RCIS Report
January 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ontario Francophone Immigrant Profile:
Immigration Trends & Labour Outcomes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Kathryn Barber
Ryerson University
Editor: Harald Bauder
1
Acknowledgements
This research emerged as the result of a 2013 Summer Fellowship created by the Ryerson
Centre for Immigration and Settlement (RCIS), the Ryerson PhD Program in Policy Studies,
and the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI) and. I would like to thank
Harald Bauder, Jamie Pitts, Vira Gomova, and Nelson-Mauricio Palacio for their assistance
in developing this paper.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada
License
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINDING: Canada has the second largest francophone population1 within all Western
countries. Ontario is the second largest receiver of francophone immigrants in
Canada. The average per cent of francophone immigrants to Ontario was 2.5% over
the 2001-2012 period but showed an average annual increase of 0.1% per year. Over
the past two years (2011-2012), francophone immigration has accounted for 3.2% of
all immigration to Ontario.
According to the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF), Canada has the fifth
largest francophone population in the world and has the second largest francophone
population within all Western countries – exceeded only by France (OIF, 2010).
Francophone immigration accounted for 9.9% of all immigrants to Canada and 4.1% of all
immigrants excluding Quebec from 2001 to 2012. This rate remained relatively stable for
all of Canada but showed an average decrease of 0.1% per year when Quebec was excluded.
Within Canada, Quebec accepts the largest proportion of francophone immigrants. Ontario
receives the second largest proportion of the francophone immigrants to Canada,
accounting for over 70% of all francophone immigrants. On average of all immigrants to
Ontario, 2.5% were francophone over the 2001-2012 period and showed an annual
average increase of 0.1% per year. Over the past two years, francophone immigration has
accounted for 3.2% of all immigrants to Canada.
FINDING: Francophone immigrants are increasingly settling in non-traditional
francophone centres (except Ottawa) and are not following the geographic
distribution of Canadian-born francophone persons.
The top destinations for francophone immigrants in Ontario were Toronto and Ottawa
followed by Hamilton. Interestingly, Toronto and Ottawa were also the top two
francophone CMA’s in all of Canada excluding Quebec. They accounted for over 60% of all
francophone migration during the time period surveyed excluding Quebec. When
compared with the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) data, this distribution was
consistent with all immigrants. However, non-immigrant francophones tended to live in
more traditional francophone centres.
FINDING: Most francophones immigrate through the Economic Stream. The top
source countries were Lebanon, Haiti, and DRC.
The majority of francophones who come to Ontario entered through the Economic stream
as either a Stated Dependent or a Principal Applicant for all years surveyed. The top
immigration stream varied significantly between landing cohorts. For example, in 20112012, the largest stream used by francophone immigrants was the Refugee class.
The top source countries for francophone immigrants to Ontario are Lebanon
followed by Haiti, DRC, and France. These source countries were fairly consistent across all
1
See p.7 for “Definitions”
3
the years surveyed.. Lebanon topped both the Economic Streams as well as the Family Class
streams. DRC topped the Refugee and Other Immigrant streams.
FINDING: Skill levels and occupations were unknown for the majority of francophone
immigrants in Ontario. For those who indicated a skill level, most were professionals
or skilled and technical workers.
The majority of skill levels and occupations for immigrants to Ontario are unknown. Of the
francophone skill levels that are known, the top is Skill Level A (Professionals) followed by
Skill Level B (Skilled & Technical).
FINDING: Over 50% of francophone immigrants reported Employment Income. The
distribution of francophones with Employment Income was similar to that of all
immigrants with Employment Income who were surveyed during the same time period.
FINDING: Overall, francophones have lower incomes on average than other
immigrants both overall and in all income categories except for the Self Employed
category. Overall, this finding was consistent in all income categories except for the Self
Employment category where francophones tended to make more than other immigrants.
FINDING: The vast majority of francophone immigrants resided in Toronto, followed
by Ottawa and Hamilton. A general finding within all income categories is that there
tended to be a higher incidence rate of those living in Toronto within the older (20012005) landing cohort.
FINDING: Among those with Employment Income, average earnings tended to
increase by reported skill level. Average earnings consistently increased from Level C
($41,831 among recent arrivals and $22,752 among very recent arrival) to Level 0
($70,970 among recent arrivals and $97,533 among very recent arrivals). This finding was
not consistent with other income categories.
FINDING: Self-Employed francophones tended to have higher incomes if they had a B
Skill Level or Trade Certificate. Similarly, the majority of francophone immigrants on
Social Assistance had a Level A Skills or university education. More research is needed
to understand this finding. It seems to imply that a university education is not necessarily
the best predictor of success amongst francophone immigrants.
4
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS, DATA SOURCES & TIME PERIODS ................................................................ 6
Section 2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 6
Section 3 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 8
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF FRANCOPHONES ............................................................................. 11
2.1: CANADA-WIDE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.1: Francophones as a Proportion of the Total Immigrant Population .......................................... 11
2.1.2: Relative Provincial Share of Francophone Migrants ................................................................. 12
SECTION 2.2: ONTARIO FRANCOPHONES ............................................................................................... 14
2.2.1. Source Country.......................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.2. Immigration Streams ................................................................................................................ 15
2.2.3 Top Ontario Destinations by CMA ............................................................................................. 17
2.2.4 Labour Profile ............................................................................................................................. 19
SECTION 3: FRANCOPHONE LABOUR OUTCOMES IN ONTARIO ................................................................. 21
SECTION 3.1: OVERALL FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRATION BY LANDING COHORT .................................... 21
SECTION 3.2: FRANCOPHONE EARNINGS BY DEFINITION ...................................................................... 22
SECTION 3.3: COMPARISON OF FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRANTS TO ALL ONTARIO IMMIGRANTS .......... 23
SECTION 3.4: BREAKDOWN BY INCOME TYPE ........................................................................................ 24
3.4.1 Employment Income .................................................................................................................. 24
3.4.2 Self Employed............................................................................................................................. 26
3.4.3 Employment Insurance (EI) ........................................................................................................ 27
3.4.4 Social Assistance Breakdown ..................................................................................................... 29
Annex ...................................................................................................................................................... 31
5
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS, DATA SOURCES & TIME PERIODS
This report uses three different data sources: the CIC landings data, the Longitudinal
Survey (IMDB), and the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS). Section 2 uses the CIC
landings data and the NHS. Section 3 uses the Longitudinal Survey. Below, I discuss the
definitions and time periods used in each section.
Section 2 Definitions
Section 2 uses CIC landings data to understand immigration trends of francophone
immigrants. It uses a number of specific definitions and has a number of specific
limitations.
CIC Francophone Definition
The francophone definition for immigrants applied to the CIC landings data was based on
three cumulative measures2:
1) Mother tongue is French
2) Mother tongue is something other than French but the individual self-reports
that they are capable of speaking French
3) Mother tongue is something other than French and English but the individual
self-reports that they are capable of speaking both French and English and come
from a designated francophone country3
Table 1.1: Francophone Population Breakdown by Definition for Ontario
Year
Definition 1
2001
695
2002
531
2003
531
2004
738
2005
898
2006
835
2007
904
2008
908
2009
967
2010
992
2011
814
2012
1,006
Total
Sub-Total
3,393
4,606
1,820
9,819
Definition 2
1154
970
821
908
891
827
927
1,091
990
1,325
1,410
1,094
Sub-Total
4,744
5,160
2,504
12,408
Definition 3
1084
980
875
1,150
1,156
987
1,006
1,199
1,126
1,257
1,176
8,23
Sub-Total
5,245
5,575
1,999
12,819
Definition 3 produces the largest population of francophones in Ontario (Table 1.1),
followed by the second and first definitions. By cohort, the third definition had the largest
See: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/evaluation/recruitment/index.asp
Designated francophone countries include: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Comoros, DRC, People’s Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Cote
d’Ivoire, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, New Caledonia, Niger,
Reunion, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo, Tunisia, French Polynesia, Vanuatu, Andorra, Belgium, France,
Luxembourg, Monaco, Switzerland, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique, St. Pierre, and Miquelon.
2
3
6
number of francophones except in the third cohort (2011-2012), in which the second
definition had the largest population of francophones.
Note on CIC Francophone Definitions
The first francophone definition includes only mother tongue and not any other language
ability. A person whose mother tongue is French may be capable of speaking other
languages including English. However, this information is not recorded because this
definition does not track official language spoken.
