in rural areas increased by 35 per cent over nearly 30 years, the overall population was 90 per cent less likely to reside in these spaces. In other words, although rural living has increased overall, it is expanding at a slower rate than urban living, given that population growth is increasingly influenced by immigrants. The odds of rural living have declined substantially over time for this group. These dynamics suggest a policy gap when it comes to immigration and rural Canada.

Deterrents to rural immigration

Immigrants to Canada have historically exhibited a strong preference for settling in large urban centres rather than rural communities. This pattern reflects a combination of economic, social and institutional factors. Major metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary offer larger and more diverse labour markets, greater opportunities for employment matching, higher concentrations of co-ethnic communities, and better access to settlement services, language training, public transportation and educational institutions (Butler, 2024). These factors reduce the costs and risks associated with migration while facilitating labour market integration and social inclusion. Family reunification and established immigrant networks further reinforce urban settlement patterns by providing newcomers with information, housing assistance and employment connections.

In contrast, many rural communities face challenges in attracting and retaining immigrants due to smaller labour markets, fewer specialized settlement supports, limited public transportation and concerns about cultural isolation (Rishworth et al., 2022) (figure 5). Provincial nominee programs and the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot demonstrate that targeted immigration policies can successfully direct newcomers to smaller communities. However, long-term retention remains a challenge because economic opportunities and social integration continue to concentrate in Canada’s largest metropolitan regions (Rowswell, 2021).

How Can We Attract Immigrants to Rural Canada?

We cannot simply mandate immigrants to live in rural regions. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly states that any person residing in Canada, regardless of citizenship, has the right to live in the location of their choosing. Even if we could direct many new immigrants to live in rural Canada, they could, and often do, move to cities shortly thereafter.

This does not mean that we should throw our hands up in the air and write rural Canada’s requiem. Indeed, the federal government has worked with its provincial and municipal counterparts to develop several innovative programs to alter the location choices of newcomers.

To this end, most programs to encourage rural immigration aim to shift control over admission decisions away from the federal government. The rationale behind this objective is that the communities involved in these programs, along with their associated labour markets and settlement services, exist at the local level; therefore, local governments should choose the newcomers they need.

The Provincial Nominee Program

The oldest such initiative is the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP). Established in 1999, with Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador as the first adopters, the PNP gave provinces the power to recruit new immigrants to their jurisdiction. Recruitment is based on immigrants’ perceived contributions to the local economy via their skills, education and work experience.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (which became Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC]) largely rubber-stamped nominations if additional conditions, such as no criminal record and a passed medical examination, were met. In the decade following its initial uptake, all provinces — except Quebec, which already had its own immigration program — signed onto the PNP, with variations in requirements and the number of people eligible for nomination each year (IRCC, n.d.-a).

But did it work? The PNP did not significantly alter the flow of immigrants to different provinces, but it did dramatically increase the probability of a newcomer indicating their intention to live outside a major city (Haan, 2019). In its own program evaluation, IRCC (2011) found the program to be a success, citing higher rates of appropriate employment, earnings and retention for the PNP compared to most other immigration streams.

Yet even with these positive outcomes, the PNP is not without its limitations.

First, the program is heavily directed toward individuals entering the country as students, those with a business background, or skilled or semi-skilled workers. This focus misses a substantial subset of the immigrant population that does not fit into one of these categories (i.e., refugees, and family class and sponsored immigrants).

Second, as many as 80 per cent of those entering the country under PNP programs land and settle in one of Canada’s main CMAs. This suggests that PNP programs still do not attract immigrants to all parts of Canada.

Pilot projects

Regions in less urbanized locations across the country, such as the Atlantic provinces and Northern and remote locales, have different program needs as they are outside metropolitan influence zones. This led to the development of the Atlantic Immigration Pilot (commonly referred to as the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Project [AIPP]) in 2017 and the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot (RNIP) in 2019 (IRCC, n.d.-b, n.d.-c). Both initiatives offered pathways for skilled foreign workers to enter the country so long as they intend to work and live in the smaller communities that participate in either program.

