Ethnicity, Language and Immigration Thematic Series
Study on International Money Transfers from Canada

by Zacharie Tsala Dimbuene and Martin Turcotte

Release date: April 17, 2019

Skip to text

Text begins

Start of text box

Highlights

  • In 2017, 37% of Canadian residents born in countries eligible for Official Development Assistance sent money abroad to relatives or friends. Men (38%) remitted slightly more than women (36%).
  • Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries remitted $5.2 billion in 2017. This amount was unevenly distributed between men and women: Men sent a total of $2.9 billion abroad and women sent $2.3 billion.
  • Remitters sent $2,855 yearly on average. Men ($3,250) remitted on average $780 more than women ($2,470).
  • Men remitted more than women in all birth regions except Southeast Asia and Oceania, where women remitted $140 more than men, on average.
  • The average amount remitted in 2017 ranged from $1,825 for remitters born in the Americas to $4,755 for those born in Eastern Asia.
  • Some destination regions received more remittances than others. Southeast Asia and Oceania received approximately $1.4 billion in 2017, representing 27% of the total amount remitted in 2017.
  • At the country level, the Philippines, India, the United States, China and Pakistan were the top five destinations of remittances from Canada.
  • Money transfer stores (MTSs) were the most common method of sending money: 56% of remitters went in-person to a MTS to send their last money transfer. An additional 8% of remitters used a MTS online.
  • Remitters paid on average 6% of the amount remitted last time in 2017. The fee varied by transfer method, with in-person money transfer using money transfer stores being more costly.
  • Sending costs are associated with the amount remitted. For example, remitters who sent up to $200 paid on average 11% of the amount remitted through in-person banking, while those who sent $1000 or higher, using the same method, paid on average 2%.
  • Remitters reported that convenience for the sender (30%) and the recipient (32%) were the main reasons to choose the last money transfer method used.
End of text box

1. Introduction

Context

Remittance flows to low- and middle-income regions are an important source of external funding for many developing countries, at both the macro- and microeconomic levels. At the macroeconomic level, it was estimated that, on average, remittances account for 27% of gross domestic product (GDP) in some developing countries.Note At the microeconomic level, remittances play an important role in reducing poverty, paying for food and education and supporting community development.

Worldwide, the World Bank estimates that people pay fees of about 7% to send US$200 abroad.Note Remittance fees can vary, sometimes substantially, by region and transfer methods. Therefore, reducing remittance fees has become a strategic focus for multilateral development within the “5x5 objective” framework.Note According to the World Bank, this initiative could keep up to US$16 billion in the pockets of migrants who send money back home.

In an effort to align with international initiatives, the Government of Canada announced in 2015 a series of provisions to reduce the cost of remittances.Note More recently, the Federal Government reiterated its intent to work closely with the provincial and territorial governments to improve regulation of the remittance industry in the country so that residents of Canada who send money abroad are not charged exorbitant fees.Note Against this background, the Study on International Money Transfers targeting residents of Canada born in Official Development Assistance (ODA)-eligible countries was designed to collect data on international money transfers from Canada and on the characteristics of those who transfer money, and to identify the needs of Canadian residents born in an ODA-eligible country who send money abroad.

Objectives of the report

This report highlights key findings of the Study on International Money Transfers, and it answers the following questions.

The report also examines gender differences in remittances. A number of studies have explored and compared the remittance patterns of men and women. However, findings are mixed. Some studies have found significant differences in remittance patterns between men and women,Note while others have reported no differences.Note

Furthermore, previous research pointed out national and regional differences in remittance behaviours.Note The report accounts for this dimension by analyzing remittance behaviours by birth region of respondents. The report groups country of birth into eight regions: the Americas, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, Sub-Saharan AfricaNote , Northern Africa, West Central Asia and the Middle East, Eastern Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania, and Southern Asia.Note It is important to remember that only people born in ODA-eligible countries are included in the survey and these regions. For example, Canadian residents born in the United States are not included in the study because the United States is not an ODA-eligible country.

2. Survey methodology, data sources, methods and definitions

Data sources

This report uses data from the 2018 Study on International Money Transfers (SIMT). The survey was conducted by Statistics Canada on behalf of Global Affairs Canada. The survey provides reliable estimates of remittance flows by naturalized Canadians, landed immigrants and temporary residents born in ODA-eligible countries aged 18 years and over who sent money from Canada. Furthermore, the survey provides a comprehensive look into their remittance behaviours and their needs to improve remittance experiences.

ODA-eligible countries consist of all low and middle income countries based on gross national income (GNI) per capita as published by the World Bank. All of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), as defined by the United Nations (UN), are included in the ODA-eligible country list. Because the classification is dynamic and may vary from a year to another, the year 2017 is the reference year in the survey.Note

The temporary residents covered by the survey are refugee claimants and persons with a work permit valid anytime in 2017 and at least until April 1, 2018. Residents of the ten provinces are covered, while residents of the three territories are excluded. Institutionalized persons are excluded as well.

The survey frame was a person-based list frame, constructed from two sources. The first source was the 2016 longform Census which was used to cover naturalized Canadians and landed immigrants. The second source was administrative files from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) which were used to cover immigrants that landed after the 2016 Census, refugee claimants and temporary residents with a valid work permit.

SIMT collected information from 23,000 respondents on socio-demographics, remittance behaviours and needs, including frequency of remitting, knowledge and utilization of methods used to send money abroad, total amount remitted in 2017, sending costs, remittance destinations, characteristics of recipients, and satisfaction on the overall process of remitting. For more details on the survey, see Study on International Money Transfers.

Definitions and Methods

Remitter: A person who sent money abroad in 2017. Respondents were asked whether they (1) sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017; or (2) had money hand-carried by themselves or someone else, to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017. These respondents are referred to as remitters in 2017.

Remittances: The money immigrants send to relatives or friends in the country of origin or another country. The methodology on how to estimate remittance flows are a subject of debate in the literature. In this survey, data were collected at the individual level which also constitutes the unit of analysis. In this report, remittances are personal money that a respondent sent abroad in 2017; they exclude the money sent abroad on behalf of other people such as relatives or friends.

The World Bank has been a leading institution to provide with facts on remittances and the costs of sending money abroad. To estimate aggregate volumes remittances and bilateral remittances, the World Bank uses the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s database on remittance inflows and outflows Balance of Payments (BoP) database. IMF introduced a new definition of personal remittances in 2009.Note Personal remittances which come from BoP include (1) compensation of employees and (2) personal transfers. A third component has been considered in estimating remittance flows, the “capital transfers between households”; this latter is more difficult to obtain and is missing for almost all countries. Besides the BoP database, aggregate volumes of remittances can also be estimated using household surveys.Note Finally, bilateral remittances—or remittances flows between two specific countries can be estimated. The caveat about the methodology developed so far to estimate bilateral remittances require data from both countries, which is in practice very difficult.Note Due to differences in methodology, figures from SIMT and the World Bank are not comparable.

Sending cost during last money transfer in 2017: The fee paid during the last money transfer. Respondents were asked “The last time you sent money to relatives or friends living abroad in 2017, was there a fee to send the money?” and “how much was the fee?” To estimate the fee paid during the last money transfer, either as averages or a percentage of the amount remitted, only valid amounts greater than zero were included in the computation.

Birth and destination region: Birth region corresponds to the geographical region of the ODA-eligible country where the remitter was born, while destination region refers to the region where money was sent in 2017. The birth and destination regions were defined using either a classification by geography, or a classification based on the gross national income (GNI).

In the SIMT, respondents were asked questions about their country of birth. This information was used to define broader birth regions. That includes (1) Americas; (2) Eastern Europe and Southern Europe; (3) Sub-Saharan AfricaNote ; (4) Northern Africa; (5) West Central Asia and the Middle East; (6) Eastern Asia; (7) Southeast Asia and Oceania; and (8) Southern Asia. In a similar way, the destination regions were defined using two sets of information. First, respondents were asked “In 2017, to what country did you send money most often?” Second, respondents were asked “In 2017, did you send money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in any countries other [than that identified above]?” From these two pieces of information, it was possible to define the “destination region” which includes categories similar to birth region, with an additional category (9) for all non ODA-eligible countries. Another criterion “level of economic development” was used to define both birth and destination regions of remittances resulting into three categories: (1) least developed countries; (2) low- and middle-income countries; (3) upper middle-income countries; and additional category (4) high-income countries for destination region of remittances. This latter category is the same to non ODA-eligible countries in the first classification.

Analyses and quality of the estimates

The report is based on descriptive results with an emphasis on differences by gender, region of birth, and region of destination. For the quality of estimates, the lower and upper bounds of the confidence intervals are presented. Confidence intervals should be interpreted as follows: If the survey were repeated many times, then 95% of the time (or 19 times out of 20), the confidence interval would cover the true population value.

3. Findings

Almost four in ten residents of Canada born in ODA-eligible countries sent money abroad in 2017

In 2017, 37% of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries sent money to relatives or friends living in another country.Note That money was sent by formal methods (through a bank or online money transfer) or simply hand-carried by the person or someone else. Men were slightly more likely (38%) to remit than women (36%).Note

The total amount sent abroad was $ 5.2 billion in 2017. Of that amount, $2.9 billion was sent by men and $2.3 billion by women. As a proportion, this translates into 56% for men and 44% by women.

On average, these individuals remitted $2,855 to relatives or friends. Men sent more ($3,250) than women ($2,470) on average.

As found in previous studies,Note the propensity to remit varied across birth regions (Chart 1). In 2017, the percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends in another country varied from 11% for those born in Eastern Asia to 57% for those born in Southeast Asia and Oceania. According to some researchers, these variations may partly be due to cultural differences.Note Also in some countries, like the Philippines, the government actively promotes the training and the deployment of young adults to work abroad and send back remittances –especially women in the case of the Philippines.Note In Canada for example, a very large proportion of immigrants admitted under the live-in caregiver program are Filipino women.

Chart 1

Data table for Chart 1 
Data table for Chart 1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 1 Total, Men and Women, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Total Men Women
percent
Panel A: Birth region
Americas 46 46 46
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 36 35 36
Sub-Saharan Africa 53 56 50
Northern Africa 29 30 27
West Central Asia and the Middle East 20 22 18
Eastern Asia 11 12 10
Southeast Asia and Oceania 57 51 61
Southern Asia 36 43 28
Panel B: Level of development (birth country)
Least developed countries 49 51 46
Lower middle income countries 45 46 44
Upper middle income countries 24 25 24

Among Canadian residents born in sub-Saharan Africa, West Central Asia and the Middle East, Eastern Asia and Southern Asia, men were more likely to send money abroad than women. For example, 43% of men born in Southern Asia sent money to relatives or friends living in another country in 2017, compared with 28% of women. This finding reflects the general patterns for the total population of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries.

In contrast, in Southeast Asia and Oceania, women (61%) were more likely to send money than men (51%).

The average amount sent also varied by region of birth (Chart 2). However, the regions with the highest average amounts were not necessarily the same as those with the highest proportions of those who remitted. For example, 11% of people born in Eastern Asia sent money outside Canada and the average amount was $4,755. In contrast, 46% of people born in the Americas sent money to relatives and friends, but the average amount was $1,825.

Chart 2

Data table for Chart 2 
Data table for Chart 2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 2 Total, Men and Women, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Total Men Women
dollars
Panel A: Birth region
Americas 1,825 2,235 1,490
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 1,875 2,455 1,355
Sub-Saharan Africa 2,710 3,160 2,200
Northern Africa 2,750 3,570 1,705
West Central Asia and the Middle East 3,405 4,120 2,465
Eastern Asia 4,755 5,570 3,930
Southeast Asia and Oceania 3,005 2,920 3,060
Southern Asia 3,385 3,730 2,825
Panel B: Level of development (birth country)
Least developed countries 2,265 2,690 1,810
Lower middle income countries 2,970 3,250 2,695
Upper middle income countries 2,910 3,590 2,300

The total amount remitted also varied significantly by birth region (Chart 3).

Chart 3

Data table for Chart 3 
Data table for Chart 3
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 3. The information is grouped by Birth region (appearing as row headers), Men and Women, calculated using millions of dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Birth region Men Women
millions of dollars
Southeast Asia and Oceania 545 951
Southern Asia 945 441
Americas 371 304
Sub-Saharan Africa 371 231
Eastern Asia 207 144
West Central Asia and the Middle East 236 107
Northern Africa 130 49
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 84 52

Canadian residents born in least developed countries most likely to remit, but they remit less

Since remittances can be seen as a poverty reduction strategy, the level of economic development in the country of origin may be associated with the likelihood to remit. In 2017, residents from upper-middle income countries were less likely to send money than those from least developed countries or lower-middle-income countries (Chart 1). A quarter of people (24%) born in upper-middle income countries sent money abroad—half the proportion of remittances of those born in least-developed countries (49%) or lower-middle income countries (45%).

The difference in the propensity to remit was small between men and women born in upper-middle income countries. However, it was significant among those born in least developed countries where men were more likely to remit than women, with a difference of 5 percentage points.

In terms of amounts remitted in 2017, people born in least developed countries sent on average $2,265. That was less than those born in lower-middle income countries ($2,970) or upper-middle income countries ($2,910). In the three categories of countries, men sent more than women on average. For example, while men born in least developed countries sent on average $2,690, their female counterparts sent $1,810.

Residents who arrived more recently more likely to remit

Another factor associated with the remittance behaviours of people born abroad is how long they have lived in the host country. Previous research has produced mixed results. Some studies have found that time since migration was negatively associated with remittances,Note while others found no significant effect.Note The main explanation is that remittance dynamics, like any other temporal pattern, depend on the specific migratory and social context. Therefore, there is no reason to expect a consistent pattern.Note

Generally speaking, the likelihood to remit was higher among Canadian residents who arrived recently in the country (Chart 4). For example, the likelihood to remit for people born in ODA-eligible countries located in the Americas ranged from 31% for periods before 1980 to 53% for the most recent period. Among people born in ODA-eligible sub-Saharan African countries who came to Canada prior to 1980, 22% transferred money in 2017, compared with 61% of those who were admitted in Canada between 2010 and 2017. Exceptions to this general pattern were observed for Eastern Asia and for West Central Asia and the Middle-East.

Chart 4

Data table for Chart 4 
Data table for Chart 4
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 4 Year of arrival, Before 1980, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009 and 2010-2017, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Year of arrival
Before 1980 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2017
percent
Americas 31 45 46 52 53
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 25 35 39 36 35
Sub-Saharan Africa 22 44 51 60 61
Northern Africa 13 24 24 36 30
West Central Asia and the Middle East 21 16 19 24 19
East Asia 14 15 12 11 8
Southeast Asia and Oceania 27 37 51 67 76
Southern Asia 17 29 34 36 44

A number of explanations can be drawn from the literature.Note First, the number of potential recipients is likely to decline over time through death or chain migration, such as family reunification. Second, social ties with communities in home country tend to fade over time, and as a result, so does the likelihood to send money abroad. Consequently, recent immigrants with stronger family ties or friendships in their home country are more likely to remit than older cohorts originating from the same birth region. Thirdly, some of the differences in remittance patterns may reflect the changing socioeconomic characteristics, over decades, in migration waves.

Individual and household characteristics of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries associated with the likelihood to send money abroad

There is vast literature on the factors associated with the likelihood for immigrants to send money back home and the amount they send.Note Table 1 presents the proportion of people who sent money in 2017, by several characteristics. Table 2 presents the average amounts sent for the same characteristics.

Younger and older peoples born in ODA-eligible countries are less likely to remit

As illustrated in previous studiesNote , age is associated with the likelihood of remitting. More precisely, the proportion of people who sent a remittance follows a bell-shaped curve in regards to age: it is lower at younger ages, increases and peaks in middle age ranges, and decreases at older ages. For example, 28% of those aged 18 to 29 years sent money abroad in 2017, a proportion that rose to a high of 45% among people aged 40 to 49 years, and then declined to 21% among people aged 70 and older. The same trend was observed among both men and women.