It is worth mentioning here that the CIC definition of francophone is specific to the
Canadian context and differs from other definitions of francophone. As can be expected,
defining ‘francophon-ness’ is highly dependent on the data sources available. For example,
the Organisation internationale de la francophonie (“OIF” – translated loosely as, “The
International Organization for the French-Speaking World”) – an international organization
that attempts to improve conditions for French speakers – bases its estimates on three data
sources: 1) surveys; 2) regional polls that include information on language, and; 3)
language of school instruction4 . This different definition is important because it shows high
numbers of francophones in non-traditional francophone nations, who would not be
included in the CIC definition. For example, the third CIC definition – which accounts for all
people who list speaking both French and English – classifies countries as francophone
based on their official languages. The 2010 OIF Dénombrement des francophones shows
very high numbers of francophones in non-traditional francophone nations like Romania
and the United States. These numbers are so high that Romania is reported to have more
francophones than Belgium or Haiti. Likewise, the United States, another non-traditional
French centre, is reported to have more francophones than the People’s Republic of Congo
orNiger (see Annex 1 for graph and figures)
It is likely that the CIC definition underestimates the number of francophones
immigrating to Ontario. For example, those self-reported bilingual people (French/English)
whose mother tongue is not French or English who come from places like Romania, the
U.S., Poland, or Ghana are not understood to be francophones under the current CIC
definition..
NHS Francophone Definition
The Census definition for francophones was based on self-reported mother tongue and
languages spoken at home. Persons are considered to be a francophone if 1) their mother
tongue is self-reported to be French; and/or 2) their mother tongue is something other
than French and they self-report that they speak French (and/or other languages) at home.
An immigrant within the Census data is defined as not being born in Canada.
Landing Cohorts
The results presented in Section 2 have been divided into three landing cohorts: 20112012, 2006-2010, and 2001-2005. If cohorts are not explicitly indicated, then the results
cover all cohorts (2001-2012). These landing cohorts were used to make comparisons with
IMDB data. The 2011-2012 cohort was selected to give the most recent demographic
Organisation internationale de la francophonie (2010) La langue française dans la monde 2010. Retrieved
from: http://www.francophonie.org/IMG/pdf/langue_francaise_monde_integral.pdf
4
7
information available. It is important to note that the cohorts are different sizes, which
impacts the interpretation of the results. The 2006-2010 and 2001-2005 cohorts represent
five year time spans whereas the 2011-2012 cohort represents only two years. The census
data for francophones includes immigrants from all landing cohorts previous to 2011 and
their numbers are necessarily higher than in the other data sets.
Other Caveats
This report does not attempt to address the secondary movements of immigrants and only
deals with the destination of first landing. This could be explored in future research.
Section 3 Definitions
Section 3 uses Longitudinal Survey (IMDB) data obtained through a specific StatsCan
request. It tracks the labour outcomes of francophones in Ontario.
Constraints
The IMDB data extrapolates employment information from tax data. As a result, this report
only looks at those francophones who filed their taxes in Ontario in 2010. A comparison
between CIC landings data and IMDB data found that approximately 40-60% of
Francophone immigrants submitted taxes, which is comparable to the national averages.
Landing Cohorts
Two landing cohorts were analyzed: very recent and recent immigrants. Very recent
immigrants migrated to Ontario between 2006 and 2010 and recent immigrants migrated
to Ontario between 2001 and 2005. The migrants included in this analysis listed their
initial province of destination as well as their 2010 province of residence as Ontario.
Francophone definition
Like the definition of Section 2, the francophone definition for immigrants was based on
three cumulative measures , although the third definition differs from Section 2:
1) Mother tongue is French
2) Mother tongue is something other than French but individuals self report that
they are capable of speaking French
3) Mother tongue is something other than French only but individuals self report
that they are capable of speaking either French or English and come from a
designated Francophone country5
Because of the different definitions that were used the results obtained between the two
sections are not directly comparable.
Designated Francophone countries includes: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central
African Republic, Chad, Comoros, DRC, People’s Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea,
Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco, New Caledonia,
Niger, Reunion, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo, Tunisia, French Polynesia, Vanuatu, Andorra, Belgium,
France, Luxembourg, Monaco, Switzerland, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Martinique, St. Pierre, and
Miquelon.
5
8
Caveat: Language Ability versus Language at Work
It is not possible to track language used at work within the IMDB. As a result, it is possible
that someone who is classified as a francophone could use English or another language as
their main language of work. This is quite likely given Ontario’s status as an anglophone
province and the findings from previous reports that suggested that francophone
immigrants largely move to anglophone (as opposed to francophone) centres in Ontario. In
order to gather a general understanding of whether francophone immigrants6 were using
English at work, a short analysis of 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) data is
provided below.
Language spoken at work amongst immigrants to ON
The majority of immigrants to Ontario – cumulatively, 89.9% – did not report the language
spoken most often at work (see the “None” category of Table 1.2). Of those who did, the
majority of immigrants (6.8%) reported a non-official language as the language most
spoken at work followed by English (1.7%) and then French (1.3%) (Table 1.3). Very few
respondents reported speaking two languages at work, cumulatively totalling 0.2%.
Interestingly, of those groups who spoke two languages at work, French and a non-official
language was first, followed by English and a non-official language and English and French.
A second important finding from the Census data is that not all people who report
their mother tongue as French necessarily speak French at their place of work and, of those
who speak French at work, not necessarily all have French as one of their mother tongues.
Of those whose first language was French, 24.0% reported that the language spoken most
often at work was French. Conversely, of those who reported speaking only French at work,
only 16.5% reported French as their mother tongue. Less than 2% of respondents reported
speaking multiple languages including French. The majority of respondents who spoke
French at work actually reported having a single non-official language as their mother
tongue. This was also true in the case of two languages spoken at work (either English and
French or French and a non-official language).
As a result, it is important to caution the reader that even though a person can be
classified as a francophone, this does not necessarily mean that they speak French at work.
In fact, it appears that a higher number of immigrants whose mother tongue is something
other than French of English report speaking French at work than those whose mother
tongue is French.
The Census does not track the same information as CIC. The definition for “francophone” in this case was
mother tongue French, English and French, French and non-official language or English, French & non-official
language.
6
9
Table 1.2: Language Spoken Most Often at Work
Mother
tongue
TOTAL
None
English
French
Nonofficial
Engl. &
French
Engl. &
Nonofficial
Fr. &
Nonofficial
TOTAL
English
French
Nonofficial
English &
French
English &
Nonofficial
French &
Nonofficial
English,
French &
NonOfficial
2,205,055
569,870
20,515
1,543,135
1,982,045
556,315
12,855
1,346,745
38,035
1,040
2,235
34,115
29,760
7,315
4,925
16,220
150,350
4,825
245
142,015
140
0
0
130
965
0
55
880
3,740
360
195
3,010
735
605
25
105
0
0
0
0
65,265
61,180
295
615
3,050
0
20
85
4,990
3,895
315
545
165
0
0
70
550
450
0
45
30
0
0
0
Table 1.3: Language(s) Spoken Most Often at Work (%)
Mother tongue
TOTAL
English
French
Non-official
English &
French
English & Nonofficial
French & Nonofficial
English, French
& Non-Official
None
English
French
NonEnglish
official &
French
English
& Nonofficial
Fr. &
nonofficial
89.9
97.6
62.7
87.3
82.3
1.7
0.2
10.9
2.2
3.4
1.3
1.3
24.0
1.1
14.3
6.8
0.8
1.2
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.2
0.0
93.7
0.5
0.9
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
78.1
6.3
10.9
3.3
0.0
0.0
1.4
81.8
0.0
8.2
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF FRANCOPHONES
2.1: CANADA-WIDE ANALYSIS
According to the 2010 OIF Dénombrement de francophones, Canada has the fifth largest
francophone population in the world, following Morocco, Algeria, DRC, and France. Because
of this large population and its relatively strong economy, it is likely that Canada is a very
attractive location for international migrants wishing to migrate to Western countries. This
section will provide an analysis of francophone migration from two vantage points. Section
2.1 provides a provincial breakdown of francophone migration as a proportion of the total
annual immigrant population. It looks at the number of immigrant francophones relative to
the total immigrant population using the third cumulative CIC francophone definition (See
Section 1 Definitions). Section 2.2 addresses the provincial share of total francophone
migration only. This second section looks only within the francophone immigrant
population, again using the same CIC cumulative third definition.
2.1.1: Francophones as a Proportion of the Total Immigrant Population
From 2001 to 2012, francophone immigration nationally accounted for on average 9.9% of
all immigration to Canada. Excluding Quebec, francophone immigration, on average,
accounted for 4.1% of all immigrants. Francophone immigration to Canada remained stable
with no average decrease or increase per year. When Quebec was removed, there was a
slight decline. Table 2.1 illustrates francophone immigration as percentage of total annual
provincial immigration. For a breakdown of annual francophone immigrant numbers,
please see Annex 1.
