RCIS Report January 2014

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ontario Francophone Immigrant Profile: Immigration Trends & Labour Outcomes

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kathryn Barber
Ryerson University

Editor: Harald Bauder

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

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 CMAs 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

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.

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

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 Definition 2 1154 970 821 908 891 827 927 1,091 990 1,325 1,410 1,094 Sub-Total Definition 3 1084 980 875 1,150 1,156 987 1,006 1,199 1,126 1,257 1,176 8,23 Sub-Total

3,393

4,744

5,245

4,606 1,820 9,819

5,160 2,504 12,408

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, Peoples Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Cote dIvoire, 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

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 Dnombrement 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 Peoples 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 franaise dans la monde 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.francophonie.org/IMG/pdf/langue_francaise_monde_integral.pdf
4

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, Peoples Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Cote dIvoire, 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

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 Ontarios 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

Table 1.2: Language Spoken Most Often at Work

Mother tongue TOTAL None English French Nonofficial Engl. & French Engl. & Nonofficial 965 0 55 880 0 20 Fr. & Nonofficial 3,740 360 195 3,010 0 85

TOTAL English French Nonofficial English & French English & Nonofficial French & Nonofficial English, French & NonOfficial

2,205,055 569,870 20,515 1,543,135 735 65,265

1,982,045 556,315 12,855 1,346,745 605 61,180

38,035 1,040 2,235 34,115 25 295

29,760 7,315 4,925 16,220 105 615

150,350 4,825 245 142,015 0 3,050

140 0 0 130 0 0

4,990

3,895

315

545

165

70

550

450

45

30

Table 1.3: Language(s) Spoken Most Often at Work (%) Mother tongue None English French NonEnglish official & French 6.8 0.8 1.2 9.2 0.0 4.7 3.3 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 English & Nonofficial 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fr. & nonofficial 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0

TOTAL English French Non-official English & French English & Nonofficial French & Nonofficial English, French & Non-Official

89.9 97.6 62.7 87.3 82.3 93.7 78.1 81.8

1.7 0.2 10.9 2.2 3.4 0.5 6.3 0.0

1.3 1.3 24.0 1.1 14.3 0.9 10.9 8.2

10

SECTION 2: DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF FRANCOPHONES

2.1: CANADA-WIDE ANALYSIS
According to the 2010 OIF Dnombrement 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.

Figure 2. 1: Francophone Immigration as % Total Immigration in Each Province

% Francophone of Total Immigrant Population
18.0% 16.0% 14.0%

12.0%
10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Alberta B.C. Manitoba New Brunswick ON National Average (w/out QC)

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 Total 296,956

Canada

% of Total Francophone Cohort Migration

Figure 2.2: Francophone Immigration (with QC) 100%

90% 80% 70%
82,543 82.1%

111, 092 82.5%

51,426 83.4%

SK
245,061 82.5%

QC Ontario

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

2001/05

Northern
Atlantic
13,382 13.3% 15,341 11.4%

New Brunswick
6,323 10.3%

Manitoba
35,046 11.8%

British Columbia Alberta

2006/10

2011/12

Total

Figure 2.3: Francophone Migration (w/out QC)

% of Total Francophone Migration (Excluding QC) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2001/05
1,341 8.0% 2,930 14.2% 1,354 15.2% 5,625 12.2% 13,382 80.1% 15,341 74.2% 6,323 71.2%

SK
35,046 75.7%

Ontario Northern Atlantic New Brunswick Manitoba British Columbia

Alberta

2006/10

2011/12

Total

13

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, Ontarios 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 CMAs).

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).

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

100% % of Total ON Francophone Immigration
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011/12 2006/10 2001/05 Total Cohort
1,568 24.8% 3,180 20.7% 2,724 20.4% 7,472 21.3% 1,205 19.1% 992 15.7% 4,279 27.9% 2,321 36.7% 3.7% 645 4.2% 346 2.6% 1228 3.5% 3,382 22.0% 2,533 18.9% 8,236 23.5%

3,968 29.7%

9,452 27.0%

Other immigrants & Not Stated Refugees

3,855 25.1%

3,811 28.5%

8,658 24.5%

Economic immigrants - s.d. Economic immigrants - p.a. Family class

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 national8. This is generally understood to mean that the person demonstrates that they will encounter an unusual, undeserved or disproportionate hardship9 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) 20112012 32 n/a 11,444 10 % 1.2% 0.2% 85.5% 0.02% 20062010 74 11 4924 n/a % 0.5% 0.1% 32.1% 0.03% 20012005 56 n/a 4163 n/a % 0.9% 0.1% 65.8% 0.02% Total 162 21 11,444 n/a %Total 0.5% 0.1% 32.7% 0.03%

Greater Sudbury Hawkesbury Ottawa-Hull Timmins

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.

Figure 2.5: Immigrant Francophone vs. All Francophone Geographic Dist. (2011)
% of Total Relative Populations (All francophones & Immigrant francophones)
35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 1.5% 0.0% OTW TO 0.1% TIMNS 17.4% 13.9% 32.7%

ALL IMMIGRANT 7.2% 3.9%

2.7% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 0.3% 0.2%

HAM WDSR CRNWL

SDBRY

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 510% 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% 90% % of those who reported intention to work 80% 70% 2,938 70.4% 4,303 61.9% Unknown 2,821 52.1% 10,062 60.9% Skill Level D - elemental and labourers Skill Level C - intermediate and clerical Skill Level B - skilled and technical 718 10.3% 1,347 19.4% 357 5.1% 2006/10 705 13.0% 1,423 26.3% 165 3.0% 2001/05 1,685 10.2% 3,422 20.7% Skill Level A - professionals Skill Level 0 - managerial

60%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 262 6.3% 652 15.6% 200 4.8% 2011/12

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 ERs 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
13

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.