Table 1
Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017, by sex and selected characteristics
Table summary
This table displays the results of Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017. The information is grouped by Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (appearing as row headers), People who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017, Total, Men, Women, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from , to and from units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics People who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017
Total Men Women
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total 37.3 36.7 37.9 38.5 37.6 39.4 36.2 35.4 37.1
Age
18-29 28.2 26.6 29.8 28.8 26.5 31.1 27.7 25.4 29.9
30-39 44.1 42.8 45.5 46.6 44.5 48.6 42.1 40.2 43.9
40-49 44.9 43.6 46.2 45.4 43.4 47.3 44.5 42.8 46.3
50-59 40.9 39.5 42.4 42.9 40.8 45.0 39.1 37.1 41.1
60-69 31.6 30.0 33.3 33.6 31.2 36.1 29.8 27.5 32.1
70 and older 20.8 19.0 22.5 20.8 18.2 23.3 20.8 18.3 23.2
Marital status
Married 39.6 38.8 40.3 41.6 40.5 42.7 37.6 36.5 38.7
Common-Law 42.8 39.4 46.3 42.7 37.7 47.7 42.9 37.8 48.0
Widowed 26.0 22.8 29.2 22.0 14.4 29.6 26.7 23.2 30.3
Separated 44.1 40.1 48.2 42.1 35.4 48.8 45.3 40.1 50.4
Divorced 36.0 33.2 38.9 38.0 33.1 42.9 35.0 31.4 38.6
Single, never married 30.6 29.2 32.0 28.7 26.8 30.7 32.5 30.5 34.6
Highest educational level
Less than high school 30.6 28.4 32.7 35.1 31.7 38.4 27.2 24.4 30.1
High school 33.8 32.3 35.3 34.4 32.2 36.5 33.2 31.2 35.3
Postsecondary 41.7 40.4 42.9 40.8 38.9 42.7 42.4 40.7 44.1
University (Bachelor's degree or higher) 37.9 36.9 38.9 39.9 38.6 41.3 36.0 34.6 37.3
Immigration status
Canadian citizen by naturalization 35.3 34.6 36.1 35.8 34.8 36.9 34.9 33.8 36.0
Landed immigrant or permanent resident 42.2 40.8 43.5 44.7 42.7 46.6 39.9 38.0 41.7
Temporary or non-permanent resident 40.6 37.2 44.1 43.7 39.1 48.3 37.0 32.1 41.9
Not stated 34.2 31.0 37.5 34.2 29.3 39.1 34.3 29.8 38.7
Year of arrival
Before 1980 23.5 21.9 25.2 23.6 21.2 26.0 23.5 21.1 25.8
1980-1989 34.0 32.0 35.9 34.1 31.4 36.8 33.9 31.1 36.7
1990-1999 35.1 33.7 36.6 35.3 33.2 37.5 35.0 33.0 37.0
2000-2009 39.3 38.1 40.5 39.7 38.0 41.4 38.9 37.4 40.5
2010-2017 42.7 41.4 44.1 46.0 44.2 47.9 39.6 37.7 41.4
Employment status
Employed full-time (30 or more hours per week) 46.3 45.5 47.2 46.4 45.2 47.5 46.3 44.9 47.6
Employed part-time (Less than 30 hours per week) 31.6 29.8 33.3 27.1 24.3 29.9 34.1 31.9 36.3
Not employed 22.0 20.9 23.1 19.9 18.2 21.5 23.3 21.8 24.7
Personal income
Less than $20,000 26.4 25.3 27.5 24.1 22.4 25.8 27.7 26.3 29.1
$20,000-$29,999 42.6 40.8 44.5 41.0 38.3 43.7 44.0 41.4 46.5
$30,000-$39,999 45.7 43.7 47.7 46.9 44.0 49.8 44.6 41.7 47.4
$40,000-$49,999 45.6 43.5 47.7 46.9 43.9 49.9 44.2 41.1 47.3
$50,000-$69,999 44.5 42.5 46.5 44.9 42.3 47.4 44.1 41.0 47.2
$70,000-$89,999 41.8 39.3 44.3 42.6 39.4 45.8 40.4 36.2 44.5
$90,000 and over 41.8 39.6 44.0 42.3 39.7 44.8 40.6 36.5 44.7
Household income
Less than $40,000 31.3 29.9 32.6 32.3 30.4 34.2 30.4 28.7 32.2
$40,000-$59,999 40.3 38.6 42.0 41.4 38.9 43.9 39.3 37.0 41.7
$60,000-$79,999 41.8 39.9 43.6 42.1 39.5 44.7 41.5 38.8 44.2
$80,000-$109,999 40.4 38.8 42.1 40.9 38.6 43.2 39.9 37.5 42.3
$110,000 and over 39.0 37.5 40.5 40.1 38.0 42.1 37.8 35.7 39.9

While the average amount sent was lower among younger people ($2,265), it did not vary substantially by age group (Table 2). In terms of gender differences by age, the average amount sent by men was higher than for women in all age groups (Table 2).


Table 2
Average amount remitted by Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017, by sex and selected characteristics
Table summary
This table displays the results of Average amount remitted by Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017. The information is grouped by Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (appearing as row headers), Average amount sent in 2017, Total, Men, Women, dollars and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from , to and from units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics Average amount sent in 2017
Total Men Women
dollars 95% confidence interval dollars 95% confidence interval dollars 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total 2,855 2,716 2,991 3,250 3,044 3,459 2,470 2,287 2,654
Age
18-29 2,265 1,980 2,547 2,820 2,324 3,311 1,670 1,412 1,928
30-39 3,100 2,830 3,372 3,485 3,047 3,926 2,740 2,416 3,063
40-49 2,970 2,680 3,256 3,395 2,938 3,854 2,590 2,237 2,946
50-59 2,685 2,389 2,986 3,010 2,589 3,433 2,345 1,945 2,749
60-69 2,990 2,409 3,572 3,165 2,560 3,768 2,810 1,834 3,789
70 and older 2,805 2,141 3,464 3,610 2,444 4,773 2,115 1,409 2,823
Marital status
Married 2,905 2,741 3,069 3,250 3,019 3,476 2,530 2,298 2,765
Common-Law 2,795 2,340 3,248 2,690 2,058 3,319 2,900 2,245 3,557
Widowed 2,865 1,830 3,898 6,840 2,298 11,379 2,265 1,316 3,218
Separated 2,845 1,996 3,697 3,810 2,573 5,046 2,325 1,258 3,391
Divorced 3,020 2,211 3,829 3,060 2,022 4,098 2,995 1,862 4,132
Single, never married 2,610 2,233 2,986 3,215 2,512 3,919 2,035 1,756 2,312
Highest educational level
Less than high school 2,630 2,012 3,248 3,060 2,383 3,734 2,225 1,221 3,228
High school 2,010 1,818 2,200 2,375 2,085 2,662 1,650 1,407 1,889
Postsecondary 2,540 2,300 2,781 2,910 2,489 3,333 2,240 1,966 2,516
University (Bachelor's degree or higher) 3,485 3,247 3,720 3,855 3,493 4,217 3,080 2,777 3,380
Immigration status
Canadian citizen by naturalization 2,655 2,484 2,829 3,200 2,909 3,490 2,165 1,961 2,365
Landed immigrant or permanent resident 3,250 2,984 3,521 3,370 3,043 3,700 3,130 2,702 3,555
Temporary or non-permanent resident 3,195 2,650 3,740 3,545 2,742 4,348 2,705 2,072 3,336
Not stated 2,590 1,974 3,202 2,575 1,977 3,170 2,600 1,622 3,577
Year of arrival
Before 1980 2,885 2,286 3,480 4,050 2,971 5,132 1,790 1,233 2,351
1980-1989 2,720 2,272 3,164 3,420 2,681 4,154 2,055 1,558 2,548
1990-1999 2,890 2,446 3,336 2,970 2,393 3,545 2,825 2,145 3,507
2000-2009 2,690 2,475 2,900 3,185 2,797 3,575 2,240 2,032 2,448
2010-2018 3,035 2,818 3,255 3,245 2,936 3,556 2,800 2,496 3,101
2010-2017 3,035 2,818 3,255 3,245 2,936 3,556 2,800 2,496 3,101
Employment status
Employed full-time (30 or more hours per week) 3,135 2,969 3,300 3,465 3,220 3,710 2,720 2,511 2,926
Employed part-time (Less than 30 hours per week) 2,300 1,823 2,779 2,445 1,783 3,107 2,235 1,613 2,857
Not employed 2,065 1,747 2,388 2,285 1,756 2,814 1,960 1,553 2,368
Personal income
Less than $20,000 1,695 1,540 1,854 1,895 1,639 2,149 1,595 1,400 1,794
$20,000-$29,999 2,460 2,186 2,735 2,560 2,129 2,992 2,385 2,036 2,737
$30,000-$39,999 2,965 2,550 3,378 2,940 2,524 3,353 2,990 2,289 3,689
$40,000-$49,999 2,730 2,277 3,181 2,885 2,166 3,600 2,545 2,045 3,048
$50,000-$69,999 3,080 2,707 3,450 3,140 2,684 3,598 2,990 2,386 3,596
$70,000-$89,999 4,230 3,590 4,871 4,395 3,649 5,136 3,955 2,688 5,218
$90,000 and over 5,735 4,964 6,507 6,190 5,212 7,163 4,675 3,531 5,820
Household income
Less than $40,000 2,120 1,864 2,378 2,230 1,966 2,495 2,025 1,612 2,440
$40,000-$59,999 2,485 2,147 2,828 2,895 2,300 3,491 2,100 1,761 2,437
$60,000-$79,999 2,655 2,327 2,982 2,755 2,417 3,092 2,560 2,010 3,111
$80,000-$109,999 3,030 2,678 3,380 3,435 2,897 3,969 2,620 2,184 3,055
$110,000 and over 4,190 3,805 4,575 4,800 4,202 5,398 3,490 3,022 3,961

The proportion of people who remitted in 2017 was higher among those employed full-time

Employment status is also an important factor affecting remittance behaviour because it correlates with income. In 2017, among Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries, 46% of those who were employed full-time sent money abroad. The corresponding figures were 32% for those employed part-time and 22% for the unemployed.

Individuals employed full-time sent $3,135 on average. A comparison by sex shows that men employed full-time transferred on average $3,465, while women employed full-time sent $2,720, a difference of $745.

Among those who worked part-time, the average amount sent in 2017 was $2,300. Within this category, men remitted on average $2,445 compared with $2,235 for women. Those who were not employed sent an average amount of $2,065. Again, men remitted on average more ($2,285) than women ($1,960).   

Above annual personal income of $20,000, the propensity to remit is weakly associated with the income level

Personal income helps to determine an individual’s capacity to remit. However, past studies have indicated that higher income may be associated with financial burdens such as mortgages, car loans and other expenses related to a certain living standard. As a result, a higher income may not necessarily be indicative of the ability to remit.Note

In 2017, the lowest proportion of individuals who sent money were in the lowest income bracket (26%), while the highest proportion had an income between $30,000 and $49,999 (46%).

Among people with a personal income of less than $20,000, women were more likely than men to send money. In the other personal income brackets, the proportion of men and women who sent money was not significantly different.

In 2017, people with a personal income of $90,000 or more transferred the highest average amount ($5,735), followed by individuals with an income of $70,000 to $89,999, who sent on average $4,230.

Among individuals with an income of $90,000 or more, men sent more money than women ($6,190 versus $4,675), a difference of $1,515. However, there were no significant differences between men and women in other income brackets. In other words, when personal income was taken into account, men and women sent similar amounts of money to relatives and friends living abroad.

Southeast Asia and Oceania: top destination of remittances from Canada in 2017

Researchers have been interested in the volume and geography of remittances, but data sources are sometimes limited in that respect.Note Therefore, in the literature, researchers make the implicit assumption that migrants send money back to their country of origin in order to help relatives or friends. In reality, migrants can also send money to places that are not their country or region of birth—including high-income countries (OECD countries and others).

Data from the Study on International Money Transfers are used to estimate the average and total amounts of money sent to relatives or friends by destination, including all countries not eligible for ODA.

In many ways, the assumption that the region of birth is closely associated with the destination of remittances is correct.Note Therefore, the results by destination are somewhat similar to those by country of origin. The main difference between the two sets of results is that the destination includes countries not eligible for ODA.

In 2017, remitters sent on average $3,550 to countries not eligible for Official Development Assistance ($4,165 for men and $2,925 for women) (Chart 5). Among the non-ODA countries, the United States was the top receiving country.

In 2017, the largest amounts sent on average were sent to Eastern Asia (Chart 5).

Men generally send more money than women. For example, men transferred on average $2,805 to sub-Saharan African countries, compared to $1,945 on average for women. As well, while women sent on average $2,310 to a Southern Asian country, their male counterparts sent an average of $3,300. However, women sent on average about the same amount as men in Southeast Asia and Oceania.

Chart 5

Data table for Chart 5 
Data table for Chart 5
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 5. The information is grouped by Destination region (appearing as row headers), Total, Men and Women, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Destination region Total Men Women
dollars
Eastern
Asia
4,290 4,910 3,660
Non ODA-eligible countries 3,550 4,165 2,925
Southern
Asia
2,930 3,300 2,310
Southeast
Asia and Oceania
2,880 2,735 2,965
Sub-
Saharan
Africa
2,400 2,805 1,945
Northern
Africa
2,375 2,980 1,595
West Central Asia and the Middle East 2,345 2,915 1,555
Americas 1,655 1,985 1,390
Eastern
Europe and Southern Europe
1,650 2,280 1,085

Overall, in 2017, $1.4 billion in remittance flows from Canada, or 27% of the total, went to Southeast Asia and Oceania (Table 3). Women accounted for the majority of that amount ($906 million), while men remitted a total of $512 million. Women born in the Philippines accounted for a large share of the money remitted to Southeast Asia and Oceania ($767 million of the $906 million sent by women to Southeast Asia and the Oceania).

Southern Asia received $1.2 billion in 2017, corresponding to 23% of the remittance flows. Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, Northern Africa, West Central Asia and the Middle East received the smallest share with 2%, 3%, and 4%, respectively.

Chart 6

Data table for Chart 6 
Data table for Chart 6
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 6. The information is grouped by Destination region (appearing as row headers), Men and Women, calculated using millions of dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Destination region Men Women
millions of dollars
Southeast Asia and Oceania 512 906
Southern Asia 824 341
Non ODA-eligible countries 450 311
Americas 312 270
Sub-Saharan Africa 310 191
Eastern Asia 169 125
West Central Asia and the Middle East 137 53
Northern Africa 104 43
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 71 38

Table 3
Total amount of money (million of $) sent by Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017, by destination region and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Total amount of money (million of $) sent by Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017 Total amount sent in 2017 (million $), Percentage distribution of total amount sent in 2017, Total, Men, Women, from , to and percent, calculated using millions of dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Total amount sent in 2017 (million $) Percentage distribution of total amount sent in 2017
Total Men Women Total Men Women
from to from to from to percent
millions of dollars
Total 5,166 4,907 5,426 2,889 2,695 3,082 2,278 2,098 2,457 100.0 100.0 100.0
Panel A: ODA destination region
Americas 582 532 632 312 273 351 270 238 302 11.3 10.8 11.6
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 108 87 130 71 50 91 38 29 46 2.1 1.8 2.4
Sub-Saharan Africa 501 457 545 310 277 344 191 162 220 9.7 9.3 10.0
Northern Africa 147 113 180 104 73 134 43 31 55 2.8 2.3 3.3
West Central Asia and the Middle East 190 154 226 137 105 169 53 35 71 3.7 3.1 4.2
Eastern Asia 293 200 386 169 97 240 125 65 184 5.7 4.1 7.1
Southeast Asia and Oceania 1,419 1,265 1,573 512 411 614 906 789 1,024 27.5 25.8 29.0
Southern Asia 1,165 1,049 1,281 824 729 919 341 277 405 22.6 21.4 23.6
Non ODA-eligible countries 761 624 898 450 343 558 311 222 400 14.7 12.7 16.5
Panel B: Destination region by level of economic development
Least developed countries 479 429 528 283 249 317 195 158 232 9.3 8.7 9.7
Lower-middle income countries 2,826 2,653 2,999 1,510 1,389 1,631 1,317 1,190 1,443 54.7 54.1 55.3
Upper-middle income countries 1,100 961 1,240 645 529 762 455 377 533 21.3 19.6 22.9
High-income countries 761 624 898 450 343 558 311 222 400 14.7 12.7 16.5

More than half of remittance flows went to lower-middle income countries

When destination regions are defined according to the level of economic development, findings show that $2.8 billion (55% of remittance flows from Canada) went to lower-middle income countries in 2017, followed by upper-middle income countries at $1.1 billion (21% of total remittance flows from Canada) and high-income countries at $761 million (15% of total remittance flows from Canada) (Table 3).