Table 2.1: Francophone Immigration as % of Total Annual Immigration
PROV 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12 AVG
AB
1.6 1.3 1.4 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.3
2.5
2.2
2.2
1.9 2.0
BC
0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4 1.0
MN
2.4 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.9 1.8 2.4 1.7
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.9 2.0
NB
16.5 14.2 15.6 13.2 12.0 6.0 8.3 9.1 11.6
7.2 11.5
9.8 11.2
Atl
2.0 3.4 4.0 3.6 3.5 3.0 1.5 2.7
2.0
1.3
2.8
2.1 2.7
Nor
4.6 5.7 6.7 11.3 11.8 20.6 11.6 11.8 15.1
5.5
8.7
3.7 9.8
ON
2.0 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.9
2.9
3.0
3.4
3.0 2.5
QC
41.3 40.5 39.5 40.5 42.1 43.9 44.3 45.6 48.2 50.0 48.3 47.8 44.3
SK
0.9 1.7 0.8 1.9 2.3 1.4 1.4 1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2 1.3
AVG
8.0 7.9 8.0 8.6 8.8 9.1 8.4 8.7 9.6 8.2 9.0 8.2
8.5
AVG* 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.6 4.7 4.8 3.9 4.1 4.8 2.9 4.1 3.2
4.1
*National Average without QC
Quebec receives the largest proportion of francophone immigrants overall.
Francophones make up an average of 44.3% of all immigrants to Quebec. As Figure 2.1
shows, other provinces receiving relatively large proportions of francophone immigrants
include New Brunswick (red, descending line), Manitoba (green line) and B.C. The most
11
interesting finding from this analysis shows that in contrast to the national average of
francophone immigrants which steadily increased over 2001-2012, the proportion of
francophone immigrants arriving in New Brunswick sharply declined from 16.5% to 9.8%.
Manitoba and British Columbia, on the other hand, showed relatively little variation.
% Francophone of Total Immigrant Population
Figure 2. 1: Francophone Immigration as % Total
Immigration in Each Province
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
Alberta
10.0%
B.C.
Manitoba
8.0%
New Brunswick
6.0%
ON
4.0%
National Average (w/out QC)
2.0%
0.0%
Note: Excluding QC due to its large francophone population, and Northern, Atlantic & SK because the absolute
numbers were too small for the meaningful calculation of % of total immigration.
Ontario (black dotted line) received slightly more francophone immigrants (as a per
cent of total immigrants) when compared with the national average (excluding Quebec),
British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba. However, the relative proportion of francophones
is still smaller than in New Brunswick. The average percent of francophones to Ontario (as
a proportion of all immigrants) was 2.5%. This percentage ranged from a low of 1.9% in
2002/2003 to a high of 3.4% in 2010. Over the past two years, the percent francophone
immigration has hovered around an average of 3.2%. There was an average growth of 0.1%
per year, which is above both the national average growth (0%) and the national average
growth without Quebec (-0.1%).
2.1.2: Relative Provincial Share of Francophone Migrants
From 2001 to 2012, the total number of francophone migrants who entered Canada was
approximately 300,000 (Table 2.3). Of those francophones who entered Canada, Quebec
received the largest number, accounting for over 80% of all francophone immigrants
within the time periods surveyed (Figure 2.2.). The remaining 20% of francophone
migrants landed in provinces other than Quebec. Of this 20% or 46,270 people, Ontario
12
received over 70% of all francophone immigrants (Figure 2.3). This makes Ontario the
second largest destination for francophone immigrants in all of Canada.
Table 2.3: Total Francophone Migrants to Canada
2001-2005
2006-2010
20112012
100,586
134,705
61,665
% of Total Francophone Cohort Migration
Canada
Total
296,956
Figure 2.2: Francophone Immigration (with
QC)
100%
90%
111,
092
82.5%
82,543
82.1%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
51,426
83.4%
SK
245,061
82.5%
QC
Ontario
Northern
Atlantic
13,382
13.3%
2001/05
New Brunswick
15,341
11.4%
2006/10
6,323
10.3%
2011/12
Manitoba
35,046
11.8%
British Columbia
Alberta
Total
% of Total Francophone Migration
(Excluding QC)
Figure 2.3: Francophone Migration (w/out
QC)
SK
100%
13,382
80.1%
80%
15,341
74.2%
6,323
71.2%
35,046
75.7%
Ontario
Northern
60%
Atlantic
40%
New Brunswick
Manitoba
20%
1,341
8.0%
0%
2001/05
2006/10
1,354
15.2%
2,930
14.2%
2011/12
13
Total
5,625
12.2%
British Columbia
Alberta
The age and gender breakdown of francophone immigrants to Canada was very similar
among all provinces (see Annex 2 & 3 for breakdown). There were roughly the same
numbers of men to women in all provinces. The age profile was also similar. The vast
majority of all francophone migrants to all provinces were of working age, between 25-44
years of age, including those immigrants to Ontario.
Spotlight CMAs: Outside of Quebec, Ontario’s Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) attract
the largest proportion of francophones. Toronto and Ottawa consistently topped the list of
francophone CMAs, followed by Vancouver and prairie cities (e.g. Edmonton, Calgary,
Winnipeg). Toronto and Ottawa together accounted for almost 60% of all francophone
migration – roughly three times the cumulative total of the next top three CMAs (see Annex
6 for a breakdown of all top CMA’s).
SECTION 2.2: ONTARIO FRANCOPHONES
Given its status as the second largest destination for francophones in Canada, what does
the Ontario francophone population look like? This section provides an answer to this
question. It is structured in the following way: a) Profile of Top Source Countries; b)
Immigration Streams; c) Top Destinations (by CMA and Economic Region); and d)
Labour Outcomes.
Spotlight Toronto: Given that Toronto absorbs large proportion of all francophone
migrants, it is worthwhile to briefly outline the source countries for Toronto. The top
source countries for Toronto do not differ substantially from those listed in Table 2.4. They
are Mauritius, Lebanon, France, DRC, and Morocco (see Annex 6 for a full breakdown).
2.2.1. Source Country7
The top source countries for francophone immigrants to Ontario are Lebanon, Haiti, DRC,
France, and Morocco, with some minor fluctuations between cohorts (Table 2.4).
7
Source country is understood as “country of birth”. It is possible that some individuals may have transited
to Canada from a country that was not their country of birth. However, these countries of transit are not
considered “source countries”.
14
Total
Table 2.4: Ontario Francophone Source Country
(by Landing Cohort in Absolute Number and %)
2011-2012
2006-2010
2001-2005
1) Lebanon 4,559 (13%)
2) Haiti 4,454 (13%)
3) Democratic Republic
of Congo 3,744 (11%)
4) France 2,939 (8%)
5) Morocco 2,765 (8%)
6) Mauritius 2,759 (8%)
7) Algeria 1,488 (4%)
8) Burundi 1,392 (4%)
9) Federal Republic of
Cameroon 1,260 (4%)
10) Rwanda 777 (2%)
1) Haiti 1,524 (24%)
1) Lebanon 2,146 (14%) 1) Lebanon 1,968
2) Democratic
2) Democratic Republic
(15%)
Republic of Congo
of Congo 1,649 (11%) 2) Democratic Republic
596 (9%)
3) Haiti 1,605 (11%)
of Congo 1,499
3) France 506 (8%)
4) France 1,385 (9%)
(11%)
4) Lebanon 445 (7%)
5) Morocco 1,324 (9%)
3) Mauritius 1,383
5) Morocco 329 (5%)
6) Mauritius 1,101 (7%)
(10%)
6) Burundi 329 (5%)
7) Federal Republic of
4) Haiti 1,325 (10%)
7) Federal Republic of
Cameroon 720 (5%)
5) Morocco 1,112 (8%)
Cameroon 277
8) Algeria 626 (4%)
6) France1,048 (8%)
(4%)
9) Burundi 594 (4%)
7) Algeria 656 (5%)
8) Mauritius 275
10)
Republic of Ivory 8) Burundi 469 (4%)
(4%)
Coast 380 (3%)
9) Romania* 312 (2%)
9) Algeria 206 (3%)
10) Cameroon 263 (2%)
10) Rwanda 173 (3%)
* The results in Table 2.4 are relatively consistent with the CIC francophone definition except for the 20012005 cohort, which listed Romania as the ninth largest source country for francophones. This finding,
however, is consistent with the OIC understanding of francophones.
2.2.2. Immigration Streams
The majority of francophone immigrants to Ontario came through the Economic Stream as
either a Stated Dependent or a Principal Applicant. The Stated Dependent category was
larger than the Principal Applicant. The top immigration stream varied significantly
between landing cohorts. For example, in 2011-2012, the largest stream used by
francophone immigrants was the Refugee class whereas in 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 the
Economic Streams were the most popular (Figure 2.4). Further study is needed to
understand why these changes in source country occurred.
The top source countries by immigration stream were all consistent with top source
countries to Ontario. There were some differences across streams. Notably, Lebanon
topped both the Economic Stream as well as the Family Class. France and Morocco followed
in both the Economic streams. Interestingly, Haiti ranked the second largest source country
for Family, Refugee, and Other Immigrant and the DRC topped the Refugee and Other
Immigrant streams. This is consistent with an overall increase in the number of Haitian
immigrants (francophone and non-francophone) over the past three years. In the case of
the Refugee Stream, DRC accounted for a very large proportion (32%) of all immigrants
(Table 2.5; see Annex 6 for full breakdown).