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

255

230

40

220

565

110

22

Table 3.4b: Breakdown of Mean Earnings by Francophone Definition and Landing cohort ($) Employment Income Self Employment EI Social Assistance 1 R
48,893

2
31,142

3
22,651

1
17,433

2
14,690

3
12,287

1
7,883

2
7,326

3
7,436

1
7,633

2
7,567

3
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 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 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

R VR

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 (%) Level 0 Recent Very Recent 0.0 0.1 Level A 2.0 1.3 Level B 1.1 0.4 Level C 0.2 0.1 Level D 0.0 0.0 Not stated 9.6 7.1

Table 3.14b: EI Francophone immigrants by Skill Level, Mean Earnings ($) Level 0 Recent Very Recent 0 8,873 Level A 7,875 8,007 Level B 6,406 6,432
28

Level C 8,625 1,964

Level D 0 0

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. Table 3.16a: Breakdown by Immigration Stream (%) Family Economic Refugee 2.2 0.9 6.9 0.9 2.5 11.1

Recent Very Recent

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 (%) Level 0 Recent Very Recent 0.0 0.0 Level A 0.3 0.9 Level B 0.3 0.5 Level C 0.0 0.2 Level D 0.0 0.0 Not stated 9.9 14.3

Table 3.17b: Breakdown by Skill Level, Mean Earnings ($) Level 0 Recent Very Recent 0 0 Level A 8,853 7,544 Level B 6,651 6,040 Level C 0 7,178 Level D 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). Table 3.18a: Breakdown by CMA (%) Ottawa Toronto 1.2 5.5 6.2 6.6 Table 3.18b: Breakdown by CMA, Mean Earnings ($) Ottawa Toronto 7,164 8,510 6,761 7,469

Recent Very Recent

Recent Very Recent

30

Annex
Annex 1: Number of Francophone Immigrants by Province Prov AB BC MB NB ATL* North ON QC SK TOTAL TOTAL ** 01
256 309 111 132 45 8 2933 15521 15 19330

02
193 249 66 100 66 7 2481 15228 28 18418

03
217 235 81 104 79 11 2227 15606 14 18574

04
331 365 109 105 96 18 2796 17940 37 21797

05
344 398 237 131 96 19 2945 18248 49 22467

06
479 433 184 98 110 36 2649 19633 38 23660

07
490 452 265 136 59 22 2837 20045 50 24356

08
553 512 186 168 129 34 3198 20610 50 25440

09
678 534 248 221 96 44 3083 23833 64 28801

10
730 516 331 153 76 28 3574 26971 69 32448 5477

11
669 422 336 227 126 30 3400 25008 85 30303 5295

12
685 498 383 217 87 17 2923 26418 134 31362 4944

Total
5625 4923 2537 1792 1065 274 35046 245061 633 296,956 51895

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

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% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Atlantic Northern AB BC MN NB ON QC SK 15 to 24 years of age 25 to 44 years of age 45 to 64 years of age 65 years of age or more

32

Annex 3: Gender Distribution of Francophone Immigrants for All Years

140000
129333

120000

115728

100000

80000 Female 60000 Male

40000
17966 2957 2363 2560 1183 17080

20000
2668 1354 777 1015 499 566 41 24

285

348

Alberta

British Columbia

Manitoba

New Brunswick

Atlantic

Northern CA

Ontario

Quebec

Saskatchewan

33

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
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)

Toronto 36% (18367) Ottawa Hull 22% (11423) Vancouver 8% (3937) Calgary 5% (2595) Edmonton 5% (2301)

Annex 5 Total
Mauritius 14% (2499) Lebanon 13% (2368) France 10% (1829) DRC 10% (1794) Morocco 9% (1571)

Toronto Francophone Source Country ( as of Landing Cohort Total and Absolute Number) 2011-2012 2006-2010
Haiti 19% (522) France 12% (335) DRC 9% (234) Lebanon 9% (233) Mauritius 8% (226) Lebanon 14% (1066) Mauritius 13% (1001) France 11% (898) DRC 10% (815) Morocco 10% (746)

2001-2005
Mauritius 18% (1272) Lebanon 15% (1069) DRC 10% (745) Morocco 9% (666) France 8% (596)

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.
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) Mauritius 18.2% (723) Haiti 15.1% (601) Lebanon 14.1% (561) France 8.9% (352) Morocco 8.0% (317) 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) 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) France 13.2% (1139) Morocco 13.1% (1132) Mauritius 11.5% (996) Haiti 7.9% (681)

Economic S.D.

Lebanon15.4% (1452) Mauritius 15.3% (1444) France 10.4% (983) Haiti 9.6% (907) Morocco 9.0% (846) 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) 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)

Family Class

Other Immigrant

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) 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

Refugee

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)

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
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 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%)

2006-2010
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 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%)

2001-2005
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 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

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%)

2011-2012
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%)

2006-2010
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%)

2001-2005
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%)

36

Annex 9 Top 10 NOC2 Occupations for Francophone Immigrants Total

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%)

2011-2012
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%)

2006-2010
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%)

2001-2005
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%)

37

Annex 10 Top 20 NOC4 Occupations for Francophone Immigrants (Excluding CIC Occupations) Total
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%)

2011-2012
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%)

2006-2010
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%)

2001-2005
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%)

38