The least developed countries, which in theory need remittances the most, received only $479 million, or 9% of all remittances.

These numbers partly reflect the birthplaces of the survey’s target population. Among Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries, only 11% were born in least developed countries, while 50% were born in lower-middle income countries and 40% were born in upper-middle income countries.

Socioeconomic and political factors may also help to explain why the least-developed countries receive a relatively small proportion of total remittance flows. For example, least developed countries may have poor infrastructure, and the social and political context may not allow migrants to send money through official channels such as money transfer providers. One might also think of the currency valuation in the least developed countries; in practice a small amount remitted in least developed countries can solve many problems compared with more advanced societies.  

Top five corridors in 2017: Canada to the Philippines, India, the United States, China and Pakistan

While the previous section analyzed the destination of remittance flows from Canada by region, this section focuses on the destination countries of remittances from Canada (Chart 7 and Table 4).Note To determine this, respondents were asked, “In 2017, to what country did you send money most often?” Besides countries where respondents sent money most often, they were also asked to report up to five countries where they sent money in 2017. The amounts reported were summed up to determine the total amount sent to each country. 

Chart 7

Data table for Chart 7 
Data table for Chart 7
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 7. The information is grouped by Destination country (appearing as row headers), Total amount, calculated using millions of dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Destination country Total amount
millions of dollars
Philippines 1,180
India 794
United States 390
China 292
Pakistan 236
Jamaica 96
Haiti 86
Nigeria 70
Thailand 66
Australia 66
United Kingdom 64
Lebanon 63
Indonesia 62
Colombia 62
Mexico 61
Morocco 59
Bangladesh 58
Sri Lanka 57
Viet Nam 53
Ghana 48

The Philippines received a significant share of remittances from Canada, with $1.2 billion in 2017. India ranked second, receiving $794 million. Interestingly, the United States ($390 million) ranked third among countries receiving remittances from Canada. This could be because Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries may have relatives and friends who also migrated from their home countries but are living in the United States. Findings show that many Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries such as Haiti and Jamaica send money to the United States.Note The last two of the top five countries receiving remittances from Canada are China ($292 million) and Pakistan ($236 million).

When remittance flows in 2017 are analyzed by sex of respondent (Table 4), the same top five countries emerge for men, even though the ranking changed slightly. At $558 million, India was the top country receiving money from male remitters 2017, followed by the Philippines ($407 million), the United States ($203 million), Pakistan ($182 million), and China ($168 million).

For women, the Philippines was the top country, at $770 million in 2017. Many women from the Philippines come to work in Canada under the live-in caregiver program and send substantial earnings to relatives or friend back home.Note The Philippines is followed by India ($235 million), the United States ($185 million), China ($125 million), Indonesia ($55 million) and Pakistan ($55 million).


Table 4
Total amount of money (million $) sent by Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017, by top 20 destination countries and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Total amount of money (million $) sent by Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017. The information is grouped by Rank (appearing as row headers), Total amount sent in 2017, Total, Men, Women, Country, millions of dollars and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Rank Total amount sent in 2017
Total Men Women
Country millions of dollars 95% confidence interval Country millions of dollars 95% confidence interval Country millions of dollars 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
1 Philippines 1,180 1,066 1,286 India 558 473 643 Philippines 768 678 858
2 India 794 692 896 Philippines 407 343 472 India 236 181 290
3 United States 390 291 488 United States 203 133 273 United States 186 115 258
4 China 292 199 385 Pakistan 182 142 223 China 124 64 184
5 Pakistan 236 190 281 China 168 97 240 Indonesia 53 -18 125
6 Jamaica 96 80 113 United Kingdom 51 13 89 Pakistan 53 31 75
7 Haiti 86 71 101 Haiti 50 37 62 Jamaica 47 36 58
8 Nigeria 70 52 89 Jamaica 49 37 61 Haiti 37 28 45
9 Thailand 66 -17 149 Nigeria 48 31 66 Colombia 29 20 38
10 Australia 66 5 127 Australia 48 -8 105 Bangladesh 27 1 52
11 United Kingdom 64 25 104 Lebanon 45 31 60 Mexico 26 15 37
12 Lebanon 63 42 84 Thailand 43 -35 121 Viet Nam 26 15 37
13 Indonesia 62 -10 135 Egypt 37 12 63 Morocco 26 15 36
14 Colombia 62 47 76 Sri Lanka 36 24 47 Thailand 24 -6 53
15 Mexico 61 43 79 Mexico 35 21 48 Nigeria 22 16 28
16 Morocco 59 43 76 Morocco 34 21 47 Sri Lanka 22 13 30
17 Bangladesh 58 30 86 Colombia 32 21 43 Kenya 21 4 38
18 Sri Lanka 57 43 72 Bangladesh 31 19 43 Republic of South Africa 21 11 31
19 Viet Nam 53 36 69 Ghana 31 21 40 El Salvador 20 11 29
20 Ghana 48 32 64 Cameroon 29 21 38 Australia 18 -5 41

Although digital remittances are becoming popular, over half of respondents sent money from a money transfer store

The literature explores methods of sending money back home or to another country. Broadly speaking, money transfer methods can be categorized into formal and informal channels of sending money.Note Formal methods include in-person and online banking and money transfer stores (MTSs), such as Western Union and MoneyGram. Recently, platforms such as WorldRemit, PayPal and Ria have been developed to simplify money transfers worldwide, making the remittance market more competitive. Money transfer methods such as hand-carrying money and informal network system are classified as informal methods.

However, sending money abroad is not a one-sided operation. Canadian residents who send remittances also take into account local conditions when choosing the transfer method.Note This section examines the transfer method used by remitters during their last money transfer. Remitters might have used other money transfer methods in 2017; however, the fee paid was asked for the last money transfer used in 2017.

As shown in Table 5, 56% of respondents sent their last money transfer through a money transfer store with little variation by sex. This category includes more traditional methods, such as Western Union and MoneyGram, where most people go in-person to send money abroad. An additional 8% of respondents used an online money transfer store in the last money transfer. Men were about as likely to use online money transfers (8%) as women (7%). In-person banking and online banking were also important money transfer methods used in 2017 as shown in Table 5. In fact, 9% of respondents used either in-person banking during their last money transfer while 5% used online banking to send money abroad. However, there were no significant variations between men and women.

The survey also found that money hand-carrying is still a prominent method for transferring back home or to another country. Findings indicate that 10% of respondents brought money when travelling, or gave money for relatives or friends to others travelling to another country or visiting Canada.


Table 5
Money transfer method used last time in 2017, by sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Money transfer method used last time in 2017. The information is grouped by Money transfer method (appearing as row headers), Method used last time in 2017, Total, Men, Women, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Money transfer method Method used last time in 2017
Total Men Women
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total 100 Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100 Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100 Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable
Banking in person 8.6 7.9 9.2 9.0 8.2 9.9 8.1 7.3 8.9
Banking online 5.3 4.8 5.8 5.7 5.0 6.4 5.0 4.3 5.6
Money transfer store 56.1 55.0 57.2 55.1 53.5 56.7 57.1 55.5 58.6
Money transfer store online 7.8 7.1 8.4 8.5 7.5 9.4 7.1 6.2 7.9
Currency exchange store 2.2 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.1 3.1 1.9 1.4 2.3
Another type of store 5.1 4.6 5.6 4.3 3.6 4.9 5.9 5.1 6.6
Another service provider online 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.9 1.1 0.8 1.4
Hand-carry method 10.1 9.4 10.8 9.7 8.8 10.7 10.4 9.5 11.4
Informal network 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.4 1.0
Other 2.6 2.3 3.0 2.4 1.9 3.0 2.8 2.3 3.4

Overall, respondents paid a fee equivalent to 6% of the last amount remitted in 2017

Since the early 1990s, international remittances migrants sent back home have steadily increased. In many developing countries, remittances have surpassed foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio flows from financial markets, and official development assistance (ODA).Note Remittances are sent at high frequencies and in relatively small amounts; resulting in higher sending costs.Note The costs of sending money have been debated in the literature on remittances and policy decisions.Note For example, the G20 countries are aware of the burden on international migrants sending money abroad and since 2000, they have committed to reducing these costs, aiming to lower sending costs to 3% of the amount remitted and eliminate corridors with costs higher than 5% by 2030.Note

On average, remitters’ last money transfers cost them 6% of the total amount sent (Table 6).Note This figure does not differ much from that reported in other studies. For instance, Yang (2011) reported in a study of El Salvador migrants in the United States that the average fee paid as a share of the total amount was 6%. Previous research consistently reported that banking is the most expensive channel for sending money abroad.Note Findings from this study show that in-person and online banking cost about 4% which is below the 6% share for an in-person transfer through a money transfer store (Table 6).


Table 6
Fees paid as percentage of the amount sent last time in 2017, overall and by category of the amount remitted
Table summary
This table displays the results of Fees paid as percentage of the amount sent last time in 2017. The information is grouped by Money transfer method (appearing as row headers), Percentage of fee paid during last money transfer in 2017, Amount remitted (last transfer), Amount less or equal 200 $, Amount between 201$ and less than 1000 $, Amount equal 1000 $ or higher , % and 95% Confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Money transfer method Percentage of fee paid during last money transfer in 2017 Amount remitted (last transfer)
Amount less or equal 200 $ Amount between 201$ and less than 1000 $ Amount equal 1000 $ or higher
% 95% Confidence interval % 95% Confidence interval % 95% Confidence interval % 95% Confidence interval
from to from to from to from to
Total (all methods) 5.6 5.4 5.7 9.4 9.1 9.7 4.0 3.8 4.2 1.6 1.4 1.7
Banking in person 4.1 3.6 4.7 10.7 8.8 12.6 5.9 4.9 6.9 1.5 1.2 1.9
Banking online 3.9 3.5 4.3 7.5 6.6 8.4 3.5 3.2 3.9 1.2 0.9 1.6
Money transfer store 6.2 6.0 6.4 9.8 9.5 10.1 4.2 3.9 4.5 1.7 1.5 1.8
Money transfer store online 4.5 3.9 5.1 7.5 6.2 8.8 3.0 2.7 3.4 1.5 1.0 2.0
Currency exchange store 4.6 3.6 5.7 11.4 8.4 14.3 3.0 2.6 3.4 1.4 0.9 1.8
Another type of store 4.8 4.4 5.3 7.9 7.2 8.5 3.2 2.7 3.7 1.4 0.9 1.9
Another service provider online 2.5 1.9 3.2 4.3 3.0 5.6 2.0 1.3 2.7 0.8 0.5 1.1
Informal network 4.4 3.6 5.1 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.8 3.4 6.1 1.0 0.6 1.3
Other 5.7 4.3 7.1 10.0 7.3 12.7 4.2 2.7 5.7 1.0 0.7 1.4

The amount of money sent abroad strongly affects sending costs per transaction: Small amounts are costly

In general, individual remittance transactions tend to be small, and the transaction fees tend to be relatively high.Note Table 6 presents transaction fees as a percentage of the total amount sent during the last money transfer by categories of amount sent. Transaction fees follow a clear gradient: they decrease substantially when people send more money. For instance, the transaction fees for in-person banking represented 11% of the amount sent if that amount was equal or less than $200. The fee for remitters who also used in-person banking services but sent $201 to $999 was 6% and 2% if the amount sent was $1,000 or more.

For currency exchange stores, the fee as a percentage of the amount transacted was 11% for amounts less than $201, 3% if the amount sent was between $201 and $999, and 1% if the amount sent was $1,000 or more.

In part because the average amount sent varies by destination region of the money transfer, average fee paid during the last transaction also varied by destination region (Chart 8). In 2017, the average fee paid in the last transaction, as a percentage of the amount sent, was higher for remitters who sent money to relatives or friends living in the Americas (9%). It was followed by Eastern Europe and Southern Europe (8%), and sub-Saharan Africa (7%). In contrast, remitters who sent money to an Eastern Asia country paid only 2% in remittance fees, mostly because they sent larger amounts on average.

More details about specific destination countries are provided in Appendix table A.14. Moreover, Tables A.15 and A.16 highlight variations in the level of fees paid by age group, birth region, year of arrival, employment status, personal income and region of residence in Canada. Among other things, the results show that on average, remitters residing in the Atlantic Provinces and in British Colombia paid the lowest transaction fees (5%), while those in Quebec paid the highest fees (8%).

Chart 8

Data table for Chart 8 
Data table for Chart 8
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 8. The information is grouped by Destination region (appearing as row headers), Average fee paid for last transfer and Overall average, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Destination region Average fee paid for last transfer Overall average
percent
Eastern Asia 2.1 5.6
Southern Asia 3.6 5.6
Southeast Asia and Oceania 4.3 5.6
Non ODA-eligible countries 5.8 5.6
Northern Africa 6.0 5.6
West Central Asia and the Middle East 6.2 5.6
Sub-Saharan Africa 7.4 5.6
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 8.0 5.6
Americas 8.5 5.6

Convenience for both sender and recipient is the main reason for choosing the last money transfer method

While there is evidence that the amount remitted and the money transfer method affect transaction costs, other factors can determine how a person chooses the money transfer method. These factors include convenience for both the sender and the recipient, cost, reliability, and timeliness. Altogether, convenience for both the sender and the recipient was the main reason respondents chose their method of sending money last time. This percentage was slightly higher among women (64%) than men (61%) (Table 7).


Table 7
Most important factor to remitters when sending money outside of Canada last time in 2017, by birth region and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Most important factor to remitters when sending money outside of Canada last time in 2017 Most important factor to remitters when sending money outside of Canada (last time), Convenience for the person sending money, Convenience for the person receiving money, Cost of the method, Reliability of the method, Timeliness of the method, Other reason, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Most important factor to remitters when sending money outside of Canada (last time)
Convenience for the person sending money Convenience for the person receiving money Cost of the method Reliability of the method Timeliness of the method Other reason
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to from to from to from to
Total 30.4 29.4 31.5 32.1 31.0 33.2 9.4 8.8 10.1 16.7 15.8 17.5 8.1 7.6 8.7 3.2 2.8 3.6
Men 29.7 28.3 31.1 31.2 29.8 32.7 10.7 9.7 11.7 16.9 15.7 18.1 8.7 7.8 9.5 2.9 2.3 3.4
Women 31.2 29.6 32.7 33.0 31.4 34.6 8.2 7.3 9.0 16.5 15.3 17.6 7.6 6.9 8.4 3.5 2.9 4.1
Birth region
Americas 31.0 29.0 33.0 30.6 28.5 32.6 10.6 9.2 12.1 13.8 12.4 15.3 10.8 9.5 12.2 3.1 2.3 3.8
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 31.0 26.7 35.3 31.9 27.5 36.2 12.1 9.0 15.3 12.6 9.5 15.8 9.1 6.3 11.8 3.3 1.5 5.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 27.2 25.0 29.4 27.7 25.4 30.0 12.6 11.0 14.3 17.3 15.3 19.3 11.8 10.2 13.4 3.4 2.4 4.4
Northern Africa 25.9 22.3 29.5 21.1 17.7 24.6 12.0 9.3 14.6 18.9 15.7 22.2 19.0 15.8 22.2 3.1 1.7 4.5
West Central Asia and the Middle East 25.5 21.9 29.0 30.7 27.1 34.4 10.7 8.2 13.3 20.0 16.8 23.2 8.4 6.3 10.5 4.7 2.9 6.4
Eastern Asia 35.0 28.9 41.0 31.3 25.2 37.4 5.9 3.0 8.7 19.2 14.2 24.1 4.8 2.0 7.7 3.9 1.3 6.4
Southeast Asia and Oceania 32.3 29.9 34.7 37.1 34.6 39.6 6.6 5.4 7.9 16.8 15.0 18.7 4.2 3.2 5.2 2.8 2.0 3.7
Southern Asia 30.4 28.1 32.7 32.1 29.7 34.5 9.4 7.9 10.9 17.7 15.8 19.7 7.2 5.9 8.5 3.2 2.3 4.0

Findings also show that the percentage of respondents reporting that convenience for both sender and recipient was the most important factor for choosing the method they used in the last money transfer varies by birth region. For respondents born in Northern Africa, 47% reported that convenience for both sender and recipient was the main reason guiding their choice to use the last method of money transfer. In this region, the timeliness of the method (19%) was almost equally important as convenience for the recipient (21%), while this percentage ranged from 4% to 12% for respondents born in in other regions.