15
Figure 2.4: Immigration Streams of
Francophone Immigrants to Ontario
237
% of Total ON Francophone Immigration
100%
3.7%
90%
80%
2,321
36.7%
346
2.6%
645
4.2%
2,533
18.9%
3,382
22.0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
1,205
19.1%
992
15.7%
1228
3.5%
8,236
23.5%
3,968
29.7%
4,279
27.9%
9,452
27.0%
Refugees
3,811
28.5%
3,855
25.1%
8,658
24.5%
Economic immigrants - s.d.
Economic immigrants - p.a.
Family class
20%
10%
Other immigrants & Not Stated
1,568
24.8%
3,180
20.7%
2,724
20.4%
7,472
21.3%
2011/12
2006/10
2001/05
Total
0%
Cohort
Table 2.5: Top 3 Source Countries by Immigration Stream to Ontario (All Landing
Cohorts)
Economic P.A. Economic S.D
Family Class
Refugee
Other
Lebanon
Lebanon 15.4% Lebanon 17.0%
DRC 32.0%
DRC 30.5%
19.7% (1709)
(1452)
(1268)
(2639)
(374)
France 12.3%
Mauritius
Haiti 11.8%
Haiti 22.6%
Haiti 10.2%
(1139)
15.3% (1444)
(880)
(1861)
(125)
Morocco
France 10.4%
Morocco 9.7%
Burundi 22.6% France 8.8%
13.1% (1132)
(983)
(724)
(1154)
(108)
A surprising finding established France as the third largest source country for
“Other Immigrants” (accounting for 108 people). The majority of these immigrants entered
through the Other H&C category. This category is intended for individuals who do not meet
the criteria to apply through regular channels but who can demonstrate that they should be
exempt from regular immigration channels because of “humanitarian and compassionate
considerations relating to the foreign national”8. This is generally understood to mean that
the person demonstrates that they will encounter an “unusual, undeserved or
disproportionate hardship”9 should they return to their native country. It is unclear what
8
9
IRPA 25 (1)
ibid
16
hardship French nationals (the analysis used the Country of Birth) faced. Further research
is needed to understand this situation.
2.2.3 Top Ontario Destinations by CMA10
The top CMA destinations for francophones to Ontario in all landing cohorts were topped
by Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton. Toronto and Ottawa accounted for over 85% of all
francophone immigration to Ontario across all landing cohorts.
In order to gain an understanding of how francophone immigrants are contributing
to existing francophone communities, a profile of francophone immigration to traditional
francophone centres was constructed based on the 2011 National Household Survey.
Traditional francophone centres are defined as places in Ontario with large French
speaking populations relative to the total population. The CMAs depicted in Tables 2.6 and
2.7 were chosen because they have high populations of francophones relative to the total
population, ranging from 15.8% to 64.3%. In comparison, non-traditional francophone
centres such as Toronto and Hamilton, which have received higher absolute numbers of
francophone immigrants, only had francophone populations that accounted for 1.3 to 1.6%
of the total population.
Table 2.6: Francophone Population of Traditional
Francophone Centre
CMA
2011 Census
Greater Sudbury
160,770 (25.6%)
Hawkesbury
6,785 (64.3%)
Ottawa-Hull
921,823 (15.8%)
Timmins
43,165 (36.9%)
Table 2.7: Traditional Francophone Centres (CMA)
Greater
Sudbury
Hawkesbury
Ottawa-Hull
Timmins
20112012
32
%
%
1.2%
20062010
74
n/a
11,444
10
%
Total
%Total
0.5%
20012005
56
0.9%
162
0.5%
0.2%
85.5%
0.02%
11
4924
n/a
0.1%
32.1%
0.03%
n/a
4163
n/a
0.1%
65.8%
0.02%
21
11,444
n/a
0.1%
32.7%
0.03%
Amongst the traditional francophone centres, only Ottawa-Hull attracts a considerable
proportion of francophone immigrants. Indeed, Ottawa-Hull was the second largest CMA
destination for francophone migrants in Ontario. Outside of Ottawa-Hull, francophone
10
Caveat: The data used only contains information on the destination indicated upon first immigration to
Canada. Thus, any secondary movements to other cities or provinces that occurred subsequent to arrival in
Canada are not accounted for in this section.
17
immigrants are not settling in traditional francophone centres in Ontario but rather in
traditionally-considered Anglophone cities like Toronto, Hamilton, and Windsor.
Could this be part of some larger francophone movement towards non-traditional
francophone centres? The latest results from the 2011 National Household Survey (Figure
2.5) indicate that the answer is no. A comparison of the geographic distribution of
francophones immigrants11 versus all francophones finds different patterns in their
settlement. Shown as a per cent of the total of each group, a larger proportion (on average,
2.3%) of non-immigrant francophones reside in traditional francophone centres (such as
Ottawa, Timmins, Sudbury, and Hawkesbury). Indeed, by this measure Timmins is the
fourth largest francophone centre in all of Ontario.
% of Total Relative Populations (All francophones &
Immigrant francophones)
Figure 2.5: Immigrant Francophone vs. All
Francophone Geographic Dist. (2011)
35.0%
32.7%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
17.4%
ALL
13.9%
10.0%
IMMIGRANT
7.2%
3.9%
5.0%
1.5%
0.1%
0.0%
OTW
TO
TIMNS
2.7%
1.5% 1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
0.3%
0.2%
SDBRY
HAM
WDSR
CRNWL
According to this cursory NHS analysis, francophone immigrants show a spatial
distribution that is consistent with the findings of this report. The largest proportion of
francophone immigrants reside in Toronto followed by Ottawa and Hamilton. It is also
interesting to note that a slightly larger proportion (3.5%) of francophone immigrants live
in Ottawa as opposed to non-immigrant francophones.
11
Here understood as any person who was not born in Canada and who has French as a mother tongue or
speaks French at home
18
2.2.4 Labour Profile
The analysis used the Skill Level criteria to understand the labour profile of francophone
immigrants in Ontario. Even though this criterion has limitations (a significant proportion
of immigrants report unknown skill levels), it is better than other criteria. For example,
analysis using NOC2 or NOC4 categories reports between 70% and 80% unknown
professions. . Because of this shortcoming, the top NOC4/NOC2 professions only accounted
for 5–10% of all francophones coming to Ontario. A breakdown of the top NOC 2 and 4
categories can be found in the Annex 9 and 10. Furthermore, the third section of this report
addresses the labour outcomes of francophones in Ontario in more detail.
Figure 2.6: Skill Level of Ontario Francophone
Immigrants who Reported Intention to Work
100%
% of those who reported intention to work
90%
Unknown
80%
70%
2,938
70.4%
4,303
61.9%
2,821
52.1%
10,062
60.9%
60%
Skill Level C - intermediate and
clerical
50%
Skill Level B - skilled and technical
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Skill Level D - elemental and
labourers
262
6.3%
652
15.6%
200
4.8%
2011/12
718
10.3%
1,347
19.4%
357
5.1%
2006/10
705
13.0%
1,685
10.2%
1,423
26.3%
3,422
20.7%
165
3.0%
2001/05
Skill Level A - professionals
Skill Level 0 - managerial
722
4.4%
Grand Total
The majority of skill levels among francophone immigrants are unknown. Among
francophone immigrants who indicated a skill level, 20.7% intended to work in Skill Level
A (Professionals), followed by Skill Level B (Skilled & Technical). This is consistent with the
skill levels of all immigrants to Ontario, where Skill Level A (Professional) represented
28.1% followed by Skill Level B.
19
Spotlight: Top Five Economic Regions: The top five Economic Regions (Toronto, Ottawa,
Hamilton-Niagara-Peninsula, Windsor-Sarnia, Kitchener-Waterloo) had the same top three
skill levels among francophone immigrants: Skill Level A, Skill Level B, and Skill Level 0.
The top 3 skill levels for the top five ER’s cumulatively accounted for approximately 87% of
all francophone immigrants who declared skill levels and reported intention to work (see
Annex 13-15 for a regional breakdown of Skill Levels, NOC2 and NOC4 occupations).
20
SECTION 3: FRANCOPHONE LABOUR OUTCOMES IN ONTARIO
This section gives an overview of the Francophone populations studied, by comparing the
characteristics of francophone immigrants to all immigrants in the IMDB. It uses the
modified cumulative third CIC francophone definition (see Section 1 “Definitions”).
SECTION 3.1:
COHORT
OVERALL FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRATION BY LANDING
In absolute numbers there were 4,475 francophone recent immigrants and 5,505 very
recent francophone immigrants in Ontario in 2010 (see Table 3.1). When divided into type
of income categories (Employment, Self Employment, Employment Insurance (EI), and
Social Assistance), the majority of francophone immigrants in both categories were
employed (62.9% and 58.8%) (Tables 3.2a and 3.2b). The distribution between
employment categories was also fairly consistent between categories. However, Social
Assistance usage was higher amongst very recent francophone immigrants (See Table
3.2b).
Overall, recent francophone immigrants reported higher average earnings
($27,823) than very recent francophone immigrants ($22,014) (Table 3.1). This was true in
every income category except Self Employment income, which showed higher average
earnings for the very recent ($16,116 versus $14,918) (Table 3.3c).