The Atlantic Immigration Pilot (now Atlantic Immigration Program)

This pilot project prioritized employer needs, provided enhanced settlement support and adopted a collaborative approach across the four Atlantic provinces. It allowed employers to focus on qualified external candidates for jobs the local labour pool could not fill. To participate in this program, an individual must have received a job offer from an employer in Atlantic Canada and belong to one of two groups: recent graduates of a post-secondary institution in Atlantic Canada or skilled workers.

The focus on international students, unlike what is seen in the PNP, allowed the Atlantic provinces to improve retention of this core group. Another key difference between the PNP and the Atlantic Immigration Pilot was that the latter also focused on temporary foreign workers already living in these locations who may have wished to remain, given the right opportunities.

With Nova Scotia receiving nearly 4,500 newcomers during the pilot, bringing the retention rate up to 71 per cent, the program was deemed a success (Government of Nova Scotia, 2021). The pilot project became a permanent pathway in 2021 — now called the Atlantic Immigration Program (AIP) — with all four Atlantic provinces crediting it for their historically high immigration rates.

Although neither the PNP nor the AIP explicitly focuses on rural immigration, they both facilitate it to varying degrees.

The Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot

The RNIP was the first program to explicitly highlight the need to populate rural Canada. Through this initiative, 11 communities from across Canada were chosen for a five-year pilot beginning in 2019. These communities facilitated a pathway toward permanent residency for skilled foreign workers who were willing to work and live in one of the selected locations. The pilot ended on August 31, 2024.

Initial results indicate improved immigrant recruitment and retention in many of the communities involved: approximately 93 per cent of individuals who entered the country through the RNIP remained in the communities they settled in (Singer, 2023).

The RNIP also opened the door for a new series of pilots that launched in 2025 — the Rural Community Immigration Pilot (RCIP) and the Francophone Community Immigration Pilot (FCIP) (IRCC, 2025). Through these programs, 18 selected communities — many of which were involved in the RNIP initiative — are allowed to bolster their economies by providing access pathways to Canada’s immigrant population.

Strengths and shortcomings

Overall, success in recruiting and retaining newcomers to Canada comes down to preparedness and inclusivity. The AIP, RCIP and FCIP all offer a distinct pathway for immigrants while also focusing on the specific needs of the locations they cover. As such, they attract the individuals needed to improve local economies.

Yet, there is still a gap that requires attention: the groups that do not fall into the categories of students or skilled workers. Many people immigrate to Canada, but not all fall neatly into the boxes that must be checked to fulfil program requirements. More attention must be paid to groups of immigrants who may not have particular pre-existing skills on paper but are willing to move to and learn how to best serve the communities that need them.

International Lessons on Rural Immigrant Retention

The mixed results of Canada’s regional immigration initiatives underscore a central lesson of this brief: attracting immigrants to rural areas is necessary, but not sufficient, for long-term demographic sustainability. To better understand how policy design can support retention rather than temporary placement, this section draws on international evidence from countries with similar demographic pressures.

Countries facing population aging, low fertility and spatial imbalance — such as Australia, Sweden, Japan and Germany — have experimented with a range of regional immigration strategies, often with mixed results. These international experiences highlight both the limits of attraction-focused policies and the conditions that sustain rural settlement, offering lessons for immigration policy in Canada.

Lesson 1: Directing settlement without durable economic opportunities leads to low retention

International evidence consistently shows that initial placement in rural areas is not sufficient to ensure long-term settlement.

For example, Australia and Sweden redirected immigration flows away from major cities through regionally targeted programs, similar in spirit to Canada’s PNP and RNIP. Sweden went further by assigning housing to refugees in smaller municipalities.

However, retention was limited, as many migrants relocated to metropolitan areas once initial requirements were fulfilled or housing placements ended (Argent et al., 2024). In Sweden, approximately 82 per cent of newcomers ultimately reside in metropolitan regions, reflecting the continued concentration of employment opportunities in larger cities (Vogiazides & Mondani, 2021). These cases underscore the point that without stable, well-matched employment, regional settlement policies tend to delay, rather than prevent, onward migration to urban centres.

Lesson 2: Employment alignment and employer engagement are central to retention

Across countries, retention is strongest where immigrants arrive with clear employment pathways that meet local labour market needs. Programs that prioritize job-matching, particularly those involving local employers, are more likely to support sustained settlement than those focused solely on geographic redistribution.