Remittances are mainly used to pay for living and medical expenses

Following Lucas and Stark’s paper in 1985, Docquier and Rapoport (2006) have documented migrants’ motivations for remittances. They provide a model of remittance-sending decisions that incorporates a variety of motives, including altruism, exchange (as compensation for services the migrant received from relatives or friends in the home country), insurance, loan repayment and investment.Note However, how remittances are used once they reach the destination are beyond the sender’s control from abroad. According to Yang (2011), little is known about remittance-sending decisions, and specifically about whether migrants would like to control the money sent abroad. Yet this question is crucial to further understand the motivations for migration, intra-household resource allocation and remittance flows from host countries.

Respondents in this survey were asked how the money they sent is used, to the best of their knowledge (Chart 9).

Findings indicate that 59% of respondents sent money abroad to pay for living expenses,Note or 61% of male senders and 58% of female senders. For 43% of respondents, medical expenses were another important motivation for remittances. Women (44%) frequently remit for medical expenses compared to men (42%). Finally, 35% of respondents sent money back home for gifts. Women (37%) were more likely to send remittances for gifts than men (32%).

How remittances are used also reflects the socioeconomic context of the destination region. For example, more respondents report using remittances to pay for education in sub-Saharan Africa (34%) compared with all other destination regions (Table A.9 in appendix). This may be due to the fact that education subsidies in many sub-Saharan African countries are either insignificant or non-existent.Note Therefore, education systems rely on fees that parents or guardians pay to send children to school, a financial burden that households cannot easily afford. To help, migrants financially support families or households to send children to school.

Chart 9

Data table for Chart 9 
Data table for Chart 9
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 9 Purpose of the remittances, To pay for living expenses, To pay for medical expenses, Given as a gift , To pay for education, To pay for a major expense, To pay for non-health related emergencies , Other purpose, To pay for entertainment or leisure activities and To pay for insurance, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Purpose of the remittances
To pay for living expenses To pay for medical expenses Given as a gift To pay for education To pay for a major expense To pay for non-health related emergencies Other purpose To pay for entertainment or leisure activities To pay for insurance
percent
Total 59.3 43.3 34.6 21.7 11.5 6.1 5.1 5.0 2.1
Men 60.6 42.1 31.8 21.5 11.7 5.9 5.7 5.4 2.6
Women 58.2 44.4 37.4 21.8 11.2 6.3 4.6 4.7 1.7

Another interesting question is whether the use of remittances differs according to the destinations’ level of economic development (Table 8).


Table 8
Purpose of remittances, remitters in 2017, by destination
Table summary
This table displays the results of Purpose of remittances Purpose of remittances, Pay for living expenses, Pay for medical expenses, Pay for education, Give a gift , % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Purpose of remittances
Pay for living expenses Pay for medical expenses Pay for education Give a gift
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to from to
Total
Destination region by level of economic development
Least developed countries 72.8 70.2 75.3 51.0 48.1 54.0 33.9 31.2 36.5 24.0 21.5 26.4
Lower-middle income countries 59.2 57.6 60.8 46.8 45.3 48.4 23.2 21.8 24.6 36.5 34.9 38.1
Upper-middle income countries 58.1 56.0 60.1 38.5 36.6 40.4 13.5 12.1 15.0 33.0 31.0 35.1
High-income countries 39.5 35.5 43.4 14.6 11.7 17.6 13.8 10.9 16.7 45.0 41.0 49.0
Male
Destination region by level of economic development
Least developed countries 74.4 70.8 78.0 48.8 44.7 52.8 35.8 32.1 39.5 22.5 19.1 25.9
Lower-middle income countries 59.3 57.1 61.5 44.8 42.6 47.1 21.3 19.5 23.2 33.4 31.3 35.5
Upper-middle income countries 59.8 56.8 62.8 39.2 36.3 42.2 15.3 13.1 17.5 30.4 27.5 33.4
High-income countries 46.2 40.6 51.9 14.7 10.7 18.8 15.6 11.6 19.6 40.8 35.0 46.6
Female
Destination region by level of economic development
Least developed countries 71.0 67.2 74.8 53.4 49.2 57.7 31.8 28.1 35.6 25.5 21.8 29.2
Lower-middle income countries 59.1 56.9 61.3 48.8 46.5 51.1 25.1 23.1 27.1 39.5 37.2 41.8
Upper-middle income countries 56.5 53.6 59.4 37.8 35.1 40.5 11.9 10.1 13.8 35.4 32.6 38.3
High-income countries 33.1 27.7 38.5 14.5 10.5 18.5 12.1 8.1 16.2 48.9 43.4 54.4

Findings indicate that paying for living expenses is still an important motivation for remitting. However, there is a notable gradient when moving from least developed countries to high income countries. While 73% of respondents reported using remittances to pay for living expenses in least developed countries, only 40% of respondents sent remittances for this purpose to high income countries. In contrast, 45% of respondents reported sending money as a gift to high-income countries. Looking at least developed countries, findings indicate that 24% of respondents sent money as a gift. The corresponding figures for lower-middle income countries and upper-middle income countries were 37% and 33%, respectively. The use of remittances is linked to the socioeconomic conditions of the destination region. Money sent to least developed countries fulfills basic needs such as food, health and education. As the cost of sending money abroad may impact the volume of remittance flows, lower costs could have positive effects on volume. Previous research suggests that lower costs will result in more money that can be either sent abroad or kept to help ensure the senders’ well-being.Note

Conclusion

This report examined remittance flows from Canada in 2017, and remittance behaviors of people aged 18 years and above, who were born in eligible Official Development Assistance (ODA) countries. These respondents were either naturalized Canadians, permanent residents or persons with a work permit. More specifically, the report answered the following research questions:

These questions are of chief importance for two main reasons. First, there is evidence that remittances have surpassed Official Development Assistance in many developing countries, and they represent a significant percentage of GDP in some countries. Second, sending money can be costly given the lack of transparency of exchange rates among money transfer providers and relatively high fees charged to send money in some countries or regions.Note

In 2017, 37% of respondents sent money abroad to relatives or friends, with a slight variation between men (38%) and women (36%). The capacity to remit was associated with individual and socioeconomic characteristics such as age, employment status, time since arrival in Canada, and personal income. On average remitters sent $2,855 in 2017.

Overall, remitters sent $5.2 billion in 2017; with men sending a bit more than women ($2.9 billion vs. $2.3 billion) which reflect previous results about the propensity to remit.

Digital technology has transformed the world. The development of digital channels has also had an impact on remittances, as it is much cheaper to remit digitally than traditional channels dominated by MTSs such as Western Union, MoneyGram, and the banking systems. Despite these recent developments, 56% of respondents went in-person to money transfer stores to send money; therefore they still have paid substantive amount of money to remit. In this report, people paid on average 6% of the total amount remitted, with small amounts (less than $201) remitted being costly compared with moderate and larger amounts.

Data from SIMT used in this report offer a very interesting research agenda. For instance, it is an invaluable source to estimate the use of on-line methods and digital remittances. The proportion of people using digital remittances is still low compared with traditional Money Transfer Providers (MTPs) such as Western Union and MoneyGram; yet it is well known that they are the cheaper option which could help immigrants to save money. What are the factors underlying this pattern and what are the barriers to widespread their utilization?

It is also possible to undertake more in-depth analysis to better understand remittance behaviours. Such analysis could help to explain, for example, some of the differences between men and women highlighted throughout the report. Furthermore, why women born in Philippines remit more than their male counterparts, while the opposite is true for all other birth regions? Finally, do women still remit on average less money than male counterparts when differences in personal income and other socioeconomic characteristics are accounted for?

Another potential research avenue is that SIMT data allow more in-depth analysis of variation in remittance behaviours by birth region. For instance, when controlling for personal income and length of time in Canada, do people from different countries or regions have similar remittance behaviours? If not, what are the drivers of these differences?  Finally, researchers might be interested to examine the main factors associated with the percentage of fee paid, using multivariate models including destination region, the money transfer method used and the amount sent, among other factors.

In summary, SIMT provides a comprehensive look into the propensity to remit and its association with individual and socioeconomic characteristics of naturalized Canadians, permanent residents and persons with work permit living in Canada; their remittance behaviours and needs, the knowledge and utilization of methods of transfer; and their experience with the remitting process. In addition, remittance flows can be estimated, a somewhat unique feature of the SIMT, and regional differences among regions can be assessed.

Appendix


Table A. 1
Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017, average amount sent and total amount in millions of dollars sent in 2017, by country of birth
Table summary
This table displays the results of Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA eligible countries who sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017. The information is grouped by Country of birth (appearing as row headers), Remitters in 2017, Average amount sent in 2017, Total amount sent in 2017, %, 95% confidence interval, dollars and millions of dollars, calculated using from, to and from units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Country of birth Remitters in 2017 Average amount sent in 2017 Total amount sent in 2017
% 95% confidence interval dollars 95% confidence interval millions of dollars 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
El Salvador 50.0 44.0 55.9 1,835 1,214 2,456 46.7 29.1 64.3
Guatemala 50.1 40.5 59.6 2,000 953 3,044 20.3 8.3 32.3
Mexico 39.0 34.1 43.8 2,000 1,470 2,532 58.2 40.5 75.9
Cuba 56.6 45.9 67.2 1,630 404 2,855 13.9 2.8 25.1
Dominican Republic 64.4 52.7 76.2 2,365 1,400 3,325 18.7 9.4 27.9
Grenada 51.4 38.1 64.6 1,610 591 2,631 8.8 2.4 15.3
Haiti 62.2 58.4 66.1 1,455 1,259 1,652 97.1 81.0 113.1
Jamaica 55.9 52.3 59.4 1,810 1,358 2,262 131.8 97.1 166.4
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 61.2 48.9 73.6 1,200 798 1,600 7.8 4.1 11.4
Brazil 24.8 19.7 29.8 2,245 1,566 2,920 24.8 15.4 34.1
Chile 27.4 20.4 34.5 2,700 1,365 4,037 19.3 8.3 30.2
Colombia 49.4 44.6 54.3 1,980 1,561 2,399 67.9 51.5 84.3
Ecuador 35.7 26.4 45.0 2,850 558 5,143 16.9 1.9 31.9
Guyana 30.6 26.4 34.8 1,400 901 1,903 32.8 20.1 45.5
Peru 38.6 31.6 45.7 2,210 1,515 2,906 27.3 16.7 38.0
Venezuela 50.9 43.6 58.2 1,660 1,152 2,168 24.9 16.6 33.3
Moldova 40.7 31.1 50.3 1,490 802 2,178 9.0 4.1 13.9
Ukraine 31.0 27.0 35.0 2,025 1,333 2,716 46.5 29.0 64.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 46.1 39.8 52.5 1,500 1,073 1,926 26.0 17.2 34.7
Serbia 36.1 29.3 42.8 2,255 1,483 3,029 27.1 15.7 38.4
Ghana 79.9 73.3 86.6 2,655 1,860 3,452 45.8 29.9 61.7
Côte d'Ivoire 68.1 58.0 78.2 2,605 1,818 3,390 24.3 14.7 34.0
Nigeria 61.2 56.2 66.3 2,900 2,312 3,492 88.9 67.6 110.3
Senegal 88.1 80.5 95.8 2,530 1,855 3,201 20.0 12.8 27.3
Burundi 56.2 43.0 69.4 2,400 1,037 3,765 13.2 4.5 21.9
Ethiopia 55.0 48.1 61.8 2,225 1,489 2,963 41.5 25.9 57.1
Eritrea 45.8 35.1 56.4 1,925 1,295 2,552 13.9 7.8 19.9
Kenya 32.1 25.0 39.2 4,490 2,320 6,662 37.3 17.0 57.6
Mauritius 33.5 25.1 41.8 2,865 476 5,252 18.8 2.0 35.5
Somalia 66.5 57.5 75.6 2,465 1,862 3,071 32.3 21.3 43.4
Zimbabwe 51.4 40.7 62.0 3,655 2,716 4,591 24.7 15.3 34.2
Tanzania 22.4 15.4 29.5 2,480 671 4,292 10.0 2.4 17.7
Algeria 14.8 12.1 17.5 1,830 1,143 2,515 18.6 10.6 26.6
Morocco 44.0 40.1 47.9 2,165 1,645 2,686 65.2 47.8 82.5
Sudan 46.7 35.4 58.0 5,415 850 9,983 24.2 2.4 45.9
Tunisia 49.5 41.4 57.6 2,250 1,588 2,916 18.8 11.8 25.7
Egypt 20.3 16.7 24.0 4,680 2,282 7,076 48.5 21.7 75.3
Cameroon 78.9 72.7 85.1 2,455 2,024 2,881 46.0 35.5 56.6
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 67.2 60.6 73.8 1,820 1,402 2,234 28.9 20.8 37.0
South Africa, Republic of 24.9 20.4 29.4 4,595 2,504 6,690 50.9 25.4 76.4
Afghanistan 31.2 25.7 36.8 1,940 1,364 2,512 29.3 18.7 40.0
Iran 11.3 9.3 13.3 7,430 4,559 10,298 137.5 78.4 196.7
Iraq 18.8 14.7 22.8 3,065 665 5,468 35.7 7.0 64.4
Lebanon 24.1 20.7 27.5 3,280 2,298 4,264 70.5 46.5 94.4
Syria 22.3 17.6 26.9 1,705 1,195 2,215 22.8 14.2 31.4
Turkey 26.9 19.7 34.1 2,505 1,681 3,331 16.2 9.0 23.4
China 10.8 9.5 12.1 4,770 3,352 6,185 349.9 238.0 461.7
Philippines 69.0 67.0 71.1 2,895 2,654 3,133 1216.1 1102.0 1330.2
Viet Nam 29.1 24.6 33.5 2,545 1,580 3,515 103.0 59.9 146.0
Bangladesh 38.6 32.5 44.7 2,295 1,268 3,323 56.8 28.8 84.9
Sri Lanka 35.0 30.7 39.3 2,065 1,480 2,652 88.5 59.9 117.2
India 33.1 31.4 34.8 3,870 3,408 4,328 918.4 799.3 1037.4
Nepal 56.3 43.7 69.0 3,675 1,080 6,274 31.5 7.2 55.7
Pakistan 43.6 40.3 46.9 3,055 2,336 3,778 290.8 218.1 363.5
Fiji 33.6 25.9 41.4 2,275 1,223 3,331 18.6 8.9 28.2