Table 3.1: Cohort Breakdown, Ontrio
Total Francophone
Average Earnings ($)12
immigrants
Recent (20012005)
4,475
27,823
Very Recent (2006-2010)
5,505
22,014
Table 3.2a: Cohort Breakdown by Income category (Numbers)
Employment
Self
EI
Social
Income
Employment
Assistance
Recent
2,815
420
595
505
Very Recent
3,235
405
525
895
Table 3.2b: Cohort Breakdown by Income category (%13 )
Employment
Self
EI
Social
Income
Employment
Assistance
Recent
62.9
9.4
13.3
11.3
Very Recent
58.8
7.4
9.5
16.3
12
The IMDB database uses average incomes instead of median incomes,.
Calculated based on total francophone immigrants reported in first section. Cohort totals are not the same
across calculations due to rounding.
13
21
Table 3.3: Cohort Breakdown by Mean Income category ($)
Employment
Self
EI
Social
Income
Employment
Assistance
Recent
37,573
14,918
7,518
8,133
Very Recent
29,234
16,116
7,058
7,366
SECTION 3.2: FRANCOPHONE EARNINGS BY DEFINITION
In order to understand the influence of the three different francophone definitions on
earnings, Tables 3.4a and 3.410b provides a breakdown of earnings by income category
and definition. The definitions used were non-cumulative and just took on the unique
aspects of each individual definition. According to the first definition (mother tongue is
French), francophone immigrants had higher average earnings than according to the other
definitions, except for Social Assistance. Initially, this finding seems peculiar as the CIC
database shows that those who speak only French as an Official Language earn less than
their peers who speak either French/English or English. However, the first definition does
not include any measurement for other language spoken, so a person whose mother tongue
is French could feasibly also speak other languages including English. One possible
explanation is that because many French mother tongue immigrants are from Europe, this
result may be capturing many EU immigrants whose average earnings tend to be higher
than people of African or Caribbean origin. majority of francophone immigrants fit under
the second definition (Table 3.4a). Very recent francophone immigrants measured
according to the second definition – those who reported speaking only French - had
employment earnings that were quite low ($18,809) when compared to the average
earnings of first definition francophones and all francophone immigrants (Table 3.4b).
Francophone immigrants measured by the third definition had higher Social
Assistance income than those measured by the first definition. Interestingly, average Social
Assistance incomes were actually higher in the very recent category compared to the
recent categories. Further research is needed to understand this finding.
Table 3.4a: Breakdown of Earnings by Francophone Definition and Landing Cohort
(Number)
Employment
Self Employment
EI
Social Assistance
Income
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
R* 1,125 1,470 220
105
235
80
195 345 55
135 265 105
VR 1,630
1,420
185
155
220
30
22
255
230
40
220
565
110
Table 3.4b: Breakdown of Mean Earnings by Francophone Definition and Landing cohort ($)
Employment Income
Self Employment
EI
Social Assistance
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
48,893
31,142
22,651
17,433
14,690
12,287
7,883
7,326
7,436
7,633
7,567
10,203
VR 39,895
18,809
15,311
24,620
11,408
6,707
7,335
6,776
6,917
6,663
7,459
8,289
R
* R represents “recent” and VR represents “very recent”.
Based on CIC Francophone Definition (Section 1)
SECTION 3.3: COMPARISON OF FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRANTS TO ALL
ONTARIO IMMIGRANTS
Francophone immigrants make up only a small portion (0.5%-0.7%) of all tax paying
immigrants in each landing cohort, when compared to the proportion of francophone
immigrants who landed in Ontario every year, which averaged about 2%.
Overall, francophone immigrants tended to report lower average earnings than all
Ontario immigrants in the same landing cohorts. Table 3.5d shows that this finding was
consistent when francophone immigrants were broken into income categories. This was
particularly notable in the Employment Income category which showed gaps of up to
$18,000 between francophone and all immigrants. This finding was consistent in all
categories except for the Self Employment category, which showed that francophone
immigrants had higher earnings than all immigrants in both landing cohorts. It is unclear
why the Self Employment category particularly would show these types of differences..
Further research is needed to understand this phenomenon.
In terms of the proportionate distribution across income categories,, francophone
immigrants had a similar income category breakdown by cohort as all immigrants (see
Table 3.5c). In the recent landing cohort, there was a smaller proportion of francophones in
the Social Assistance and Self Employment categories than all immigrants. In the very
recent landing cohort, there was a smaller proportion of francophones in the Self
Employment and EI categories (see Table 3.5c).
Table 3.5a: Comparison of Francophone to All Immigrants by Landing Cohort
Total
Mean
All Immigrants
Mean
Francophones
Earnings ($)
Earnings ($)
Recent (20014,475 (0.5%)
27,823
307,512
35,351
2005)
Very Recent
5,505 (0.7%)
22,014
251,608
26,103
(2006-2010)
23
Table 3.5b: Comparison of Francophone versus All Ontario Immigrants (Total
Number)
Employment
Self Employment
EI
Social
Income
Assistance
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
R
2,815
169,108
420
54,103 595 33,769
505
50,532
VR
3,235
123,815
405
50,028 525 30,887
895
46,878
R
VR
Table 3.5c: Comparison of Francophone versus All Ontario Immigrants (%)
Employment
Self Employment
EI
Social Assistance
Income
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
62.9
55.0
9.4
17.6
13.3
11.0
11.3
16.4
58.8
49.2
7.4
19.9
9.5
12.3
16.3
18.6
Table 3.5d: Comparison of Francophone versus All Ontario Immigrants Mean
Earnings ($)
Employment
Self Employment
EI
Social Assistance
Income
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
FR
ALL
R
37,573
55,466
14,918
13,949 7,518 10,304
8,133
7,688
VR
29,234
44,303
16,116
10,302 7,058 7,051
7,366
7,448
SECTION 3.4: BREAKDOWN BY INCOME TYPE
This section analyses Francophone immigrant earnings by income type (Employment
Income, Self-Employment income, Employment Insurance, and Social Assistance). For each
income type, an analysis was conducted of overall earnings by immigration class, skill level,
Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), and Country of Last Permanent Residence (CLPR).
3.4.1 Employment Income
Table 3.6a demonstrates that over 50% of francophone immigrants in both landing cohorts
(62.9% of recent and 58.8% of very recent) reported having Employment Incomes. This
makes Employment Income the largest earnings category for francophone immigrants. The
average Employment Income for francophone immigrants was lower than those of all
immigrants. Table 3.6b illustrates that the majority of francophone immigrants who
reported Employment Income came through the Economic Immigration Stream (26.4% of
recent and 23.9% of very recent) followed by the Family Class (17.1% of recent and 13.9%
of very recent) and the Refugee Class (15.1% of recent and 15.8% of very recent).
Francophone immigrants in the economic class made more than their peers in the Family
Class and Refugee Class (see Table 3.6c.
24
Table 3.6a: Summary Breakdown of Employed Francophones
Number
%*
Average Income ($)
Recent
2,815
62.9
37,573
Very Recent
3,235
58.8
29,234
* Incidence rates were calculated as a percentage of the landing cohort total.
Table 3.6b: Breakdown of Employed Francophones by Class (%)
Family
Economic
Refugee
Other
Recent
17.1
26.4
15.1
2.7
Very Recent
13.9
23.9
15.8
4.2
Table 3.6c: Breakdown of Employed Francophones by Immigration Stream
Family
Economic
Refugee
Other
Recent
32,871
47,032
27,668
34,818
Very Recent
26,633
39,640
17,861
24,246
A large share of the skill levels of francophone immigrants were “not stated” (40.1,42.1%)
(see Table 3.7a). Of those that were known, the majority intended to work in Skill Level A
professions (professions requiring a university education), followed by Skill Level B
(requiring college or apprenticeship training). Table 3,7b illustrates substantial differences
in average earnings when divided by skill levels. Earnings tended to increase with skill
level. As expected, those in Skill Level 0 – i.e. managerial skill level – tended to make
substantially more money than those in Level C.
Table 3.7a: Breakdown of Employed Francophones by Skill Level (%)
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D Not stated
Recent
1.3
11.5
5.6
1.8
0.4
42.1
Very Recent
2.5
9.4
5.0
1.6
-40.1
Table 3.7b: Breakdown of Employed Francophones by Skill Level, Mean Earnings ($)
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Not stated
Recent
70,970
60,771
42,117
41,831
29,407
Very Recent
97,533
48,240
35,198
22,752
20,314
Geographically, shows the majority of francophone immigrants who reported employment
earnings lived in Toronto (29.6% of VR or 34.3% of R) or Ottawa (18.7% or 19.5%) - with a
small minority migrating to Hamilton (0.7%) (Table 3.8a). Interestingly, only francophone
migrants in the very recent category listed Hamilton as their CMA of residence. No recent
francophone immigrants (arriving between 2001 and 2005) lived Hamilton. This is an
25
interesting finding as it indicates that francophone migrants who initially moved to smaller
metropolises may later be moving to other cities. Table 3.8b shows that those employed
francophone migrants who moved to Toronto tended to have average earnings that were
substantially higher than francophone immigrants elsewhere14.