This finding reinforces Canadian evidence that employer-driven approaches, such as those embedded in the AIP and RNIP, are more effective than location-based requirements alone.

Lesson 3: Temporary migration without integration pathways undermines long-term viability

Japan’s experience illustrates the risks of relying heavily on temporary migration to support rural economies. Its rural revitalization efforts have depended largely on short-term labour schemes in agriculture and elder care, with limited opportunities for permanent residency. As a result, foreign workers in rural Japan frequently experience social isolation, language barriers and restricted mobility, leading to high turnover and limited community integration (Hof et al., 2021). This case highlights the importance of permanent or long-term settlement pathways for rural immigration to meaningfully contribute to demographic renewal.

Lesson 4: Social networks and community capacity shape settlement outcomes

Germany’s experience demonstrates that immigrant settlement is influenced as much by social context as population density. Efforts to settle refugees and economic migrants in rural areas have often faced challenges because of a lack of co-ethnic networks. The presence of these networks is a stronger predictor of settlement and retention than geographic location alone (Heider et al., 2020).

Similar dynamics appear in Sweden, where limited social services and weak community integration contributed to onward migration.

These findings point to the importance of community capacity, including access to housing, settlement services, cultural infrastructure and social networks, in sustaining rural immigration.

Implications for Canada

Taken together, international experience reinforces a clear message: attraction alone is insufficient. Regional immigration policies are most effective when they combine employment alignment, integration supports and long-term settlement pathways within communities that have the capacity to absorb and support newcomers.

These lessons validate Canada’s move toward community-based programs such as the PNP, Atlantic Immigration Pilot (now the AIP) and RNIP, while also highlighting the need for continued investment in rural settlement infrastructure, employer engagement and social integration.

Neepawa, Manitoba, provides a useful illustration of this community-based approach. Immigration-driven growth has been closely connected to local labour demand — particularly employment at the HyLife food-processing operation — while Neepawa and Area Immigrant Settlement Services offers language training, employment assistance, orientation, referrals and community connection supports to newcomers and their families. Together, these efforts have helped Neepawa move beyond simply recruiting workers toward building the institutional and social infrastructure needed to support longer-term settlement and integration (IRPP, 2026; Kemp, 2025).

Strengthening preparedness and inclusivity

The success of these programs ultimately depends not just on attracting immigrants to rural areas, but also on building strong, inclusive communities where both newcomers and long-time residents feel supported. That means investing in more than just immigration pathways — it means expanding access to affordable housing, language services, transportation, health care, education and employment opportunities. It also means providing resources to rural communities, so they are equipped to welcome and integrate newcomers, rather than asking them to do more with less.

This process cannot occur overnight. It should take place over time, especially with:

• Housing initiatives aimed at affordability and quality of life.
• Employment opportunities, not only for newcomers, but also for existing residents as a means of fulfilling community roles vital to successful integration.
• Transportation and services that extend outside urban landscapes to improve coverage.

Measuring success

Assessing the effectiveness of regional immigration policies remains challenging. In Canada, some of the most comprehensive data sources lag several years behind current policy developments — the most recent census data available is from 2021, and the latest Longitudinal Immigration Database extends only to 2023. This limits researchers’ and policymakers’ ability to evaluate recent program changes in real time. Given the pace of policy innovation, improving Canada’s capacity to nowcast population dynamics is essential for evidence-based decision-making and adaptive policy design.

A Comprehensive Approach to Boosting Rural Immigration

Geographic imbalance in Canada’s population distribution is not a new phenomenon, but it is becoming more urgent. Rural Canada has always played a vital role in the country’s economy, food systems and environmental sustainability. However, its ability to thrive is now threatened by population decline, aging residents and limited inflows of newcomers. Meanwhile, the bulk of immigration continues to flow toward our largest cities, where housing affordability, congestion and labour market saturation are growing concerns.

The good news is that this challenge is not insurmountable. Programs like the Provincial Nominee Program, the Atlantic Immigration Pilot, and the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot have shifted the conversation and, in some cases, newcomers’ settlement patterns. However, these initiatives have seen mixed results. While some regions have enjoyed population growth and improved retention, others have struggled to provide long-term support to help immigrants stay and succeed.