Table A. 2
Sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics, total target population and remitters in 2017, by sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics Target population (Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries), Remitters in 2017, Total, 95% confidence interval, Men and Women, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Target population (Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries) Remitters in 2017
Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to % from to % from to % from to
Total 100% Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100% Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100% Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100% Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100% Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100% Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable
Age group
18-29 16.1 15.8 16.4 17.1 16.7 17.5 15.2 14.8 15.6 12.2 11.5 12.9 12.8 11.8 13.8 11.6 10.7 12.6
30-39 21.4 21.1 21.7 20.6 20.1 21.0 22.1 21.7 22.5 25.3 24.5 26.1 24.9 23.8 26.0 25.7 24.5 26.8
40-49 22.1 21.9 22.4 21.7 21.3 22.1 22.6 22.2 23.0 26.7 25.9 27.4 25.6 24.5 26.6 27.7 26.6 28.8
50-59 18.2 18.0 18.4 18.7 18.4 19.1 17.8 17.5 18.1 20.0 19.3 20.7 20.9 19.9 21.9 19.2 18.3 20.1
60-69 12.0 11.8 12.2 12.1 11.8 12.4 12.0 11.7 12.3 10.2 9.7 10.8 10.6 9.8 11.3 9.9 9.1 10.6
70 and older 10.1 10.0 10.2 9.8 9.6 10.0 10.4 10.2 10.6 5.6 5.2 6.1 5.3 4.7 5.9 5.9 5.3 6.6
Marital status
Married 64.6 64.0 65.2 67.5 66.6 68.3 62.0 61.2 62.9 68.6 67.6 69.6 73.0 71.6 74.3 64.4 62.9 65.8
Common-Law 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.5 4.2 3.4 3.1 3.8 4.2 3.7 4.6 4.3 3.6 4.9 4.1 3.4 4.7
Widowed 4.0 3.8 4.3 1.3 1.1 1.5 6.5 6.1 7.0 2.8 2.4 3.2 0.7 0.5 1.0 4.8 4.1 5.5
Separated 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.2 1.9 2.4 3.3 3.0 3.6 3.3 2.9 3.7 2.4 1.9 2.9 4.1 3.5 4.8
Divorced 4.9 4.6 5.2 3.5 3.2 3.9 6.1 5.7 6.6 4.7 4.3 5.2 3.5 2.9 4.1 5.9 5.2 6.6
Single, never married 20.0 19.6 20.5 21.7 21.0 22.3 18.6 17.9 19.2 16.4 15.6 17.2 16.2 15.0 17.3 16.7 15.5 17.8
Highest educational level
Less than high school 10.2 9.8 10.6 9.2 8.6 9.7 11.2 10.6 11.8 8.4 7.7 9.0 8.3 7.4 9.3 8.4 7.5 9.4
High school 20.8 20.2 21.3 21.3 20.5 22.1 20.2 19.5 21.0 18.8 17.9 19.7 19.0 17.7 20.4 18.6 17.4 19.8
Postsecondary 27.0 26.4 27.7 25.9 25.1 26.8 28.1 27.2 28.9 30.2 29.2 31.2 27.5 26.1 28.8 32.8 31.3 34.4
University (Bachelor's degree or higher) 42.0 41.4 42.6 43.6 42.7 44.4 40.5 39.6 41.3 42.6 41.5 43.7 45.2 43.6 46.7 40.2 38.6 41.7
Immigration status
Canadian citizen by naturalization 65.8 65.2 66.4 65.0 64.1 65.8 66.5 65.7 67.3 62.4 61.3 63.4 60.5 59.1 62.0 64.1 62.7 65.6
Landed immigrant or permanent resident 25.6 25.1 26.1 25.9 25.1 26.8 25.3 24.5 26.1 29.0 28.0 29.9 30.1 28.7 31.5 27.9 26.5 29.2
Temporary or non-permanent resident 4.6 4.4 4.8 5.2 4.9 5.6 4.0 3.7 4.3 5.0 4.6 5.4 5.9 5.2 6.7 4.1 3.5 4.7
Not stated 4.0 3.7 4.3 3.9 3.5 4.2 4.2 3.8 4.5 3.7 3.3 4.1 3.4 2.8 4.0 3.9 3.3 4.6
Year of arrival
Before 1980 10.5 10.2 10.9 10.7 10.2 11.2 10.4 9.9 10.9 6.7 6.2 7.1 6.6 5.9 7.3 6.7 6.0 7.5
1980-1989 11.2 10.8 11.6 11.4 10.8 12.0 11.0 10.4 11.5 10.2 9.5 10.9 10.1 9.2 11.0 10.3 9.3 11.2
1990-1999 19.4 18.9 19.9 18.4 17.7 19.2 20.3 19.5 21.0 18.3 17.5 19.2 17.0 15.9 18.2 19.6 18.4 20.8
2000-2009 31.7 31.1 32.3 31.3 30.4 32.1 32.1 31.3 33.0 33.5 32.5 34.6 32.4 30.9 33.9 34.6 33.1 36.1
2010-2017 27.2 26.7 27.7 28.2 27.4 29.0 26.3 25.5 27.0 31.3 30.3 32.3 33.9 32.4 35.3 28.8 27.3 30.1
Employment status
Employed full-time (30 or more hours per week) 57.5 56.9 58.1 67.4 66.6 68.2 48.5 47.6 49.3 71.4 70.4 72.5 81.3 80.1 82.5 62.0 60.4 63.6
Employed part-time (Less than 30 hours per week) 13.4 12.9 13.9 10.3 9.7 10.8 16.3 15.6 17.0 11.4 10.6 12.1 7.2 6.4 8.0 15.3 14.2 16.5
Not employed 29.1 28.6 29.6 22.3 21.6 23.0 35.2 34.5 36.0 17.2 16.4 18.0 11.5 10.6 12.5 22.7 21.4 24.0
Personal income
Less than $20,000 36.3 35.6 36.9 27.8 26.9 28.6 44.1 43.2 45.0 25.5 24.5 26.5 17.3 16.1 18.6 33.4 31.8 34.9
$20,000-$29,999 14.3 13.9 14.8 13.4 12.7 14.1 15.2 14.5 16.0 16.3 15.4 17.2 14.2 13.1 15.4 18.3 17.0 19.7
$30,000-$39,999 12.2 11.8 12.7 12.5 11.8 13.2 12.0 11.4 12.6 14.9 14.1 15.7 15.2 14.0 16.5 14.6 13.5 15.8
$40,000-$49,999 10.4 10.0 10.9 11.5 10.9 12.2 9.5 8.9 10.0 12.7 11.9 13.5 14.0 12.9 15.2 11.4 10.4 12.5
$50,000-$69,999 12.0 11.5 12.4 14.5 13.8 15.2 9.6 9.1 10.2 14.2 13.5 14.9 16.9 15.8 18.0 11.6 10.6 12.6
$70,000-$89,999 6.6 6.3 6.9 8.5 8.0 9.1 4.8 4.4 5.2 7.3 6.8 7.9 9.4 8.5 10.3 5.3 4.6 6.0
$90,000 and over 8.1 7.8 8.5 11.8 11.2 12.3 4.8 4.4 5.2 9.1 8.5 9.7 12.9 11.9 13.9 5.3 4.7 6.0
Household income
Less than $40,000 27.9 27.3 28.6 25.9 25.0 26.7 29.9 28.9 30.8 23.2 22.2 24.1 21.6 20.2 22.9 24.7 23.3 26.1
$40,000-$59,999 18.0 17.4 18.6 17.8 17.0 18.6 18.2 17.3 19.0 19.2 18.2 20.2 19.0 17.7 20.3 19.4 18.1 20.8
$60,000-$79,999 15.3 14.7 15.8 15.3 14.5 16.0 15.2 14.5 16.0 16.9 15.9 17.9 16.6 15.3 17.9 17.2 15.9 18.5
$80,000-$109,999 17.3 16.8 17.9 17.9 17.1 18.7 16.9 16.1 17.6 18.6 17.7 19.5 18.9 17.6 20.1 18.3 17.0 19.6
$110,000 and over 21.5 20.9 22.0 23.2 22.3 24.0 19.9 19.1 20.6 22.2 21.2 23.1 24.0 22.6 25.3 20.4 19.1 21.7

Table A. 3
Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada, by birth region and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada People who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada, Total, 95% confidence interval, Men and Women, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
People who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada
Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to
Total 51.8 51.1 52.5 54.0 53.1 54.9 49.8 48.9 50.7
Birth region
Americas 61.6 60.2 63.0 61.1 59.1 63.2 61.9 60.1 63.8
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 53.4 50.7 56.0 54.7 50.9 58.4 52.2 48.5 55.8
Sub-Saharan Africa 65.2 63.5 66.8 68.0 65.8 70.3 62.3 60.0 64.7
Northern Africa 44.3 42.1 46.4 48.5 45.5 51.6 39.5 36.4 42.5
West Central Asia and the Middle East 32.5 30.9 34.2 36.8 34.5 39.2 28.0 25.7 30.3
Eastern Asia 26.5 24.7 28.3 28.3 25.6 31.1 25.0 22.7 27.4
Southeast Asia and Oceania 69.3 67.6 71.1 64.9 62.1 67.8 72.5 70.3 74.7
Southern Asia 51.8 50.3 53.3 59.9 57.9 61.9 43.1 40.8 45.3
Birth region, by birth country level of economic development
Least Developed Countries 62.0 60.2 63.8 65.1 62.5 67.7 59.0 56.3 61.7
Lower Middle Income Countries 59.0 58.0 59.9 61.2 59.9 62.6 56.9 55.6 58.2
Upper Middle Income Countries 40.0 39.0 41.1 41.5 40.0 43.0 38.7 37.4 40.1

Table A. 4
Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada, by selected characteristics and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Percentage of Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada People who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada, Total, 95% confidence interval, Men and Women, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
People who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada
Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to
Total 51.8 51.1 52.5 54.0 53.1 54.9 49.8 48.9 50.7
Age group
18-29 36.6 34.9 38.4 36.9 34.5 39.3 36.4 33.9 38.8
30-39 57.7 56.3 59.1 61.4 59.4 63.5 54.6 52.6 56.5
40-49 60.7 59.3 62.0 63.1 61.1 65.1 58.5 56.7 60.3
50-59 57.0 55.5 58.6 59.2 57.0 61.4 54.9 52.9 57.0
60-69 50.1 48.2 51.9 53.5 50.9 56.1 46.9 44.3 49.6
70 and older 36.8 34.6 38.9 38.9 35.8 42.0 34.9 32.1 37.7
Marital status
Married 55.1 54.2 55.9 58.7 57.6 59.8 51.5 50.4 52.6
Common-Law 57.5 53.8 61.1 55.4 50.4 60.3 59.7 54.4 64.9
Widowed 41.0 37.4 44.6 44.1 34.8 53.5 40.4 36.5 44.4
Separated 63.7 59.7 67.6 61.7 55.3 68.1 64.8 59.9 69.8
Divorced 54.2 51.1 57.3 57.9 52.8 63.0 52.3 48.5 56.1
Single, never married 40.3 38.8 41.8 38.5 36.4 40.5 42.2 40.1 44.3
Highest educational level
Less than high school 44.5 42.2 46.8 50.8 47.3 54.3 39.8 36.7 42.9
High school 47.1 45.5 48.7 48.8 46.6 51.0 45.6 43.4 47.8
Postsecondary 56.0 54.7 57.3 55.9 53.9 57.8 56.1 54.4 57.8
University (Bachelor's degree or higher) 53.4 52.4 54.5 56.4 55.0 57.8 50.5 49.0 52.0
Immigration status
Canadian citizen by naturalization 52.2 51.3 53.0 53.8 52.7 54.9 50.7 49.6 51.8
Landed immigrant or permanent resident 52.0 50.5 53.4 55.6 53.6 57.5 48.6 46.7 50.5
Temporary or non-permanent resident 47.6 44.1 51.1 50.7 46.0 55.4 43.9 38.9 48.9
Not stated 49.9 46.6 53.3 52.0 46.9 57.1 48.2 43.4 53.0
Year of arrival
Before 1980 43.2 41.3 45.2 44.3 41.5 47.0 42.2 39.4 45.0
1980-1989 51.7 49.5 53.8 52.0 49.1 55.0 51.4 48.3 54.4
1990-1999 52.0 50.4 53.6 54.6 52.3 56.9 49.9 47.8 52.0
2000-2009 54.8 53.6 56.0 56.5 54.8 58.2 53.2 51.6 54.9
2010-2017 51.2 49.9 52.6 54.9 53.0 56.8 47.7 45.8 49.6
Employment status
Employed full-time (30 or more hours per week) 61.1 60.2 61.9 62.0 60.9 63.1 59.9 58.6 61.2
Employed part-time (Less than 30 hours per week) 44.7 42.8 46.6 40.5 37.4 43.6 47.1 44.7 49.4
Not employed 36.7 35.5 38.0 36.1 34.0 38.2 37.1 35.5 38.7
Personal income
Less than $20,000 39.0 37.8 40.3 37.4 35.5 39.3 40.0 38.5 41.4
$20,000-$29,999 55.6 53.7 57.5 54.5 51.7 57.3 56.5 54.0 59.1
$30,000-$39,999 60.3 58.3 62.2 61.0 58.2 63.8 59.6 56.9 62.4
$40,000-$49,999 62.1 60.0 64.2 64.9 61.9 67.8 58.9 55.9 61.9
$50,000-$69,999 60.0 58.1 61.9 61.5 58.9 64.0 58.0 55.0 60.9
$70,000-$89,999 59.5 56.9 62.0 61.1 57.9 64.4 56.7 52.6 60.8
$90,000 and over 60.6 58.3 62.8 61.9 59.3 64.5 57.5 53.3 61.8
Household income
Less than $40,000 44.1 42.7 45.5 45.1 43.1 47.1 43.3 41.4 45.1
$40,000-$59,999 54.5 52.8 56.2 57.4 54.9 59.8 51.9 49.5 54.3
$60,000-$79,999 57.0 55.2 58.9 59.5 56.8 62.1 54.7 52.1 57.4
$80,000-$109,999 55.8 54.0 57.5 57.3 54.9 59.7 54.2 51.8 56.7
$110,000 and over 54.9 53.3 56.5 56.9 54.8 59.0 52.7 50.5 54.9

Table A. 5
Knowledge and use (%) of remittance methods, Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who ever who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada, by sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Knowledge and use (%) of remittance methods Knowledge and use of the method, Have used this method, Have not used, but know this method, Do not know this method, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Knowledge and use of the method
Have used this method Have not used, but know this method Do not know this method
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total (men and women)
Going to a bank or credit union 31.9 30.9 32.8 47.7 46.7 48.7 20.5 19.6 21.3
Going to a money transfer store 71.7 70.8 72.5 23.1 22.3 23.9 5.2 4.8 5.7
Going to a currency exchange store to send money 8.0 7.5 8.5 42.0 41.0 43.0 50.0 48.9 51.0
Going to another type of store or establishment 16.8 16.0 17.5 34.5 33.6 35.5 48.7 47.7 49.6
Bringing money to give to relatives or friends while visiting 35.2 34.3 36.2 52.1 51.1 53.1 12.7 12.0 13.4
Giving money to someone who was travelling to give to relatives or friends for you 18.4 17.6 19.1 66.4 65.4 67.4 15.2 14.5 16.0
Giving money to someone who was visiting Canada 10.0 9.4 10.5 71.2 70.3 72.1 18.9 18.1 19.7
Using an informal transfer network system 2.5 2.2 2.8 20.1 19.3 20.9 77.5 76.7 78.2
Using a bank or credit union’s website 11.2 10.5 11.8 48.4 47.4 49.3 40.4 39.5 41.4
Using a money transfer provider’s website 16.2 15.5 17.0 46.6 45.5 47.6 37.2 36.3 38.1
Using another type of service provider’s website 4.4 4.0 4.8 42.3 41.3 43.2 53.4 52.4 54.4
Using a bank or credit union’s mobile app 4.8 4.4 5.3 47.6 46.7 48.6 47.5 46.5 48.5
Using a money transfer provider’s mobile app 6.7 6.2 7.3 44.5 43.5 45.5 48.8 47.8 49.7
Using another type of service provider’s mobile app 2.0 1.7 2.3 39.8 38.8 40.7 58.2 57.3 59.2
Using a cryptocurrency 0.3 0.2 0.5 27.0 26.2 27.9 72.6 71.8 73.5
Men
Going to a bank or credit union 34.1 32.8 35.4 46.7 45.3 48.1 19.2 18.1 20.3
Going to a money transfer store 71.2 70.0 72.4 23.9 22.8 25.1 4.9 4.3 5.5
Going to a currency exchange store to send money 8.7 7.9 9.5 43.2 41.8 44.6 48.0 46.6 49.4
Going to another type of store or establishment 15.4 14.4 16.5 35.0 33.7 36.3 49.6 48.2 50.9
Bringing money to give to relatives or friends while visiting 33.6 32.3 34.9 53.3 51.9 54.8 13.0 12.1 14.0
Giving money to someone who was travelling to give to relatives or friends for you 17.6 16.4 18.7 67.0 65.6 68.4 15.5 14.4 16.6
Giving money to someone who was visiting Canada 9.3 8.5 10.1 71.8 70.5 73.1 18.9 17.8 20.1
Using an informal transfer network system 2.9 2.4 3.3 22.5 21.3 23.7 74.7 73.5 75.8
Using a bank or credit union’s website 11.9 11.0 12.8 49.1 47.7 50.4 39.0 37.7 40.4
Using a money transfer provider’s website 16.8 15.7 17.9 47.8 46.4 49.2 35.4 34.1 36.7
Using another type of service provider’s website 5.1 4.5 5.7 44.5 43.1 45.9 50.4 49.0 51.8
Using a bank or credit union’s mobile app 5.0 4.4 5.7 49.5 48.1 50.8 45.5 44.1 46.9
Using a money transfer provider’s mobile app 7.0 6.2 7.7 46.3 44.9 47.7 46.7 45.3 48.1
Using another type of service provider’s mobile app 2.4 2.0 2.9 41.5 40.1 42.8 56.1 54.7 57.4
Using a cryptocurrency 0.4 0.3 0.6 31.6 30.3 32.9 68.0 66.7 69.2
Women
Going to a bank or credit union 29.7 28.4 31.0 48.6 47.2 50.0 21.7 20.6 22.8
Going to a money transfer store 72.1 70.9 73.4 22.3 21.2 23.5 5.5 4.9 6.2
Going to a currency exchange store to send money 7.3 6.5 8.0 40.8 39.4 42.2 51.9 50.5 53.3
Going to another type of store or establishment 18.1 17.0 19.2 34.1 32.7 35.5 47.8 46.4 49.2
Bringing money to give to relatives or friends while visiting 36.8 35.5 38.2 50.8 49.4 52.2 12.3 11.4 13.2
Giving money to someone who was travelling to give to relatives or friends for you 19.1 18.1 20.2 65.9 64.5 67.2 15.0 13.9 16.0
Giving money to someone who was visiting Canada 10.7 9.8 11.5 70.5 69.2 71.8 18.8 17.7 19.9
Using an informal transfer network system 2.1 1.7 2.5 17.7 16.7 18.8 80.2 79.1 81.3
Using a bank or credit union’s website 10.5 9.6 11.3 47.7 46.3 49.1 41.8 40.5 43.2
Using a money transfer provider’s website 15.7 14.6 16.7 45.4 44.0 46.7 39.0 37.6 40.3
Using another type of service provider’s website 3.7 3.2 4.2 40.1 38.7 41.4 56.2 54.8 57.6
Using a bank or credit union’s mobile app 4.6 4.1 5.2 45.8 44.4 47.3 49.5 48.1 50.9
Using a money transfer provider’s mobile app 6.5 5.8 7.2 42.7 41.3 44.1 50.8 49.4 52.2
Using another type of service provider’s mobile app 1.6 1.2 2.0 38.1 36.7 39.4 60.3 58.9 61.7
Using a cryptocurrency 0.3 0.1 0.4 22.5 21.4 23.7 77.2 76.0 78.4