Table 3.8a: Employment Income by CMA Breakdown (%)
Recent
Very Recent
Ottawa
18.7
19.5
Toronto
34.3
29.6
Hamilton
0.0
0.7
Table 3.8b: Employment Income by CMA Breakdown, Mean Earnings ($)
Ottawa
Toronto
Hamilton
Recent
32,829
40,631
0
Very Recent
22,286
35,036
26,694
3.4.2 Self Employed
Table 3.9 demonstrates that for both recent and very recent landing cohorts, 10% of
francophone immigrants reported self-employment earnings in 2010. There was a higher
incidence of Self Employment amongst francophone immigrants who had been in Ontario
longer. The average Self Employment income of Francophone immigrants was substantially
lower than Employment Income, amounting to only about $15,000 over both landing
cohorts. However, it is important to note that immigrants are able to report both
Employment and Self-Employment Income on their income tax application. Some
immigrants tend to supplement their employment earnings with Self-Employment Income.
Other immigrants may also have income derived from investments. This report does not
examine immigrants with different combined sources of income.
Table 3.9: Summary Breakdown of Self-Employed Francophone Immigrants
Number
%
Mean Income ($)
Recent
420
9.4
14,918
Very Recent
405
7.4
16,116
Table 3.10a shows that the majority of francophone self-employed immigrants came
through the Economic class followed by the Family Class. Francophone migrants in the
Economic class reported higher Self-Employment earnings compared to their family class
counterparts. Interestingly, there were no consistent differences (more/less) between
landing cohorts in terms of average earnings (Figure 3.10).
14
Note: This analysis only looks at employment income and does not take into account cost of living.
26
Table 3.10a: Breakdown of Self Employed Francophones by Immigration Category
(%)
Family
Economic
Refugee
Other
Recent
2.6
4.9
0.6
0.1
Very Recent
2.4
3.6
0.2
0.0
Table 3.10b: Breakdown of Self Employed Francophones by Immigration Category
(Mean Earnings)
Family
Economic
Refugee
Other
Recent
11,543
18,843
6,394
9,248
Very Recent
9,950
19,180
9,889
-The majority of francophone immigrants who reported Self-Employment Income had an
occupation that required either a university or college education (Table 3.11a).
Interestingly, average earnings were higher for francophone immigrants in a profession
that required a college education ($21,842 for recent and $27,113 in very recent) as
opposed to a university education ($17,271 for recent and $15,333 for very recent) (Table
3.11b).
Table 3.11a: Breakdown of Self Employed Francophones by Skill Level (%)
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
Not
stated
Recent
0.0
1.8
0.9
0.1
0.0
5.9
Very Recent
0.1
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
4.8
Table 3.11b: Breakdown of Self Employed Francophones by Skill Level, Mean
Earnings ($)
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
Recent
Very Recent
0.0
11,596
17,271
15,333
21,842
27,113
15,979
0.0
0.0
0.0
Not
stated
12,481
13,574
3.4.3 Employment Insurance (EI)
Table 3.12 shows that 13.3% of recent and 9.5% of very recent francophone immigrants
reported using EI. These results are comparable to the incidence rates of all immigrants –
11.0% in the recent category and 12.3% in the very recent category (see Table 3.5c).
Average francophone immigrant EI income was also comparable to average earnings of all
immigrants in the EI category (see Table 3.5d and Table 3.15).
27
Table 3.12: Summary Breakdown of EI Francophone Immigrants
Number
%
Mean Income ($)
Recent
595
13.3%
7,518
Very Recent
525
9.5%
7,058
Table 3.13a illustrates that the majority of individuals on EI came from the Economic
immigration stream followed by the Family and Refugee classes. Table 3.13b shows that
earnings were very similar across immigration categories except for the Recent Other class,
which saw EI income of approximately $11,000. This result may relate to the low incidence
rate of this class, which makes the result very sensitive to outliers.
Table 3.13a: EI Francophone Immigrants by Immigration Stream (%)
Family
Economic
Refugee
Other
Recent
3.5
4.7
3.5
0.1
Very Recent
2.6
2.7
2.0
0.6
Table 3.13b: EI Francophone Immigrants by Immigration Stream, Mean Earnings ($)
Family
Economic
Refugee
Other
Recent
7,121
7,708
7,844
11,374
Very Recent
7,506
7,008
6,761
6,313
Table 3.14a shows that the majority of francophone immigrants who used EI were
categorized Level A (qualified for jobs that require university degree) followed by Level B
(qualified for jobs that require a trade certificate). This finding is consistent across both
landing cohorts. Consistently, those in the Skill Level A reported higher earnings than those
in the Skill Level B. All Francophone immigrants who received EI benefits resided in
Toronto.
Table 3.14a: EI Francophone immigrants by Skill Level (%)
Recent
Very Recent
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
0.0
0.1
2.0
1.3
1.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
Not
stated
9.6
7.1
Table 3.14b: EI Francophone immigrants by Skill Level, Mean Earnings ($)
Recent
Very Recent
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
0
8,873
7,875
8,007
6,406
6,432
8,625
1,964
0
0
28
Not
stated
7,460
6,836
3.4.4 Social Assistance Breakdown
Table 3.15 shows that 11.3% of recent and 16.3% of very recent francophone immigrants
received social assistance benefits in 2010. When compared with all immigrants,
francophone immigrants had a lower incidence rate in the Social Assistance category in
both landing cohorts (see Table 3.5c). The average income of francophone immigrants on
the Social Assistance was similar to that of all immigrants. As expected, there was a lower
use of the Social Assistance category amongst those francophone immigrants who had been
in Ontario for a longer period of time (a 5% decrease).
Table 3.15: Francophone Immigrants on the Social Assistance
Number
%
Mean Income ($)
Recent
505
11.3
8,133
Very Recent
895
16.3
7,366
The majority of Francophones in both landing cohorts who used Social Assistance came to
Canada through the Refugee class (6.9% and 11.1%) (Table 3.16a). Interestingly, the
Economic Immigration stream was the second most likely stream to use Social Assistance
(0.9% in recent and 2.5% in very recent).
There were striking time differences between landing cohorts, especially in the
“Recent” category. The Refugee (6.9%) and Family (2.2%) classes had the highest incidence
rates in the Social Assistance category. However, in the very recent category – those who
had been in the country for a shorter period of time – the Refugee (11.1) and Economic
(2.5) classes had the highest incidence rates. This is interesting because a common
assumption is that immigrants in the Family and Refugee classes use Social Assistance
category more often than economic class immigrants. Further research is needed to
understand this finding.
Recent
Very Recent
Table 3.16a: Breakdown by Immigration Stream (%)
Family
Economic
Refugee
2.2
0.9
6.9
0.9
2.5
11.1
Other
0.2
0.9
Table 3.16b: Breakdown by Immigration Stream, Mean Earnings ($)
Family
Economic
Refugee
Other
Recent
8,892
7,970
7,988
9,129
Very Recent
7,287
6,941
7,571
6,555
Table 3.17a shows that, the majority of francophone immigrants in the Social Assistance
category stated to have University-level education (Skill Level A), followed by a trade
certificate (Level B). This is a very compelling finding as it challenges the perception that
29
those in on social assistance tend to have lower levels of education. Average earnings were
slightly higher for university educated francophone immigrants ( $7,544 to $8,853) as
opposed to those with a trade certificate ($6,651 to $6,040). This was comparable to the
average earnings of all immigrants in the Social Assistance category (See Table 3.5d).
Table 3.17a: Breakdown by Skill Level (%)
Recent
Very Recent
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
Not
stated
9.9
14.3
Table 3.17b: Breakdown by Skill Level, Mean Earnings ($)
Recent
Very Recent
Level 0
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
0
0
8,853
7,544
6,651
6,040
0
7,178
0
0
Not
stated
8,185
7,462
Table 3.18a shows that those on Social Assistance tended to live in Toronto (5.5% of recent
and 6.6% of very recent) or Ottawa (1.2% of recent and 6.2% of very recent).
Interestingly, there was a substantially lower incidence rate of francophone immigrants in
Ottawa (a 5% difference) in the recent landing cohort. Those who lived in Toronto tended
to have slightly higher incomes than those from Ottawa (see Table 3.167b).
Recent
Very Recent
Table 3.18a: Breakdown by CMA (%)
Ottawa
Toronto
1.2
5.5
6.2
6.6
Recent
Very Recent
Table 3.18b: Breakdown by CMA, Mean Earnings ($)
Ottawa
Toronto
7,164
8,510
6,761
7,469
30
Annex
Annex 1: Number of Francophone Immigrants by Province
Prov
AB
BC
MB
NB
ATL*
North
ON
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Total
256
309
111
132
45
8
193
249
66
100
66
7
217
235
81
104
79
11
331
365
109
105
96
18
344
398
237
131
96
19
479
433
184
98
110
36
490
452
265
136
59
22
553
512
186
168
129
34
678
534
248
221
96
44
730
516
331
153
76
28
669
422
336
227
126
30
685
498
383
217
87
17
5625
4923
2537
1792
1065
274
2933
15521
15
2481
15228
28
2227
15606
14
2796
17940
37
2945
18248
49
2649
19633
38
2837
20045
50
3198
20610
50
3083
23833
64
3574
26971
69
3400
25008
85
2923
26418
134
35046
245061
633
19330
18418
18574
21797
22467
23660
24356
25440
28801
32448
30303
31362
296,956
3809
3190
2968
3857
4219
4027
4311
4830
4968
*Atlantic: includes PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Northern includes the NWT, Yukon & Nunavet.
** Total excluding QC
5477
5295
4944
51895
QC
SK
TOTAL
TOTAL
**
31
Annex 2: Age Breakdown of Francophone Immigrants by % of All Landing Cohorts
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
0 to 14 years of age
40.0%
15 to 24 years of age
25 to 44 years of age
30.0%
45 to 64 years of age
20.0%
65 years of age or more
10.0%
0.0%
Atlantic
Northern
AB
BC
MN
NB
ON
32
QC
SK
Annex 3: Gender Distribution of Francophone Immigrants for All Years
140000
129333
115728
120000
100000
80000
Female
60000
Male
40000
17966
20000
2957
2668
2363
2560
1183
1354
0
Alberta
British
Columbia
Manitoba
777
1015
New
Brunswick
499
566
Atlantic
33
41
17080
24
Northern CA
285
Ontario
Quebec
348
Saskatchewan
Annex 4
Total
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Top 5 Francophone CMA destinations throughout Canada (Excluding QC)
(with of Total Landing Cohort & Absolute Number)
2011-2012
2006-2010
2001-2005
Toronto 36% (18367)
Ottawa – Hull 22% (11423)
Vancouver 8% (3937)
Calgary 5% (2595)
Edmonton 5% (2301)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Toronto 29% (2953)
Ottawa – Hull 23% (2356)
Vancouver 7% (731)
Winnipeg 6% (632)
Edmonton 6% (613)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Toronto 34% (8042)
Ottawa – Hull 21% (4909)
Vancouver 8% (1972)
Calgary 6% (1399)
Edmonton 5% (1159)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Toronto 41% (7372)
Ottawa-Hull 23% (4158)
Vancouver 7% (1234)
Calgary 4% (665)
Winnipeg 3% (554)
Annex 5
Total
Toronto Francophone Source Country
( as of Landing Cohort Total and Absolute Number)
2011-2012
2006-2010
2001-2005
Mauritius 14% (2499)
Lebanon 13% (2368)
France 10% (1829)
DRC 10% (1794)
Morocco 9% (1571)
Haiti 19% (522)
France 12% (335)
DRC 9% (234)
Lebanon 9% (233)
Mauritius 8% (226)
Mauritius 18% (1272)
Lebanon 15% (1069)
DRC 10% (745)
Morocco 9% (666)
France 8% (596)
Lebanon 14% (1066)
Mauritius 13% (1001)
France 11% (898)
DRC 10% (815)
Morocco 10% (746)
34
Annex 6
Top Source Countries by Immigration Stream (Absolute Numbers & of Total Landing Cohort and Immigration
Stream)
Immigration Stream 2011-2012
20062010
2001-2005
Total
Lebanon
19.4%
(192)
Lebanon
20.5%
(790)
Lebanon
19.1%
(727)
Lebanon 19.7% (1709)
Economic - P.A.
Economic – S.D.
Family Class
Other Immigrant
Refugee
France 19.0% (188
Morocco 8.5% (84)
Mauritius 8.3% (82)
Federal Republic of
Cameroon 8.1% (80)
Lebanon 13.3% (160)
France 12.2% (147)
Mauritius 10.1% (122)
Federal Republic of
Cameroon 9.1% (110)
Morocco 8.5% (103)
Haiti 16.3% (255)
France 9.4% (148)
Morocco 8.5% (133)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 7.1% (112)
India 5.9% (93)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 28.8% (68)
Haiti 20.3% (48)
France 8.1% (19)
Burundi 5.1% (12)
Rep. of Djibouti 3.8%
(n/a)
France 14.0% (540)
Morocco 13.1% (506)
Mauritius 9.8% (378)
Federal Republic of
Cameroon 6.3% (244)
Lebanon 17.1% (731)
Mauritius 14.0% (599)
France 11.3% (484)
Morocco 10.0% (426)
Haiti 6.3% (271)
Morocco 14.2% (542)
Mauritius 14.1% (536)
Haiti 10.8% (413
France 10.8% (411)
France 13.2% (1139)
Morocco 13.1% (1132)
Mauritius 11.5% (996)
Haiti 7.9% (681)
Mauritius 18.2% (723)
Haiti 15.1% (601)
Lebanon 14.1% (561)
France 8.9% (352)
Morocco 8.0% (317)
Lebanon15.4% (1452)
Mauritius 15.3% (1444)
France 10.4% (983)
Haiti 9.6% (907)
Morocco 9.0% (846)
Lebanon 17.4% (553)
Haiti 11.7% (373)
Morocco 11.4% (363)
France 9.8% (310
Democratic Republic of
Congo 6.3% (201)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 31.0% (200)
Haiti 10.2% (66)
France 7.3% (47)
Rep. of Djibouti 4.5% (29)
Lebanon
4.3%
(28)
Lebanon 23.1% (629)
Haiti 9.3% (252)
France 8.6% (233
Morocco 8.4% (228)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 7.3% (199)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 30.6% (106)
France 12.1% (42)
Lebanon 5.5% (19)
Rep. of Djibouti 5.2% (18)
Morocco 3.8% (13)
Lebanon 17.0% (1268)
Haiti 11.8% (880)
Morocco 9.7% (724)
France 9.2% (691)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 6.9% (512)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 30.5% (374)
Haiti 10.2% (125)
France 8.8% (108)
Rep. of Djibouti 4.6% (56)
Lebanon3.8% (47)
Haiti 49.9% (1158)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 16.4% (381)
Burundi 10.9% (252)
Rwanda 5.9% (137)
United States of America
4% (83)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 34.7% (1173)
Haiti 19.4% (655)
Burundi 14.4% (486)
Rwanda 8.6% (292)
Federal Republic of
Cameroon (2.5%) 85
Democratic Republic of
Congo 42.8% (1085)
Burundi 16.4% (416)
Rwanda 8.2% (208)
Republic of Djibouti 4.2%
(107)
Republic of Chad 2.5%
(63)
Democratic Republic of
Congo 32.0% (2639)
Haiti 22.6% (1861)
Burundi 14.0% (1154)
Rwanda 7.7% (637)
Republic of Djibouti 2.4%
(200)
35
Annex 7
Ontario Top 10 CMA Destinations for Francophone Immigrants
Total
1) Toronto 18453 (52.7%)
2) Ottawa-Hull 11444
(32.7%)
3) Hamilton 1218 (3.5%)
4) Windsor 877 (2.5%)
5) London 591 (1.7%)
6) Kitchener 484 (1.4%)
7) St. Catharines – Niagara
418 (1.2%)
8) Oshawa 191 (0.5%)
9) Kingston 174 (0.5%)
10)Greater Sudbury 162
(0.5%)
2011-2012
2006-2010
2001-2005
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Toronto 2970 (47%)
Ottawa-Hull 2357 (37%)
Hamilton 295 (5%)
Windsor 106 (2%)
St. Catharines- Niagara 89 (1%)
London 84 (1%)
Oshawa 51 (1%)
Kingston 41 (1%)
Greater Sudbury 32 (0.5%)
Guelph 23 (0.4%)
Toronto 8081 (52.7%)
Ottawa-Hull 4924 (32.1%)
Hamilton 521 (3.4%)
Windsor 401 (2.6%)
London 311 (2.0%)
Kitchener 241 (1.6%)
St. Catharines-Niagara 188
(1.2%)
8) Oshawa 89 (0.6%)
9) Kingston 76 (0.5%)
10) Greater Sudbury 74 (0.5%)
Toronto 7402 (55.3%)
Ottawa-Hull 4163 (31.1%)
Hamilton 402 (3.0%)
Windsor 370 (2.8%)
London 196 (1.5%)
Kitchener 182 (1.4%)
St. Catharines-Niagara 141
(1.1%)
8) Kingston 57 (0.4%)
9) Greater Sudbury 56 (0.4%)
10) Oshawa 51 (0.4%)
Annex 8
Top Francophone Economic Region Destinations
Total
2011-2012
2006-2010
2001-2005



1) Toronto 2949 (46.6%)
2) Ottawa 2374 (37.5%)
3) Hamilton – Niagara Peninsula