Our broad recommendations focus on three areas. First, we support the ongoing decentralization of immigration policy in Canada. Trying to ensure that all of Canada receives the optimal benefits of immigration is difficult without an in-depth knowledge of local issues. Second, preparedness and inclusivity are central to not only recruiting immigrants but also retaining them. Knowing what newcomers value about a jurisdiction, or what needs to be developed to help them feel settled, is an integral component of long-term retention. Third, the ability to assess the effectiveness of a policy or program depends heavily on accurate, up-to-date data on where immigrants go, how they do, and whether they stay.

Encouraging immigrants to move to rural Canada is only part of the task. Making it easier for them to stay and helping communities adapt is where the real work begins.

---

References

Argent, N., Bernard, A., Laukova, D., Wilson, T., Zajac, T., & Kimpton, A. (2024). Retaining permanent and temporary immigrants in rural Australia: Place-based and individual determinants. Population, Space and Place, 31(1), Article e2865. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2865

Battams, N. (2025). Families in rural areas are bigger than their urban counterparts. In Families Count 2024. The Vanier Institute of the Family. https://vanierinstitute.ca/families-count-2024/families-in-rural-areas-are-bigger-than-their-urban-counterparts/

Brown, M., Brown, M., Li, J., & Tweedle, J. (2025). Mapping the importance of urban and rural economies in Canada: Experimental grid square-based gross domestic product and gross domestic income. Economic and Social Reports, 5(4). Statistics Canada. https://doi.org/10.25318/36280001202500400003-eng

Butler, C. (2024, February 11). Canada’s rural communities will continue long decline unless something’s done, says researcher. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/immigration-rural-ontario-canada-1.7106640

Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation. (2024). The state of rural Canada. https://bcruralcentre.org/the-state-of-rural-canada/

Finlay, L., & Haan, M. (2024). The places we’ll go: How have rural residents changed over time? Journal of Rural Studies, 105, Article 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103181

Finlay, L., & Haan, M. (2025). The places we’ll go: Who moves to rural Canada? Growth and Change, 56(3), Article e70041. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.70041

Glaeser, E. L. (2012). Triumph of cities: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier and happier. Penguin Press.

Government of Nova Scotia. (2021, December 17). Successful Atlantic Immigration Pilot made permanent [News release]. https://news.novascotia.ca/en/2021/12/17/successful-atlantic-immigration-pilot-made-permanent

Haan, M. (2019). The growing recognition of newcomer recruitment and retention in Canada as a local imperative. Canadian Diversity, 16(1): 12-17.

Heider, B., Stroms, P., Koch, J., & Siedentop, S. (2020). Where do immigrants move in Germany? The role of international migration in regional disparities in population development. Population, Space and Place, 26(8), Article e2363. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2363

Hof, H., Pemberton, S., & Pietka-Nykaza, E. (2021). EU migrant retention and the temporalities of migrant staying: A new conceptual framework. Comparative Migration Studies, 9, Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-021-00225-5

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). (n.d.-a). Immigrate as a provincial nominee. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/provincial-nominees.html

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). (n.d.-b). Atlantic Immigration Pilot. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2017/03/atlantic_immigrationpilot.html

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). (n.d.-c). Closed: Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot: About the pilot. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/rural-northern-immigration-pilot.html

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). (2011). Evaluation of the Provincial Nominee Program. Research and Evaluation Branch. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/provincial-nominee-program.html

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). (2025, January 30). Canada launches Rural and Francophone Community Immigration pilots [News release]. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2025/01/canada-launches-rural-and-francophone-community-immigration-pilots.html

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (n.d.). Rural economic development. Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/rural/en

Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP). (2026). Neepawa: Manitoba’s fast growing “Land of Plenty.” https://irpp.org/research-studies/neepawa/

Kemp, C. (2025, November 2). From the Philippines to the Prairies: How Neepawa is thriving through immigration. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/neepawa-filipino-immigration-9.6962216

Krawchenko, T. (2025, October 2). How Canada can support rural regions in its net-zero transition. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-canada-can-support-rural-regions-in-its-net-zero-transition-264747

Marre, A. (2020). Rural population loss and strategies for recovery. Econ Focus, First Quarter. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2020/q1/district_digest

Patel, A., Dean, J., Edge, S., Wilson, K., & Ghassemi, E. (2019). Double burden of rural migration in Canada? Considering the social determinants of health related to immigrant settlement outside the cosmopolis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), 678-698. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050678

Pinchin, G. (2024, July 25). Rural and remote communities are essential, and entitled, to a net-zero energy transition. QUEST Canada. https://questcanada.org/project/rural-remote-communities-essential-and-entitled-to-a-net-zero-transition/

Rishworth, A., Dean, J., Wilson, K., Edge, S., & Ghassemi, E. (2022). Contested and (un)realized capabilities of wellbeing in rural places in Canada: Contemplating immigrants’ realities. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 3, Article 100113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100113

Rowswell, R. (2021). Evaluation of the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot Program, Northern Policy Institute. COI: 20.500.12592/tnd8h2

Sifton, C. (1922, April 1). The immigrants Canada wants. Maclean’s, 16, 32-34.

Singer, C. R. (2023, August 14). Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot boost local economic performance, study reveals. Immigration.ca. https://immigration.ca/rural-and-northern-immigration-pilot-boost-local-economic-performance-study-reveals/

Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Table 14-10-0355-02 Employment by industry, monthly, seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, and trend-cycle, last 5 months [Data table]. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410035502

Statistics Canada. (2022, February 9). Population growth in Canada’s rural areas, 2016 to 2021 (Catalogue no. 98-200-X2021002). Government of Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-x/2021002/98-200-x2021002-eng.cfm

Statistics Canada. (2024a, March 27). Canada’s population estimates: Strong population growth in 2023. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240327/dq240327c-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2024b, January 31). Fertility in Canada, 1921 to 2022 (Catalogue no. 91F0015M). Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91f0015m/91f0015m2024001-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2025a, June 18). Canada’s population estimates, first quarter 2025. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250618/dq250618a-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2025b). Table 17-10-0008-01 Estimates of the components of demographic growth, annual [Data table]. Government of Canada. https://doi.org/10.25318/1710000801-eng

Statistics Canada. (2025c, January 16). Canada’s population estimates: Subprovincial areas, 2024. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250116/dq250116b-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2026). Annual demographic estimates, rural and small town and functional urban areas: Interactive dashboard (Catalogue no. 71-607-X). Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2021030-eng.htm

Vogiazides, L., & Mondani, H. (2021). Geographical trajectories of refugees in Sweden: Uncovering patterns and drivers of inter-regional (im)mobility. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 3065-3090. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa074

This Policy Brief was published as part of the Canada’s Changing Immigration Landscape series from the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation. The manuscript was copy-edited by Prasanthi Vasanthakumar, proofread by Zofia Laubitz, editorial co-ordination was by Étienne Tremblay, production was by Chantal Létourneau and art direction was by Anne Tremblay.

Canada’s Changing Immigration Landscape is a partnership between the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation at the IRPP, the Institute for Research on Migration and Society at Concordia University (IRMS) and the Centre for Migration Studies at the University of British Columbia (CMS). All publications in the series are under the direction of Charles Breton, Executive Director of the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation, Mireille Paquet, Director of IRMS, and Irene Bloemraad, Co-director of CMS.

Michael Haan is a Professor at Western University. His research interests intersect the areas of demography, immigrant settlement, labour market integration and data development. He is widely consulted by municipal, provincial and federal governments for policy advice in the areas of immigration, settlement services, the Canadian labour market and population aging.

Lindsay Finlay is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology at Western University. Her research interests include rural Canada, migration, immigrant settlement, housing and quantitative methods.

Taylor Paul is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at Western University, specializing in Migration and Ethnic Relations. Her research focuses on labour market and educational inequalities, immigrant integration, and the intersections of race, gender and sexuality. She also conducts applied policy research for federal agencies and public- sector organizations, supporting the development of evidence-informed strategies to strengthen workforce development in the skilled trades.

A French translation of this text is available under the title Au-delà des grandes villes : encourager les immigrants à s’établir dans les régions rurales et éloignées.

To cite this document:

Haan, M., Finlay, L., & Paul, T. (2026). Beyond big cities: How to encourage immigrants to settle in rural and remote areas. Institute for Research on Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.26070/m7hb-nh71