Table A. 6.1
Percentage who know or have used the method to send money, Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada, by birth region
Table summary
This table displays the results of Percentage who know or have used the method to send money. The information is grouped by Remittance methods (appearing as row headers), Birth region, Americas , Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Remittance methods Birth region
Americas Eastern Europe Sub-Saharan Africa North Africa
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to from to
Going to a bank or credit union 75.6 73.9 77.3 84.0 81.0 87.1 74.1 72.0 76.2 84.8 82.4 87.3
Going to a money transfer store 98.0 97.5 98.5 96.1 94.5 97.7 96.4 95.6 97.3 95.2 93.8 96.6
Going to a currency exchange store to send money 46.5 44.6 48.5 49.3 45.3 53.3 46.4 44.0 48.7 46.2 42.9 49.6
Going to another type of store or establishment 53.2 51.3 55.1 46.0 42.0 50.0 56.6 54.2 59.0 47.3 43.9 50.7
Bringing money to give to relatives or friends while visiting 89.5 88.4 90.7 92.5 90.3 94.6 86.9 85.3 88.5 91.7 89.8 93.7
Giving money to someone who was travelling to give to relatives or friends for you 87.0 85.7 88.4 90.9 88.5 93.3 87.8 86.1 89.4 88.7 86.5 90.8
Giving money to someone who was visiting Canada 84.6 83.1 86.1 88.7 86.0 91.3 82.5 80.7 84.4 86.1 83.7 88.5
Using an informal transfer network system 16.8 15.4 18.3 16.3 13.3 19.3 26.6 24.5 28.6 21.0 18.2 23.9
Using a bank or credit union’s website 55.2 53.3 57.1 59.2 55.2 63.2 57.0 54.7 59.3 59.0 55.5 62.5
Using a money transfer provider’s website 60.6 58.7 62.5 65.1 61.4 68.8 64.8 62.5 67.1 55.9 52.4 59.4
Using another type of service provider’s website 45.3 43.4 47.3 48.8 44.8 52.8 47.0 44.7 49.3 38.2 34.7 41.6
Using a bank or credit union’s mobile app 50.9 48.9 52.9 50.6 46.6 54.7 52.3 50.0 54.6 50.2 46.8 53.7
Using a money transfer provider’s mobile app 49.9 47.9 51.8 49.9 46.0 53.8 56.5 54.2 58.9 47.4 44.0 50.8
Using another type of service provider’s mobile app 40.6 38.7 42.5 42.5 38.6 46.4 42.4 40.0 44.8 35.5 32.2 38.9
Using a cryptocurrency 29.1 27.3 30.8 36.1 32.4 39.8 31.1 28.9 33.2 29.4 26.2 32.5

Table A. 6.2
Percentage who know or have used the method to send money, Canadian residents born in ODA-eligible countries who ever sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada, by birth region
Table summary
This table displays the results of Percentage who know or have used the method to send money. The information is grouped by Remittance methods (appearing as row headers), Birth region, West Asia and Middle East Asia, Eastern Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania, Southern Asia, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Remittance methods Birth region
West Asia and Middle East Asia Eastern Asia Southeast Asia and Oceania Southern Asia
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to from to
Going to a bank or credit union 78.9 76.2 81.6 93.7 91.7 95.8 75.6 73.6 77.6 83.3 81.6 85.0
Going to a money transfer store 92.0 90.3 93.7 75.9 72.3 79.5 95.8 94.9 96.8 96.4 95.6 97.1
Going to a currency exchange store to send money 50.8 47.5 54.2 48.4 44.2 52.7 51.7 49.3 54.0 54.1 51.9 56.3
Going to another type of store or establishment 38.6 35.3 42.0 35.1 31.0 39.1 60.6 58.3 62.9 47.5 45.3 49.7
Bringing money to give to relatives or friends while visiting 82.7 80.0 85.3 90.7 88.3 93.2 89.9 88.5 91.3 81.4 79.7 83.1
Giving money to someone who was travelling to give to relatives or friends for you 82.6 80.0 85.1 82.5 79.2 85.8 86.8 85.2 88.5 78.7 76.8 80.6
Giving money to someone who was visiting Canada 79.7 76.9 82.5 80.2 76.7 83.7 82.6 80.7 84.4 74.4 72.4 76.4
Using an informal transfer network system 23.3 20.5 26.2 19.1 15.7 22.4 17.8 16.0 19.5 32.9 30.9 34.9
Using a bank or credit union’s website 51.9 48.4 55.4 59.4 55.3 63.4 60.5 58.2 62.7 65.8 63.7 67.9
Using a money transfer provider’s website 51.0 47.6 54.3 44.0 39.7 48.3 68.9 66.7 71.1 67.1 64.9 69.2
Using another type of service provider’s website 38.3 35.0 41.6 33.4 29.3 37.5 52.6 50.3 55.0 48.8 46.5 51.0
Using a bank or credit union’s mobile app 45.6 42.2 48.9 42.4 38.5 46.4 55.6 53.3 58.0 56.3 54.2 58.5
Using a money transfer provider’s mobile app 40.4 37.2 43.6 32.9 28.9 36.9 56.4 54.1 58.7 54.0 51.8 56.2
Using another type of service provider’s mobile app 32.9 29.6 36.1 29.7 25.8 33.5 47.1 44.9 49.4 43.9 41.7 46.2
Using a cryptocurrency 26.7 23.7 29.6 22.2 18.7 25.7 22.8 20.8 24.7 28.9 26.9 30.9

Table A. 7
Remittance method most often used by remitters in 2017, by sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Remittance method most often used by remitters in 2017. The information is grouped by Remittance method (appearing as row headers), Remittance method most often used in 2017, Total, 95% confidence interval, Men and Women, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Remittance method Remittance method most often used in 2017
Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to
Going to a bank or credit union 8.7 8.0 9.5 9.5 8.4 10.6 8.0 6.9 9.0
Going to a money transfer store 51.4 50.0 52.9 50.3 48.3 52.3 52.6 50.5 54.6
Going to a currency exchange store to send money 2.4 1.9 2.9 3.0 2.3 3.8 1.9 1.3 2.4
Going to another type of store or establishment 6.0 5.3 6.7 4.9 4.1 5.8 7.1 6.0 8.1
Bringing money to give to relatives or friends while visiting 5.1 4.5 5.7 4.8 4.0 5.7 5.3 4.5 6.2
Giving money to someone who was travelling to give to relatives or friends for you 4.9 4.3 5.5 5.1 4.3 5.9 4.6 3.8 5.5
Giving money to someone who was visiting Canada 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.8
Using an informal transfer network system 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.3 1.0
Using a bank or credit union’s website 4.9 4.3 5.5 5.3 4.4 6.1 4.6 3.8 5.4
Using a money transfer provider’s website 5.9 5.2 6.6 6.2 5.2 7.2 5.7 4.8 6.7
Using another type of service provider’s website 0.9 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.6 1.5 0.8 0.4 1.1
Using a bank or credit union’s mobile app 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.7 1.2 2.3 1.6 1.1 2.1
Using a money transfer provider’s mobile app 3.5 3.0 4.1 3.8 3.0 4.6 3.3 2.6 4.0
Using another type of service provider’s mobile app 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.8
Using a cryptocurrency 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3
Other 1.9 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.4 2.5 1.9 1.4 2.5

Table A. 8
Purpose of remittances, remitters in 2017, by sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Purpose of remittances. The information is grouped by Purpose of remittances (appearing as row headers), Total, 95% confidence interval, Men and Women, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Purpose of remittances Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to
Pay for living expenses 59.3 58.2 60.4 60.6 59.0 62.1 58.2 56.6 59.8
Pay for medical expenses 43.3 42.2 44.4 42.1 40.5 43.7 44.4 42.8 46.0
Pay for education 21.7 20.7 22.6 21.5 20.2 22.8 21.8 20.5 23.2
Pay for a major expense 11.5 10.8 12.2 11.7 10.7 12.8 11.2 10.2 12.2
Pay for non-health related emergencies 6.1 5.6 6.7 5.9 5.2 6.7 6.3 5.5 7.2
Pay for insurance 2.1 1.8 2.5 2.6 2.0 3.1 1.7 1.2 2.1
Give a gift 34.7 33.5 35.8 31.8 30.2 33.3 37.4 35.8 39.1
Pay for entertainment or leisure activities 5.0 4.5 5.5 5.4 4.6 6.1 4.7 4.0 5.4
Other purpose 5.1 4.6 5.7 5.7 5.0 6.4 4.6 4.0 5.3

Tableau A. 9
Purpose of remittances, remitters in 2017, by birth region and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Purpose of remittances Purpose of remittances, Pay for living expenses, Pay for medical expenses, Pay for education, Give a gift , % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Purpose of remittances
Pay for living expenses Pay for medical expenses Pay for education Give a gift
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to from to
Total - birth region
Americas 65.0 63.0 67.1 43.2 41.0 45.3 20.9 19.1 22.7 32.9 30.9 35.0
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 57.4 52.7 62.1 42.3 37.7 46.9 8.3 5.7 10.9 35.9 31.4 40.4
Sub-Saharan Africa 69.8 67.4 72.2 49.4 46.8 51.9 34.4 32.0 36.7 26.4 24.2 28.6
Northern Africa 58.4 54.3 62.5 49.2 45.2 53.2 10.9 8.4 13.3 17.7 14.6 20.9
West Central Asia and the Middle East 57.9 53.9 61.9 44.6 40.5 48.6 11.9 9.3 14.5 22.7 19.4 25.9
Eastern Asia 41.0 34.6 47.4 20.1 15.1 25.1 9.4 5.7 13.2 47.3 40.9 53.8
Southeast Asia and Oceania 60.9 58.5 63.4 50.6 48.0 53.2 27.8 25.5 30.1 42.4 39.9 45.0
Southern Asia 50.8 48.2 53.4 34.3 31.8 36.8 16.7 14.8 18.5 34.3 31.8 36.7
Birth region, by birth country level of economic development
Least Developed Countries 69.5 67.1 72.0 48.2 45.4 50.9 31.8 29.3 34.2 25.5 23.1 27.9
Lower Middle Income Countries 58.4 56.9 59.9 45.4 43.8 46.9 22.7 21.4 24.1 37.1 35.5 38.6
Upper Middle Income Countries 56.0 54.0 58.0 35.8 34.0 37.6 13.7 12.3 15.1 34.1 32.1 36.0
Men - birth region
Americas 68.3 65.3 71.3 42.4 39.2 45.5 24.0 21.1 26.9 29.9 26.8 33.1
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 60.4 53.4 67.4 39.1 32.3 46.0 11.1 6.5 15.6 35.1 28.6 41.7
Sub-Saharan Africa 70.9 67.6 74.1 50.0 46.5 53.5 40.2 36.8 43.6 25.9 22.8 29.0
Northern Africa 61.9 56.4 67.5 45.7 40.4 51.1 10.6 7.2 13.9 17.4 13.3 21.5
West Central Asia and the Middle East 63.6 58.3 68.9 44.2 38.9 49.4 13.2 9.7 16.7 17.6 13.6 21.6
Eastern Asia 44.3 35.3 53.3 20.5 13.6 27.4 8.6 3.4 13.7 46.8 37.9 55.8
Southeast Asia and Oceania 58.7 54.5 62.8 47.9 43.6 52.2 22.3 18.7 25.8 40.7 36.5 44.8
Southern Asia 53.7 50.4 56.9 36.7 33.5 39.8 17.4 14.9 19.8 31.7 28.6 34.7
Birth region, by birth country level of economic development
Least Developed Countries 71.7 68.3 75.0 46.0 42.2 49.8 33.8 30.4 37.2 23.6 20.4 26.9
Lower Middle Income Countries 58.7 56.5 60.8 43.6 41.4 45.8 20.9 19.1 22.7 34.0 31.9 36.1
Upper Middle Income Countries 58.4 55.6 61.3 36.2 33.6 38.9 15.5 13.4 17.6 31.2 28.4 34.0
Women - birth region
Americas 62.4 59.5 65.3 43.8 40.9 46.7 18.4 16.1 20.6 35.4 32.6 38.2
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 54.7 48.0 61.4 45.2 38.7 51.6 5.8 2.9 8.7 36.6 30.3 43.0
Sub-Saharan Africa 68.6 65.0 72.2 48.7 44.9 52.5 27.8 24.5 31.0 27.0 23.7 30.2
Northern Africa 53.8 47.9 59.8 53.6 47.8 59.4 11.3 7.5 15.1 18.2 13.5 22.9
West Central Asia and the Middle East 50.5 44.2 56.8 45.1 38.8 51.4 10.2 6.3 14.1 29.3 24.0 34.6
Eastern Asia 37.6 28.5 46.8 19.7 12.4 26.9 10.3 4.9 15.7 47.8 38.8 56.8
Southeast Asia and Oceania 62.3 59.3 65.2 52.2 49.0 55.4 31.1 28.2 34.1 43.5 40.3 46.7
Southern Asia 46.1 41.9 50.3 30.4 26.5 34.4 15.6 12.5 18.6 38.5 34.2 42.8
Birth region, by birth country level of economic development
Least Developed Countries 67.3 63.6 71.0 50.5 46.5 54.5 29.5 26.1 33.0 27.5 23.9 31.1
Lower Middle Income Countries 58.1 56.0 60.2 47.0 44.9 49.2 24.5 22.5 26.5 40.0 37.8 42.3
Upper Middle Income Countries 53.8 50.9 56.6 35.4 32.9 38.0 12.1 10.3 13.9 36.7 34.0 39.4