463 (7.3%)
4) Kitchener – Waterloo – Barrie
128 (2.0%)
5) Windsor – Sarnia 128 (2.0%)
6) London 85 (1.3%)
7) Kingston – Pembroke 63 (1.0%)
8) Northeast 45 (0.7%)
9) Stratford-Bruce Peninsula 17
(0.3%)
10) Northwest 7 (0.1%)
1) Toronto 7956 (51.9%)
2) Ottawa 5000 (32.6%)
3) Hamilton –Niagara Peninsula
920 (6.0%)
4) Windsor – Sarnia 449 (2.9%)
5) Kitchener – Waterloo – Barrie
357 (2.3%)
6) London 321 (2.1%)
7) Northeast 112 (0.7%)
8) Kingston-Pembroke 109
(0.7%)
9) Stratford – Bruce Peninsula
44 (0.3%)
10) Muskoka – Kawarthas 37
(0.2%)
1) Toronto 7323 (54.7%)
2) Ottawa 4219 (31.5%)
3) Hamilton – Niagara 688
(5.1%)
4) Windsor-Sarnia 409 (3.1%)
5) Kitchener-Waterloo– Barrie
269 (2.0%)
6) London 206 (1.5%)
7) Kingston-Pembroke 86
(0.6%)
8) Northeast 82 (0.6%)
9) Muskoka-Kawarthas 31
(0.2%)
10) Stratford – Bruce Peninsula
25 (0.2%)







Toronto (52.0%)
Ottawa (33.1%)
Hamilton – Niagara
Peninsula (5.9%)
Windsor – Sarnia (2.8%)
Kitchener – Waterloo –
Barrie (2.2%)
London (1.7%)
Kingston – Pembroke
(0.7%)
Northeast (0.7%)
ER not stated (0.3%)
Stratford – Bruce
Peninsula (0.2%)
36
Annex 9
Top 10 NOC2 Occupations for Francophone Immigrants
Total
2011-2012
2006-2010
2001-2005













Professional Occupations
in Natural & Applied
Sciences 2224 (6.3%)
Professional Occupations
in Social Science,
Education, Government
Services and Religion 1412
(4.0%)
Professional Occupations
in Business & Finance 943
(2.7%)
Skilled Administrative &
Business Occupations 903
(2.6%)
Technical Occupations
Related to Natural &
Applied Sciences 563
(1.6%)
Professional Occupations
in Health 515 (1.5%)
Skilled Sales & Service
Occupations 431 (1.2%)
Management – Business,
Finance & Administration
410 (1.2%)
Management – Sales &
Service 409 (1.2%)
Professional Occupations
in Art & Culture 321
(0.9%)









Professional Occupations in
Social Science, Education,
Government Services &
Religion 194 (3.1%)
Professional Occupations in
Natural & Applied Sciences
149 (2.4%)
Professional Occupations in
Business & Finance
Professional Occupations in
Health 126 (1.8%)
Management – Business,
Finance & Administration
115 (1.2%)
Skilled Sales and Service
Occupations 74 (1.1%)
Management – Sales &
Service 69 (0.9%)
Skilled Administrative &
Business Occupations 65
(0.6%)
Intermediate Sales & Service
Occupations 38 (0.5%)
Clerical Occupations 34
(0.5%)
Professional Occupations in
Natural & Applied Sciences
747 (4.9%)
Professional Occupations in
Social Science, Education,
Government Services &
Religion 727 (4.7%)
Skilled Administrative &
Business Occupations 435
(2.8%)
Professional Occupations in
Business & Finance 296
(1.9%)
Management – Sales &
Service 240 (1.6%)
Professional Occupations in
Health 240 (1.6%)
Technical Occupations
Related to Natural & Applied
Sciences 228 (1.5%)
Management –Business,
Finance & Administration
169 (1.1%)
Skilled Sales & Service
Occupations 151 (1.0%)
Professional Occupations in
Art & Culture 120 (0.8%)









37








Professional Occupations in
Natural & Applied Sciences
1328 (9.9%)
Professional Occupations in
Business & Finance 521
(3.9%)
Professional Occupations in
Social Science, Education,
Government Services &
Religion 491 (3.7%)
Skilled Administrative &
Business Occupations 408
(3.0%)
Technical Occupations
Related to Natural & Applied
Sciences 301 (2.2%)
Skilled Sales & Service
Occupations 211 176 (1.6%)
Professional Occupations in
Art & Culture 176 (1.3%)
Management – Business,
Finance & Administration
167 (1.2%)
Professionals Occupations in
Health 160 (1.2%)
Annex 10
Top 20 NOC4 Occupations for Francophone Immigrants (Excluding CIC Occupations)
Total
2011-2012
2006-2010
2001-2005























Financial Auditors &
Accountants 325 (0.9%)
Secretaries (except legal and
Medical) 237 (0.7%)
Secondary School Teachers 237
(0.7%)
Sales, Marketing & Advertising
Managers 204 (0.6%)
Occupation not Stated 188
(0.5%)
University Professors 171
(0.5%)
Civil Engineers 167 (0.5%)
Electrical & Electronics
Engineers 140 (0.4%)
Elementary School and
Kindergarten Teachers 137
(0.4%)
College & Other Vocational
Instructors 130 (0.4%)
Professional Occupations to
Business Services to
Management 126 (0.4%)
Financial Managers 122 (0.3%)
Registered Nurses 116 (0.3%)
Information Systems Analysts &
Consultants 111 (0.3%)
Administrative Officers 110
(0.3%)
Mechanical Engineers 106
(0.3%)
Computer Programmers 102
(0.3%)
Specialist Physicians 102 (0.3%)
Computer Engineers 98 (0.3%)
Translators, Terminologists &
Interpreters 92 (0.3%)



















Financial Auditors &
Accountants 71 (1.1%)
Secondary School Teachers 38
(0.6%)
Financial Managers 37 (0.6%)
University Professors 36
(0.6%)
College & Vocational
Instructors 36 (0.6%)
Sales, Marketing & Advertising
Managers 34 (0.5%)
Registered Nurses 34 (0.5%)
Specialist Physicians 27 (0.4%)
General Practitioners & Family
Physicians 26 (0.4%)
Information Systems & Data
Processing 25 (0.4%)
Occupation not stated 23
(0.4%)
Professional Occupations in
Business Services 22 (0.3%)
Post-secondary Teaching &
Research Assistants 21 (0.3%)
Information Systems Analysts
& Consultants 18 (0.3%)
Chefs 18 (0.3%)
Financial & Investment
Analysts 17 (0.3%)
Farmers & Farm Managers 15
(0.2%)
Biologists & Related Scientists
14 (0.2%)
Pharmacists 14 (0.2%)
Elementary School &
Kindergarten Teachers 14
(0.2%)



















Financial Auditors & Accountants
166 (1.1%)
Secondary School Teachers 152
(1.0%)
Sales, Marketing & Advertising
Managers 141 (0.9%)
Secretaries (except Legal &
Medical) 138 (0.8%)
Post-Secondary Training &
Research Assistants 128 (0.7%)
University Professors 106 (0.7%)
Occupation no stated 100 (0.6%)
Civil Engineers 99 (0.5%)
Elementary School &
Kindergarten Teachers 83 (0.5%)
Administrative Officers 79 (0.5%)
Electrical & Electronics Engineers
77 (0.5%)
College & Other Vocational
Instructors 76 (0.5%)
Information Systems Analysts &
Consultants 75 (0.4%)
Specialist Physicians 68 (0.4%)
Financial Managers 64 (0.4%)
Computer Programmers &
Interactive Media Development
57 (0.4%)
Professional Occupations in
Business Services to Management
56 (0.4%)
Retail Trade Managers 55 (0.4%)
Information Systems & Data
Processing Managers 54 (0.4%)
Registered Nurses 54 (0.4%)



















38
Financial Auditors &
Accountants 88 (0.7%)
Secretaries (except Legal and
Medical) 86 (0.6%)
Computer Programmers 80
(0.6%)
Occupation not stated 65
(0.5%)
Civil Engineers 57 (0.4%)
Electrical & Electronics
Engineers 54 (0.4%)
Computer Systems Analysts 53
(0.4%)
Translators, Terminologists &
Interpreters 52 (0.4%)
Mechanical Engineers 50
(0.4%)
Profession Occupations in
Business Services to
Management 48 (0.4%)
Secondary School Teachers 47
(0.4%)
Computer Engineers 44 (0.3%)
Post-secondary Teaching and
Research Assistants 42 (0.3%)
Elementary School &
Kindergarten Teachers 40
(0.3%)
Financial & Investment Analysts
32 (0.2%)
Sales, Marketing & Advertising
Managers 29 (0.2%)
University Professors 29 (0.2%)
Biologists & Related Scientists
28 (0.2%)
Registered Nurses 28 (0.2%)
Administrative Officers 22
(0.2%)