Table A. 10
Frequency of remitting in 2017, by birth region and sex of respondent
Table summary
This table displays the results of Frequency of remitting in 2017 Frequency of remitting, 1 or 2, 3 to 5, 6 and over, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Frequency of remitting
1 or 2 3 to 5 6 and over
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total 37.2 36.1 38.4 28.3 27.1 29.4 34.5 33.3 35.7
Men 36.9 35.2 38.5 27.9 26.3 29.5 35.2 33.6 36.9
Women 37.5 35.8 39.2 28.7 27.1 30.2 33.8 32.1 35.5
Birth region
Americas 28.8 26.6 31.0 30.2 28.1 32.4 40.9 38.6 43.3
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 53.7 48.5 58.8 28.6 23.9 33.3 17.7 13.6 21.8
Sub-Saharan Africa 22.8 20.5 25.2 31.8 29.2 34.4 45.3 42.6 48.1
Northern Africa 53.4 48.9 57.8 30.7 26.5 34.8 16.0 12.6 19.3
West Central Asia and the Middle East 53.8 49.3 58.2 29.4 25.1 33.7 16.8 13.5 20.2
Eastern Asia 84.1 79.1 89.2 11.8 7.4 16.2 4.1 1.4 6.7
Southeast Asia and Oceania 25.3 22.9 27.8 25.8 23.3 28.3 48.9 46.1 51.7
Southern Asia 48.3 45.5 51.2 30.0 27.3 32.7 21.7 19.5 23.9
Birth region, by birth country level of economic development
Least Developed Countries 27.8 25.2 30.5 31.6 28.8 34.3 40.6 37.7 43.5
Lower Middle Income Countries 34.8 33.2 36.4 28.2 26.6 29.8 37.0 35.4 38.7
Upper Middle Income Countries 47.5 45.4 49.7 26.7 24.9 28.6 25.7 23.8 27.6

Table A. 11
Number of recipients to whom money was sent by remitters in 2017, by birth region and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Number of recipients to whom money was sent by remitters in 2017 Number of recipients in 2017, 1 recipient, 2 to 3 recipients, 4 recipients or more, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Number of recipients in 2017
1 recipient 2 to 3 recipients 4 recipients or more
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total 48.0 47.0 49.1 40.2 39.2 41.3 11.7 11.0 12.5
Men 46.9 45.3 48.4 40.4 38.9 41.9 12.7 11.6 13.8
Women 49.2 47.6 50.7 40.1 38.5 41.6 10.8 9.7 11.8
Birth region
Americas 45.2 43.0 47.4 40.6 38.4 42.7 14.2 12.7 15.8
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 53.7 49.2 58.3 38.3 33.7 42.8 8.0 5.3 10.7
Sub-Saharan Africa 34.7 32.3 37.1 41.0 38.5 43.5 24.3 22.1 26.5
Northern Africa 57.0 52.8 61.3 37.3 33.1 41.5 5.7 3.8 7.5
West Central Asia and the Middle East 64.5 60.7 68.3 29.9 26.3 33.5 5.6 3.6 7.6
Eastern Asia 73.3 67.6 79.1 24.5 18.9 30.1 2.2 0.3 4.0
Southeast Asia and Oceania 42.5 40.0 45.0 45.1 42.5 47.7 12.4 10.7 14.1
Southern Asia 53.5 51.0 56.0 39.8 37.3 42.3 6.7 5.4 8.0
Birth region, by birth country level of economic development
Least Developed Countries 37.8 35.1 40.5 41.0 38.4 43.7 21.2 19.0 23.3
Lower Middle Income Countries 46.7 45.2 48.3 41.8 40.3 43.3 11.4 10.4 12.4
Upper Middle Income Countries 56.6 54.6 58.6 36.2 34.3 38.1 7.2 6.2 8.2

Table A. 12
Relationship of the recipient with the remitters, remitters in 2017, by sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Relationship of the recipient with the remitters. The information is grouped by Relationship with the recipient (appearing as row headers), Total, 95% confidence interval, Men and Women, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Relationship with the recipient Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to
Partner 4.9 4.4 5.4 6.5 5.7 7.3 3.3 2.7 3.9
Father 15.5 14.6 16.4 16.7 15.5 18.0 14.3 13.2 15.5
Mother 30.2 29.1 31.2 29.4 27.9 30.8 31.0 29.5 32.5
Children 6.2 5.6 6.7 5.8 5.1 6.5 6.6 5.7 7.4
Brothers/sisters 39.6 38.4 40.7 37.1 35.5 38.7 42.0 40.3 43.7
Other relatives 38.7 37.6 39.9 39.0 37.4 40.6 38.4 36.8 40.0
Unrelated 15.7 14.9 16.5 18.0 16.8 19.2 13.5 12.4 14.6

Table A. 13
Paid fee in the last transfer of money outside of Canada in 2017, by birth region
Table summary
This table displays the results of Paid fee in the last transfer of money outside of Canada in 2017. The information is grouped by Birth region (appearing as row headers), Paid fee in the last transfer of money, $1-$14, $15-$29, $30 or more and Don’t know, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Birth region Paid fee in the last transfer of money
$1-$14 $15-$29 $30 or more Don’t know
% from to % from to % from to % from to
Americas 57.5 55.1 59.8 17.7 15.9 19.4 9.9 8.5 11.4 14.9 13.1 16.7
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 23.7 19.0 28.3 33.2 28.1 38.2 21.4 17.0 25.8 21.8 17.4 26.2
Sub-Saharan Africa 46.0 43.1 48.8 22.4 20.0 24.8 13.8 11.9 15.7 17.9 15.8 20.0
Northern Africa 41.2 36.5 45.9 28.3 24.2 32.4 20.2 16.3 24.1 10.3 7.5 13.2
West Central Asia and the Middle East 20.7 17.1 24.3 31.8 27.5 36.0 28.1 23.9 32.3 19.4 15.8 23.1
Eastern Asia 20.4 13.5 27.3 20.9 14.0 27.8 33.8 25.8 41.8 24.9 17.4 32.4
Southeast Asia and Oceania 82.5 80.6 84.5 6.4 5.1 7.7 4.4 3.3 5.5 6.7 5.4 8.0
Southern Asia 61.9 59.1 64.6 17.0 14.8 19.1 6.9 5.5 8.2 14.3 12.2 16.3

Table A. 14
Average amount sent in the last money transfer in 2017 and average transfer fees paid, by destination country
Table summary
This table displays the results of Average amount sent in the last money transfer in 2017 and average transfer fees paid. The information is grouped by Destination country (appearing as row headers), Average amount sent (last money transfer), Average fees paid as a percentage of the amount sent (last transfer), $, 95% confidence interval and %, calculated using from , to and from units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Destination country Average amount sent (last money transfer) Average fees paid as a percentage of the amount sent (last transfer)
$ 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to
Afghanistan 445 288 606 6 4 7
Bangladesh 675 455 892 3 3 4
Bosnia and Herzegovina 915 393 1,433 7 6 8
Brazil 720 412 1,029 5 4 7
Cameroon 505 311 701 7 6 8
Chile 1,140 111 2,166 7 5 8
China 5,595 3,252 7,936 2 2 2
Colombia 580 342 822 6 5 7
Congo, Democratic Republic 335 210 462 16 13 20
Côte d'Ivoire 385 211 556 7 6 8
Dominican Republic 295 205 387 7 5 10
Egypt 3,515 - 1,006 8,039 7 5 9
El Salvador 385 235 539 12 9 14
Ethiopia 415 228 602 6 5 6
Ghana 625 354 894 6 5 7
Guatemala 440 217 663 8 6 10
Guyana 230 168 291 9 7 10
Haiti 275 202 344 12 11 13
India 1,555 1,274 1,834 3 3 3
Iran 2,950 771 5,133 4 2 5
Jamaica 270 202 335 8 7 9
Lebanon 1,360 982 1,735 7 5 9
Mexico 720 330 1,110 5 4 6
Morocco 780 344 1,212 5 5 6
Nigeria 440 325 551 6 5 7
Pakistan 885 682 1,088 4 4 4
Peru 715 144 1,284 9 6 12
Philippines 845 738 949 4 4 5
Senegal 535 190 883 6 5 7
Serbia 545 346 740 7 6 9
Somalia 565 230 898 7 5 8
South Africa, Republic of 830 477 1,180 8 5 10
Sri Lanka 715 484 948 6 4 8
Tunisia 505 311 694 8 7 9
Turkey 1,130 668 1,588 6 4 8
Ukraine 630 442 816 8 7 10
United States 3,190 1,814 4,562 6 5 7
Viet Nam 820 552 1,084 3 3 4
Zimbabwe 450 271 632 10 7 14

Table A. 15
Fees paid as percentage of the amount sent last time in 2017, by sex and selected characteristics
Table summary
This table displays the results of Fees paid as percentage of the amount sent last time in 2017 Fees paid as percentage of the amount sent, Total, Men, Women, Average fee paid for last transfer and 95% confidence interval, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Fees paid as percentage of the amount sent
Total Men Women
Average fee paid for last transfer 95% confidence interval Average fee paid for last transfer 95% confidence interval Average fee paid for last transfer 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to
Total 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.9 5.6 6.1
Age
18-29 6.1 5.6 6.6 5.3 4.6 6.0 7.0 6.2 7.8
30-39 5.2 4.9 5.5 5.0 4.6 5.3 5.4 5.0 5.8
40-49 5.4 5.1 5.7 5.2 4.8 5.6 5.6 5.2 6.1
50-59 5.7 5.4 6.1 5.6 5.0 6.1 5.9 5.4 6.4
60-69 6.0 5.4 6.7 5.6 5.0 6.2 6.6 5.4 7.7
70 and older 5.8 5.2 6.4 5.8 4.8 6.8 5.8 4.9 6.6
Birth region
Americas 8.5 8.1 9.0 7.8 7.3 8.4 9.1 8.5 9.8
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 7.8 7.0 8.6 7.2 6.0 8.3 8.4 7.4 9.5
Sub-Saharan Africa 7.2 6.7 7.6 7.0 6.4 7.6 7.4 6.8 8.0
Northern Africa 6.2 5.7 6.8 6.2 5.6 6.9 6.2 5.3 7.1
West Central Asia and the Middle East 5.9 5.3 6.4 5.4 4.8 6.0 6.6 5.5 7.7
Eastern Asia 2.3 1.8 2.8 2.3 1.7 3.0 2.2 1.4 3.0
Southeast Asia and Oceania 4.3 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.1 3.9 4.4
Southern Asia 3.7 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.6 4.2 3.5 5.0
Destination region
Americas 8.5 8.1 9.0 7.8 7.3 8.4 9.1 8.4 9.7
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 8.1 7.2 8.9 7.3 5.9 8.6 8.7 7.7 9.8
Sub-Saharan Africa* 7.4 7.0 7.9 7.2 6.5 7.8 7.7 7.1 8.4
Northern Africa 6.0 5.6 6.5 6.4 5.6 7.1 5.7 5.0 6.3
West Central Asia and the Middle East 6.2 5.5 6.9 5.5 4.8 6.2 7.3 5.9 8.7
Eastern Asia 2.1 1.7 2.6 2.2 1.7 2.8 2.0 1.3 2.7
Southeast Asia and Oceania 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 5.1 4.2 3.9 4.4
Southern Asia 3.6 3.3 3.9 3.4 3.1 3.6 4.0 3.4 4.7
Non ODA-eligible countries 5.8 5.0 6.5 5.1 4.4 5.9 6.6 5.2 8.0
Year of arrival
Before 1980 6.4 5.8 7.0 6.1 5.3 6.9 6.7 5.8 7.7
1980-1989 6.1 5.6 6.6 5.6 4.9 6.3 6.6 5.8 7.4
1990-1999 5.9 5.5 6.2 5.8 5.3 6.3 5.9 5.4 6.4
2000-2009 5.4 5.1 5.7 4.9 4.6 5.2 5.8 5.3 6.2
2010-2017 5.3 5.0 5.6 5.1 4.7 5.5 5.6 5.1 6.0
Employment status
Employed full-time (30 or more hours per week) 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.2 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.2 5.8
Employed part-time (Less than 30 hours per week) 6.0 5.5 6.5 5.4 4.7 6.2 6.3 5.6 7.0
Not employed 6.5 6.0 7.0 6.1 5.5 6.6 6.7 6.1 7.4
Personal income
Less than $20,000 6.3 6.0 6.7 6.1 5.6 6.7 6.4 5.9 7.0
$20,000-$29,999 5.7 5.3 6.2 5.8 5.0 6.6 5.7 5.1 6.3
$30,000-$39,999 5.6 5.2 6.0 5.4 4.9 5.9 5.8 5.2 6.4
$40,000-$49,999 5.2 4.8 5.6 5.1 4.6 5.6 5.4 4.8 6.0
$50,000-$69,999 5.2 4.9 5.6 5.2 4.7 5.7 5.3 4.7 5.9
$70,000-$89,999 4.6 4.2 5.1 4.3 3.8 4.8 5.3 4.3 6.4
$90,000 and over 4.4 4.0 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 5.5
Region
Atlantic 4.6 3.6 5.7 4.4 3.1 5.7 4.9 3.2 6.5
Quebec 7.6 7.2 8.1 7.3 6.7 7.8 8.1 7.4 8.8
Ontario 5.5 5.2 5.7 4.9 4.6 5.2 6.0 5.6 6.3
Prairies 4.9 4.6 5.2 4.9 4.5 5.3 4.8 4.4 5.2
British Columbia 4.6 4.2 5.0 4.6 4.1 5.2 4.6 4.0 5.2

Table A. 16
Distribution of remitters in 2017, by percentage of money transfer fee paid the last time they sent money to relatives or friends living outside Canada in 2017
Table summary
This table displays the results of Distribution of remitters in 2017 Remitters who paid lower fees (less than 4%), Remitters who paid higher fees (4% and above), % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Remitters who paid lower fees (less than 4%) Remitters who paid higher fees (4% and above)
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to
Total 100 Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable 100 Note ...: not applicable Note ...: not applicable
Sex
Men 51.0 49.1 53.0 48.3 46.6 50.0
Women 49.0 47.0 50.9 51.7 50.0 53.4
Age
18-29 10.3 9.0 11.6 12.1 10.9 13.4
30-39 28.1 26.4 29.8 24.5 23.0 25.9
40-49 27.5 25.8 29.2 27.5 26.0 29.0
50-59 19.7 18.2 21.2 21.0 19.7 22.3
60-69 9.8 8.7 10.9 9.7 8.7 10.6
70 and older 4.6 3.8 5.5 5.2 4.4 6.0
Destination region (last money transfer)
Americas 10.4 9.4 11.4 28.3 26.9 29.7
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 1.8 1.3 2.2 4.2 3.6 4.8
Sub-Saharan Africa 6.1 5.4 6.8 14.6 13.5 15.6
Northern Africa 2.1 1.8 2.5 3.7 3.3 4.2
West Central Asia and the Middle East 3.2 2.7 3.8 4.4 3.8 5.1
Eastern Asia 4.0 3.2 4.9 0.7 0.3 1.0
Southeast Asia and Oceania 38.7 36.8 40.6 26.2 24.5 28.0
Southern Asia 28.8 26.9 30.6 13.3 12.0 14.6
Non ODA-eligible countries 4.9 4.1 5.7 4.6 3.8 5.3
Year of arrival
Before 1980 5.2 4.3 6.0 6.8 6.0 7.7
1980-1989 9.3 8.0 10.5 10.3 9.2 11.4
1990-1999 17.1 15.5 18.7 18.8 17.4 20.3
2000-2009 34.6 32.7 36.6 33.6 31.8 35.3
2010-2017 33.9 32.0 35.8 30.5 28.8 32.2
Personal income
Less than $20,000 21.3 19.6 23.1 26.6 24.9 28.3
$20,000-$29,999 16.6 15.0 18.3 17.6 16.1 19.1
$30,000-$39,999 15.7 14.1 17.3 16.2 14.8 17.6
$40,000-$49,999 12.7 11.2 14.1 12.7 11.5 14.0
$50,000-$69,999 15.3 13.9 16.7 14.5 13.3 15.8
$70,000-$89,999 8.2 7.1 9.2 5.8 5.0 6.6
$90,000 and over 10.3 9.1 11.4 6.5 5.7 7.4
Region
Atlantic 1.5 0.9 2.0 1.1 0.7 1.4
Quebec 12.0 10.7 13.2 22.0 20.6 23.4
Ontario 46.1 44.1 48.2 44.9 43.1 46.8
Prairies 25.8 24.0 27.7 21.9 20.2 23.5
British Columbia 14.6 13.1 16.1 10.1 9.0 11.3
Money transfer method
Banking in person 10.8 9.6 11.9 5.4 4.6 6.2
Banking online 5.7 4.8 6.6 3.7 3.0 4.3
Money transfer store 58.3 56.4 60.3 72.9 71.3 74.5
Money transfer store online 10.5 9.1 11.8 6.8 5.9 7.7
Currency exchange store 3.1 2.4 3.8 1.7 1.2 2.2
Another type of store 6.4 5.3 7.5 6.0 5.1 6.9
Another service provider online 1.6 1.1 2.2 0.5 0.3 0.8
Informal network 1.0 0.6 1.3 0.9 0.6 1.3
Other 2.6 1.9 3.3 2.1 1.5 2.6

Table A. 17
Method used to receive money sent outside Canada in 2017, by birth region and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Method used to receive money sent outside Canada in 2017 Method used to receive money last time in 2017, Cash pick-up, Direct deposit, Other/Don't know, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Method used to receive money last time in 2017
Cash pick-up Direct deposit Other/Don't know
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total 63.3 62.2 64.4 25.1 24.1 26.2 11.6 10.8 12.4
Men 62.8 61.1 64.5 26.6 25.1 28.1 10.6 9.5 11.7
Women 63.8 62.1 65.4 23.7 22.3 25.2 12.5 11.3 13.7
Birth region
Americas 77.0 75.1 78.8 13.2 11.8 14.6 9.8 8.4 11.2
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 70.9 66.0 75.9 17.4 13.4 21.5 11.6 8.2 15.1
Sub-Saharan Africa 70.0 67.6 72.4 22.6 20.5 24.8 7.4 6.0 8.8
Northern Africa 70.6 66.5 74.8 22.3 18.5 26.0 7.1 4.7 9.5
West Central Asia and the Middle East 62.1 57.9 66.4 26.0 22.2 29.8 11.9 9.1 14.7
Eastern Asia 20.8 14.4 27.2 49.0 41.0 57.0 30.2 22.8 37.6
Southeast Asia and Oceania 62.1 59.6 64.6 25.1 22.9 27.4 12.8 11.0 14.5
Southern Asia 52.8 50.2 55.5 35.3 32.8 37.7 11.9 10.2 13.7

Table A. 18
Level of agreement with statements about sending money to relatives or friends living outside Canada by sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Level of agreement with statements about sending money to relatives or friends living outside Canada by sex. The information is grouped by Statements about sending money to relatives or friends living outside Canada (appearing as row headers), Level of agreement with the statements, Total, 95% confidence interval, Men and Women, calculated using %, from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Statements about sending money to relatives or friends living outside Canada Level of agreement with the statements
Total 95% confidence interval Men 95% confidence interval Women 95% confidence interval
% from to % from to % from to
I feel well informed about the options available to me
Strongly agree 19.9 19.1 20.7 21.0 19.9 22.2 18.8 17.8 19.9
Agree 55.2 54.2 56.1 55.9 54.5 57.2 54.5 53.1 55.8
Neither agree nor disagree 15.0 14.3 15.7 14.5 13.5 15.5 15.5 14.4 16.5
Disagree/Strongly disagree 9.9 9.4 10.5 8.6 7.9 9.4 11.2 10.4 12.1
I can compare the options available to me to choose the best one
Strongly agree 19.0 18.2 19.8 19.7 18.5 20.8 18.4 17.2 19.5
Agree 54.7 53.7 55.7 55.7 54.3 57.2 53.7 52.2 55.2
Neither agree nor disagree 15.8 15.1 16.5 15.0 14.0 16.0 16.6 15.5 17.6
Disagree/Strongly disagree 10.5 9.9 11.0 9.6 8.8 10.3 11.4 10.5 12.2
My preferred service provider is accessible to me
Strongly agree 26.3 25.5 27.2 25.8 24.6 27.0 26.8 25.6 28.1
Agree 61.3 60.3 62.3 61.7 60.4 63.1 60.9 59.5 62.3
Neither agree nor disagree 8.9 8.3 9.4 9.1 8.3 9.9 8.6 7.8 9.4
Disagree/Strongly disagree 3.5 3.2 3.9 3.4 2.9 3.9 3.6 3.1 4.1
I have access to the necessary technology to send money
Strongly agree 21.5 20.7 22.4 22.4 21.2 23.6 20.7 19.5 21.9
Agree 52.5 51.4 53.5 51.9 50.4 53.4 53.0 51.6 54.4
Neither agree nor disagree 14.7 14.0 15.5 14.6 13.6 15.6 14.8 13.8 15.9
Disagree/Strongly disagree 11.3 10.6 11.9 11.1 10.2 12.0 11.4 10.5 12.3
The recipient of the money has access to the necessary technology to receive the money
Strongly agree 16.7 15.9 17.5 16.4 15.3 17.5 17.0 15.9 18.1
Agree 51.1 50.0 52.1 50.4 48.9 51.9 51.7 50.3 53.1
Neither agree nor disagree 16.9 16.1 17.7 17.0 15.9 18.1 16.8 15.8 17.9
Disagree/Strongly disagree 15.3 14.6 16.0 16.2 15.2 17.2 14.5 13.5 15.4
I am satisfied for the amount of time it takes for my money to be received
Strongly agree 28.7 27.8 29.6 28.4 27.1 29.6 29.0 27.8 30.3
Agree 58.3 57.3 59.2 57.9 56.6 59.3 58.6 57.3 60.0
Neither agree nor disagree 8.4 7.8 8.9 8.3 7.6 9.1 8.4 7.6 9.2
Disagree/Strongly disagree 4.6 4.2 5.1 5.4 4.7 6.0 3.9 3.4 4.5
The service provider I use transfers money at a reasonable cost
Strongly agree 15.4 14.7 16.1 14.7 13.7 15.7 16.1 15.1 17.2
Agree 48.0 47.0 49.0 48.3 46.9 49.8 47.6 46.2 49.0
Neither agree nor disagree 17.2 16.4 17.9 17.0 15.9 18.0 17.4 16.3 18.4
Disagree/Strongly disagree 19.5 18.7 20.2 20.0 19.0 21.1 18.9 17.9 20.0
I am able to communicate with the service provider in a language that I understand
Strongly agree 28.9 28.0 29.8 28.3 27.0 29.6 29.5 28.2 30.8
Agree 59.8 58.8 60.8 59.9 58.5 61.3 59.7 58.2 61.1
Neither agree nor disagree 7.7 7.2 8.3 7.7 7.0 8.4 7.8 7.0 8.5
Disagree/Strongly disagree 3.6 3.2 4.0 4.1 3.5 4.7 3.1 2.6 3.6

Table A. 19
Percentage of remitters who disagree or strongly disagree with the statement "the service provider I use transfers money at a reasonable cost", by birth region
Table summary
This table displays the results of Percentage of remitters who disagree or strongly disagree with the statement "the service provider I use transfers money at a reasonable cost". The information is grouped by Birth region (appearing as row headers), Disagree or strongly disagree that "the service provide I use transfers money at a reasonable cost", % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Birth region Disagree or strongly disagree that "the service provide I use transfers money at a reasonable cost"
% 95% confidence interval
from to
Americas 25.9 24.2 27.6
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 24.9 21.2 28.5
Sub-Saharan Africa 26.4 24.3 28.5
Northern Africa 34.1 30.5 37.6
West Central Asia and the Middle East 25.8 22.8 28.9
Eastern Asia 13.1 10.1 16.2
Southeast Asia and Oceania 9.4 8.0 10.8
Southern Asia 18.1 16.4 19.9

Table A. 20
Degree of satisfaction of overall experience when sending or bringing money outside of Canada by birth region and sex
Table summary
This table displays the results of Degree of satisfaction of overall experience when sending or bringing money outside of Canada by birth region and sex Degree of satisfaction with overall experience, Very satisfied, Satisfied, Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied, % and 95% confidence interval, calculated using from and to units of measure (appearing as column headers).
Degree of satisfaction with overall experience
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied
% 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval % 95% confidence interval
from to from to from to
Total 21.4 20.7 22.2 72.7 71.9 73.6 5.8 5.4 6.2
Men 20.6 19.5 21.7 73.2 72.1 74.4 6.1 5.5 6.7
Female 22.3 21.1 23.4 72.2 71.1 73.4 5.5 4.9 6.1
Birth region
Americas 21.4 19.8 23.0 71.4 69.7 73.1 7.2 6.3 8.1
Eastern Europe and Southern Europe 15.5 12.6 18.3 75.3 72.0 78.7 9.2 7.0 11.4
Sub-Saharan Africa 20.4 18.6 22.2 70.8 68.7 72.8 8.9 7.6 10.1
Northern Africa 18.5 16.0 21.1 70.2 67.1 73.3 11.3 9.2 13.3
West Central Asia and the Middle East 14.4 12.2 16.6 74.5 71.8 77.3 11.1 9.1 13.1
Eastern Asia 12.2 9.5 14.9 82.7 79.5 85.8 5.1 3.3 6.9
Southeast Asia and Oceania 30.8 28.7 32.8 67.1 65.0 69.3 2.1 1.4 2.8
Southern Asia 18.8 17.2 20.3 76.9 75.1 78.7 4.3 3.5 5.2

References

Adams Jr., Richard H. and Page, John (2005). “Do international migration and remittances reduce poverty in developing countries?” World Development, 33(10), 1645-1669.

Adams Jr, Richard H. (2009). “The determinants of international remittances in developing countries”. World Development, 37(1), 93-103.

Adams Jr, Richard H. and Cuecuecha, Alfredo. (2010). “Remittances, household expenditure and investment in Guatemala”. World Development, 38(11), 1626-1641.

Ahmed et al. (2017). Digital remittances: Enhancing financial health for families around the world; XOOM. A PayPal Service

Akkonyunlu, Şule and Kholodilin, Kostatin A. (2008). “A link between workers’ remittances and business cycles in Germany and Turkey”. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 44(5), 23-40.

Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina and Pozo, Susan (2002). “Remittances as insurance: evidence from Mexican migrants”. Paper presented at Northwest Universities Development Conference, Williams College, Williamstown, MA; October 25-27, 2002.

Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina, Bansak, Cynthia, and Pozo, Susan (2005). “On remitting patterns of immigrants: evidence from Mexican survey data”. Federal Bank of Atlanta. Economic Review, First Quarter 2005.

Antoniades, Alexis; Seshan, Ganesh; Weber, Roberto; Zubrickas, Robertas (2013). “On altruism and remittances” Working Paper No. 131, Department of Economics, University of Zurich      

Beck, Thorsten and Pería, María Soledad Martínez. (2011). “What explains the cost of remittances? An examination across 119 countries”. The World Bank Economic Review, 25(1), 150-131.

Carling, Jørgen (2008). “The determinants of migrant remittances”. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(3), 582-599.

Catrinescu, Natalia; Leon-Ledesma, Miguel; and Piracha, Matloob (2008). “Remittances, institutions, and economic growth”. World Development, 37(1), 81-92.

Collier, William; Piracha, matloob; and Randazzo, Teresa (2011). Remittances and return migration. Discussion paper n°6091, IZA, Bonn, Germany.

de Haas, Hein (2005). “International migration, remittances and development: Myths and facts”. Third World Quarterly, 26(8), 1269-1284

DeVoretz, Don J. and Vadean, Florin P. (2008). "Cultural differences in the remittance behaviour of households: Evidence from Canadian Micro Data", Studies in Economics 0814, School of Economics, University of Kent.

Echazarra, Alfonso (2010). “Accounting for the time of remittances in the Spanish context”. Working paper no. 5-2010, Enero de 2011, ISSN 2172-0487.

Fairchild, Stephen T. and Simpson, Nicole B. (2008). “A comparison of Mexican migrant remittances across U.S. regions”. Contemporary Economic Policy, 26(3), 360-379.

Goza, Franklin and Leticia Marteleto. (1998) "An examination of remittance activity among Brazilian immigrants in the U.S. and Canada", XI Encontro Nacional de Estudos Populacionais da ABEP, 551-575.

Guha, Puja (2013). “Macroeconomic effects of international remittances: The case of developing countries”. Economic modelling, 33, 292-305

Holst, Elke and Schrooten, Mechthild (2006). “Migration and money – what determines remittances? Evidence from Germany” Discussion Papers 566, German Institute of Economic Research, Berlin, March 2006.

Houle, René and Schellenberg, Grant (2008). “Remittance behaviours among recent immigrants in Canada” Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series. Catalogue no. 11F0019M — No. 312

Jiménez-Martín, Sergi; Jorgensen, Natalia; and Labeaga, José María. (2007).The volume and geography of remittances from the EU. European Commission 2007.

Kuuire, Vincent Zubedaar; Arku, Godwin; Luginaah, Isaac; Abada, Teresa; and Buzzelli, Michel (2016). “Impact of remittance behaviour on immigrant homeownership trajectories: An analysis of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants in Canada from 2001 to 2005”. Social Indicator Research, 127(3), 1135-1156.   


Le Goff, Maëlan and Salomone, Sara (2015). “Changes in migration patterns and remittances: Do women and skilled migrants remit more?” CEPII Working Paper no. 2015-15 – September  

Maloumby-Baka, Ralph C. and Kingombe, Christian (2015). The quest to lower high remittance costs to Africa: a brief review of the use of mobile banking and bitcoins. Working Paper n°10, Centre for Finance and Development, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Maison de la Paix, Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2, 1211 Geneva 21, Switzerland

Martin Philip, Manobolo Abella and Elizabeth Midgley. 2004. “Best Practices to Manage Migration: The Philippines”. International Migration Review, Vol. 38, No. 4 (winter), pp. 1544-1560.

Menjivar, Cecilia, Julie DaVanza, Lisa Greenwell and R. Burciaga Valdez. 1998. “Remittance behavior among Salvadoran and Filipino immigrants in Los Angeles.” International Migration Review. 32, 1: 97–126.

Merkle, Lucie and Zimmermann, Klaus F. (1992). “Savings, remittances, and return migration”. Economic Letters, 38(1), 77-81.

Meyer and Shera (2017). “The impact of remittance on economic growth: An econometric model”. EconomiA, 18, 147-155

Niimi, Yoko and Reilly, Barry. (2008). “Gender differences in remittance behavior: Evidence from Vietnam”. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Working Paper no. 135.

Penrose, Perran. (1993). “Planning and financing sustainable education systems in sub-Saharan Africa”. DFID Education Research Paper, no. 07, 32 pages.

Puri, Shivani and Tineke Ritzema. (1999). Migrant worker remittances, micro-finance and the informal economy: Prospects and issues. International Labour Organization, Geneva.

Rahman, Md Mizanur. (2013). “Gendering migrant remittances: Evidence from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates”. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(3), 475-492.

Simmons, Alan, Dwaine Plaza and Victor Piché. (2005). The Remittance Sending Practices of
Haitians and Jamaicans in Canada. Expert Group Meeting on International Migration and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. UN/POP/EGM-MIG/2005/01. Mexico City: United Nations Secretariat, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division.

Stark, Oded, and Robert E.B. Lucas. (1988). “Migration, remittances and the family.” Economic Development and Cultural Change. 36, 3: 465–481

Ullah, A.K.M. Ahsan (2011). “Exposure to remittances: Theoretical and empirical implications for gender”. The Singapore Economic Review, 56(2), 215-237.

Vargas-Silva, C., and S. Pozo (2006). ‘Do immigrants and their remittances respond to the exchange rate?’ Burlington: University of Vermont. Mimeo.

World Bank (2014). Report on the remittance agenda of the G20, Washington, DC

World Bank. (2015). Remittance Prices Worldwide Report, No. 14. World Bank. Washington, DC.

World Bank (2016). Migration and Remittance Factbook 2016.

World Bank (2017). Migration and remittances: recent development and outlook. Special topic: Global compact on migration. Migration and Development Brief 27. April 2017 

World Bank (2018). “Migration and remittances. Recent development and outlook”. World Bank, Washington DC, April.

Yang Dean (2011). “Migrant remittances”. Journal of economic perspectives, 25(3), 129-152.

Notes


Date modified: