Ontario Francophone Immigrant Profile

8/12/2019 Ontario Francophone Immigrant Profile

1/38

RCIS ReportJanuary 2014

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ontario Francophone Immigrant Profile:Immigration Trends & Labour Outcomes

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2/38

Acknowledgements

This research emerged as the result of a 2013 Summer Fellowship created by the RyersonCentre 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 thankHarald Bauder, Jamie Pitts, Vira Gomova, and Nelson-Mauricio Palacio for their assistancein developing this paper.


3/38

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FINDING: Canada has the second largest francophone population1within all Westerncountries. Ontario is the second largest receiver of francophone immigrants inCanada. The average per cent of francophone immigrants to Ontario was 2.5% overthe 2001-2012 period but showed an average annual increase of 0.1% per year. Overthe past two years (2011-2012), francophone immigration has accounted for 3.2% ofall 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 francophonepopulation 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 allimmigrants excluding Quebec from 2001 to 2012. This rate remained relatively stable forall 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. Ontarioreceives the second largest proportion of the francophone immigrants to Canada,

accounting for over 70% of all francophone immigrants. On average of all immigrants toOntario, 2.5% were francophone over the 2001-2012 period and showed an annualaverage increase of 0.1% per year. Over the past two years, francophone immigration hasaccounted for 3.2% of all immigrants to Canada.

FINDING: Francophone immigrants are increasingly settling in non-traditionalfrancophone centres (except Ottawa) and are not following the geographicdistribution of Canadian-born francophone persons.

The top destinations for francophone immigrants in Ontario were Toronto and Ottawafollowed by Hamilton. Interestingly, Toronto and Ottawa were also the top twofrancophone CMAs in all of Canada excluding Quebec They accounted for over 60% of all


4/38

the years surveyed.. Lebanon topped both the Economic Streams as well as the Family Classstreams. DRC topped the Refugee and Other Immigrant streams.

FINDING: Skill levels and occupations were unknown for the majority of francophoneimmigrants in Ontario. For those who indicated a skill level, most were professionalsor skilled and technical workers.

The majority of skill levels and occupations for immigrants to Ontario are unknown. Of thefrancophone skill levels that are known, the top is Skill Level A (Professionals) followed bySkill Level B (Skilled & Technical).

FINDING: Over 50% of francophone immigrants reported Employment Income. Thedistribution of francophones with Employment Income was similar to that of allimmigrants with Employment Income who were surveyed during the same time period.

FINDING: Overall, francophones have lower incomes on average than otherimmigrants both overall and in all income categories except for the Self Employedcategory. Overall, this finding was consistent in all income categories except for the SelfEmployment category where francophones tended to make more than other immigrants.

FINDING: The vast majority of francophone immigrants resided in Toronto, followedby Ottawa and Hamilton. A general finding within all income categories is that theretended to be a higher incidence rate of those living in Toronto within the older (2001-2005) 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

t i t t ith th i t i


5/38

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


6/38

SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS, DATA SOURCES & TIME PERIODSThis report uses three different data sources: the CIC landings data, the LongitudinalSurvey (IMDB), and the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS). Section 2 uses the CIClandings data and the NHS. Section 3 uses the Longitudinal Survey. Below, I discuss thedefinitions and time periods used in each section.

Section 2 Definitions

Section 2 uses CIC landings data to understand immigration trends of francophoneimmigrants. It uses a number of specific definitions and has a number of specific

limitations.

CIC Francophone DefinitionThe francophone definition for immigrants applied to the CIC landings data was based onthree cumulative measures2:

1) Mother tongue is French2) Mother tongue is something other than French but the individual self-reportsthat they are capable of speaking French

3) Mother tongue is something other than French and English but the individualself-reports that they are capable of speaking bothFrench and English and comefrom a designated francophone country3

Table 1.1: Francophone Population Breakdown by Definition for OntarioYear Definition 1 Sub-Total Definition 2 Sub-Total Definition 3 Sub-Total

2001 695

3 393

1154

4 744

1084

5 245

2002 531 970 9802003 531 821 875

2004 738 908 1,150


7/38

number of francophones except in the third cohort (2011-2012), in which the seconddefinition had the largest population of francophones.

Note on CIC Francophone DefinitionsThe first francophone definition includes only mother tongue andnot any other languageability. A person whose mother tongue is French may be capable of speaking otherlanguages including English. However, this information is not recorded because thisdefinition does not track official language spoken.

It is worth mentioning here that the CIC definition of francophone is specific to theCanadian 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, TheInternational Organization for the French-Speaking World)an international organizationthat attempts to improve conditions for French speakers bases its estimates on three datasources: 1) surveys; 2) regional polls that include information on language, and; 3)language of school instruction4. This different definition is important because it shows highnumbers 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 allpeople who list speaking both French and English classifies countries as francophonebased on their official languages. The 2010 OIF Dnombrement des francophones showsvery high numbers of francophones in non-traditional francophone nations like Romaniaand 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-traditionalFrench centre, is reported to have more francophones than the Peoples Republic ofCongoorNiger(see Annex 1 for graph and figures)

It is likely that the CIC definition underestimates the number of francophonesimmigrating 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, theU S Poland or Ghana are not understood to be francophones under the current CIC


8/38

information available. It is important to note that the cohorts are different sizes, whichimpacts 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 censusdata for francophones includes immigrants from all landing cohorts previous to 2011 andtheir numbers are necessarily higher than in the other data sets.

Other CaveatsThis report does not attempt to address the secondary movements of immigrants and onlydeals with the destination of first landing. This could be explored in future research.

Section 3 DefinitionsSection 3 uses Longitudinal Survey (IMDB) data obtained through a specific StatsCanrequest. It tracks the labour outcomes of francophones in Ontario.

ConstraintsThe IMDB data extrapolates employment information from tax data. As a result, this reportonly looks at those francophones who filed their taxes in Ontario in 2010. A comparisonbetween CIC landings data and IMDB data found that approximately 40-60% ofFrancophone immigrants submitted taxes, which is comparable to the national averages.

Landing CohortsTwo landing cohorts were analyzed: very recent and recent immigrants. Very recentimmigrants migrated to Ontario between 2006 and 2010 and recentimmigrants migratedto Ontario between 2001 and 2005. The migrants included in this analysis listed theirinitial province of destination as well as their 2010 province of residence as Ontario.

Francophone definitionLike the definition of Section 2, the francophone definition for immigrants was based onthree cumulative measures , although the third definition differs from Section 2:


9/38

Caveat: Language Ability versus Language at WorkIt 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 astheir main language of work. This is quite likely given Ontarios status as an anglophoneprovince and the findings from previous reports that suggested that francophoneimmigrants largely move to anglophone (as opposed to francophone) centres in Ontario. Inorder to gather a general understanding of whether francophone immigrants 6were usingEnglish at work, a short analysis of 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) data isprovided below.

Language spoken at work amongst immigrants to ONThe majority of immigrants to Ontario cumulatively, 89.9% did not report the languagespoken most often at work (see the None category of Table 1.2). Of those who did, themajority of immigrants (6.8%) reported a non-official language as the language mostspoken at work followed by English (1.7%) and then French (1.3%) (Table 1.3). Very fewrespondents reported speaking two languages at work, cumulatively totalling 0.2%.Interestingly, of those groups who spoke two languages at work, French and a non-officiallanguage 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 reporttheir mother tongue as French necessarily speak French at their place of work and, of thosewho 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 mostoften 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 reportedspeaking multiple languages including French. The majority of respondents who spoke

French at work actually reported having a single non-official language as their mothertongue. This was also true in the case of two languages spoken at work (either English andFrench or French and a non-official language).

As a result, it is important to caution the reader that even though a person can be


10/38

Table 1.2: Language Spoken Most Often at Work

Mother

tongue

TOTAL None English French Non-

official

Engl. &

French

Engl. &

Non-official

Fr. &

Non-official

TOTAL 2,205,055 1,982,045 38,035 29,760 150,350 140 965 3,740

English 569,870 556,315 1,040 7,315 4,825 0 0 360

French 20,515 12,855 2,235 4,925 245 0 55 195

Non-

official

1,543,135 1,346,745 34,115 16,220 142,015 130 880 3,010

English &

French

735 605 25 105 0 0 0 0

English &

Non-

official

65,265 61,180 295 615 3,050 0 20 85

French &

Non-

official

4,990 3,895 315 545 165 0 0 70

English,

French &

Non-

Official

550 450 0 45 30 0 0 0

Table 1.3: Language(s) Spoken Most Often at Work (%)

Mother tongue None English French Non-official

English&

English& Non-

Fr. &non-


11/38

SECTION 2: DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF FRANCOPHONES

2.1: CANADA-WIDE ANALYSIS

According to the 2010 OIF Dnombrement de francophones, Canada has the fifth largestfrancophone population in the world, following Morocco, Algeria, DRC, and France. Becauseof this large population and its relatively strong economy, it is likely that Canada is a veryattractive location for international migrants wishing to migrate to Western countries. Thissection will provide an analysis of francophone migration from two vantage points. Section

2.1provides a provincial breakdown of francophone migration as a proportion of the totalannual immigrant population. It looks at the number of immigrant francophones relative tothe total immigrant population using the third cumulative CIC francophone definition (SeeSection 1 Definitions). Section 2.2 addresses the provincial share of total francophonemigration only. This second section looks only within the francophone immigrantpopulation, again using the same CIC cumulative third definition.

2.1.1: Francophones as a Proportion of the Total Immigrant PopulationFrom 2001 to 2012, francophone immigration nationally accounted for on average 9.9% ofall immigration to Canada. Excluding Quebec, francophone immigration, on average,accounted for 4.1% of all immigrants. Francophone immigration to Canada remained stablewith no average decrease or increase per year. When Quebec was removed, there was aslight decline. Table 2.1 illustrates francophone immigration as percentage of total annualprovincial immigration. For a breakdown of annual francophone immigrant numbers,please see Annex 1.

Table 2.1: Francophone Immigration as % of Total Annual ImmigrationPROV 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 AVG


12/38

interesting finding from this analysis shows that in contrast to the national average offrancophone 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.

Note: Excluding QC due to its large francophone population, and Northern, Atlantic & SK because the absolutenumbers were too small for the meaningful calculation of % of total immigration.

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

%FrancophoneofTotalImmigrantPopulation

Figure 2. 1: Francophone Immigration as % Total

Immigration in Each Province

Alberta

B.C.

ManitobaNew Brunswick

ON

National Average (w/out QC)


13/38

received over 70% of all francophone immigrants (Figure 2.3). This makes Ontario thesecond largest destinationfor francophone immigrants in all of Canada.

Table 2.3: Total Francophone Migrants to Canada2001-2005 2006-2010 20112012 Total

Canada 100,586 134,705 61,665 296,956

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001/052006/10

2011/12Total

13,382

13.3%15,341

11.4%6,323

10.3% 35,046

11.8%

82,543

82.1%

111,

092

82.5%

51,426

83.4%245,061

82.5%

%ofTotalFrancoph

oneCohortMigration

Figure 2.2: Francophone Immigration (with

QC)

SK

QC

Ontario

Northern

Atlantic

New Brunswick

Manitoba

British Columbia

Alberta


14/38

The age and gender breakdown of francophone immigrants to Canada was very similaramong 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 vastmajority of all francophone migrants to all provinces were of working age, between 25-44years of age, including those immigrants to Ontario.

Spotlight CMAs: Outside of Quebec, Ontarios Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) attractthe largest proportion of francophones. Toronto and Ottawa consistently topped the list offrancophone 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 Annex6 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 thisquestion. 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 francophonemigrants, 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. Theyare Mauritius, Lebanon, France, DRC, and Morocco (see Annex 6 for a full breakdown).


15/38

Table 2.4: Ontario Francophone Source Country(by Landing Cohort in Absolute Number and %)

Total 2011-2012 2006-2010 2001-20051)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%)2) Democratic

Republic of Congo596 (9%)

3) France 506 (8%)4) Lebanon 445 (7%)5) Morocco 329 (5%)6) Burundi 329 (5%)

7) Federal Republic ofCameroon 277(4%)

8) Mauritius 275(4%)

9) Algeria 206 (3%)10)Rwanda 173 (3%)

1) Lebanon 2,146 (14%)2) Democratic Republic

of Congo 1,649 (11%)3) Haiti 1,605 (11%)4) France 1,385 (9%)5) Morocco 1,324 (9%)6) Mauritius 1,101 (7%)7) Federal Republic of

Cameroon 720 (5%)8) Algeria 626 (4%)9) Burundi 594 (4%)10) Republic of Ivory

Coast 380 (3%)

1) Lebanon 1,968(15%)

2) Democratic Republicof Congo 1,499(11%)

3) Mauritius 1,383(10%)

4) Haiti 1,325 (10%)

5) Morocco 1,112 (8%)6) France1,048 (8%)7) Algeria 656 (5%)8) Burundi 469 (4%)9) Romania* 312 (2%)10)Cameroon 263 (2%)

* The results in Table 2.4 are relatively consistent with the CIC francophone definition except for the 2001-2005 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 aseither a Stated Dependent or a Principal Applicant. The Stated Dependent category waslarger than the Principal Applicant. The top immigration stream varied significantly

between landing cohorts. For example, in 2011-2012, the largest stream used byfrancophone immigrants was the Refugee class whereas in 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 theEconomic Streams were the most popular (Figure 2.4). Further study is needed tounderstand why these changes in source country occurred


16/38

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

Lebanon19 7% (1709)

Lebanon 15.4%(1452)

Lebanon 17.0%(1268)

DRC 32.0%(2639)

DRC 30.5%(374)

1,568

24.8%

3,180

20.7%2,724

20.4%7,472

21.3%

992

15.7%

3,855

25.1%

3,811

28.5%8,658

24.5%

1,205

19.1%

4,27927.9%

3,968

29.7% 9,45227.0%

2,321

36.7%

3,382

22.0%

2,533

18.9%8,236

23.5%

237

3.7%645

4.2%

346

2.6%1228

3.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011/12 2006/10 2001/05 Total

%

ofTotalONFrancophoneImmigration

Cohort

Figure 2.4: Immigration Streams of

Francophone Immigrants to Ontario

Other immigrants & Not Stated

Refugees

Economic immigrants - s.d.

Economic immigrants - p.a.

Family class


17/38

hardship French nationals (the analysis used the Country of Birth) faced. Further researchis 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 toppedby Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton. Toronto and Ottawa accounted for over 85% of allfrancophone immigration to Ontario across all landing cohorts.

In order to gain an understanding of how francophone immigrants are contributingto 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 Frenchspeaking populations relative to the total population. The CMAs depicted in Tables 2.6 and2.7 were chosen because they have high populations of francophones relative to the totalpopulation, ranging from 15.8% to 64.3%. In comparison, non-traditional francophonecentres such as Toronto and Hamilton, which have received higher absolute numbers offrancophone immigrants, only had francophone populations that accounted for 1.3 to 1.6%of the total population.

Table 2.6: Francophone Population of TraditionalFrancophone 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%)


18/38

immigrants are not settling in traditional francophone centres in Ontario but rather intraditionally-considered Anglophone cities like Toronto, Hamilton, and Windsor.

Could this be part of some larger francophone movement towards non-traditionalfrancophone centres? The latest results from the 2011 National Household Survey (Figure2.5) indicate that the answer is no. A comparison of the geographic distribution offrancophones immigrants11 versus all francophones finds different patterns in theirsettlement. 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 asOttawa, Timmins, Sudbury, and Hawkesbury). Indeed, by this measure Timmins is thefourth largest francophone centre in all of Ontario.

13.9%

7.2%

3 9%

17.4%

32.7%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

RelativePopulations(Allfrancophone

s&

Immigran

tfrancophones)

Figure 2.5: Immigrant Francophone vs. All

Francophone Geographic Dist. (2011)

ALL

IMMIGRANT


19/38

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 proportionof immigrants report unknown skill levels), it is better than other criteria. For example,analysis using NOC2 or NOC4 categories reports between 70% and 80% unknownprofessions. . Because of this shortcoming, the top NOC4/NOC2 professions only accountedfor 510% of all francophones coming to Ontario. A breakdown of the top NOC 2 and 4categories can be found in the Annex 9 and 10. Furthermore, the third section of this reportaddresses the labour outcomes of francophones in Ontario in more detail.

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

718

705

13.0% 1,685

2,938

70.4%

4,303

61.9%

2,821

52.1% 10,062

60.9%

ewhorepo

rtedintentiontowork

Figure 2.6: Skill Level of Ontario Francophone

Immigrants who Reported Intention to Work

Unknown

Skill Level D - elemental and

labourers

Skill Level C - intermediate and

clerical

Skill Level B - skilled and technical

Skill Level A - professionals


20/38

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 (seeAnnex 13-15 for a regional breakdown of Skill Levels, NOC2 and NOC4 occupations).


21/38

SECTION 3: FRANCOPHONE LABOUR OUTCOMES IN ONTARIOThis 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: OVERALL FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRATION BY LANDING

COHORT

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 typeof income categories (Employment, Self Employment, Employment Insurance (EI), andSocial Assistance), the majority of francophone immigrants in both categories wereemployed (62.9% and 58.8%) (Tables 3.2a and 3.2b). The distribution betweenemployment categories was also fairly consistent between categories. However, SocialAssistance usage was higher amongst very recent francophone immigrants (See Table3.2b).

Overall, recent francophone immigrants reported higher average earnings

($27,823) than very recent francophone immigrants ($22,014) (Table 3.1). This was true inevery income category except Self Employment income, which showed higher averageearnings for the very recent ($16,116 versus $14,918) (Table 3.3c).

Table 3.1: Cohort Breakdown, OntrioTotal Francophone

immigrantsAverage Earnings ($)12

Recent (20012005) 4,475 27,823Very Recent (2006-2010) 5,505 22,014


22/38

Table 3.3: Cohort Breakdown by Mean Income category ($)EmploymentIncome

SelfEmployment

EI SocialAssistance

Recent 37,573 14,918 7,518 8,133Very Recent 29,234 16,116 7,058 7,366

SECTION 3.2: FRANCOPHONE EARNINGS BY DEFINITIONIn order to understand the influence of the three different francophone definitions onearnings, Tables 3.4a and 3.410b provides a breakdown of earnings by income categoryand definition. The definitions used were non-cumulative and just took on the uniqueaspects of each individual definition. According to the first definition (mother tongue isFrench), francophone immigrants had higher average earnings than according to the otherdefinitions, except for Social Assistance. Initially, this finding seems peculiar as the CICdatabase 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 doesnot include any measurement for other language spoken, so a person whose mother tongueis French could feasibly also speak other languages including English. One possibleexplanation is that because many French mother tongue immigrants are from Europe, thisresult may be capturing many EU immigrants whose average earnings tend to be higherthan people of African or Caribbean origin. majority of francophone immigrants fit underthe second definition (Table 3.4a). Very recent francophone immigrants measuredaccording to the second definition those who reported speaking only French - had

employment earnings that were quite low ($18,809) when compared to the averageearnings of first definition francophones and all francophone immigrants (Table 3.4b).

Francophone immigrants measured by the third definition had higher SocialAssistance income than those measured by the first definition Interestingly average Social


23/38

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 3R 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 represents recentand VR represents very recent.Based onCIC Francophone Definition (Section 1)

SECTION 3.3: COMPARISON OF FRANCOPHONE IMMIGRANTS TO ALLONTARIO IMMIGRANTSFrancophone 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 francophoneimmigrants who landed in Ontario every year, which averaged about 2%.

Overall, francophone immigrants tended to report loweraverage earnings than allOntario immigrants in the same landing cohorts. Table 3.5d shows that this finding wasconsistent when francophone immigrants were broken into income categories. This wasparticularly notable in the Employment Income category which showed gaps of up to$18,000 between francophone and all immigrants. This finding was consistent in allcategories except for the Self Employment category, which showed that francophoneimmigrants had higher earnings than all immigrants in both landing cohorts. It is unclearwhy the Self Employment category particularly would show these types of differences..Further research is needed to understand this phenomenon.


24/38

Table 3.5b: Comparison of Francophone versus All Ontario Immigrants (TotalNumber)

EmploymentIncome

Self Employment EI SocialAssistance

FR ALL FR ALL FR ALL FR ALLR 2,815 169,108 420 54,103 595 33,769 505 50,532VR 3,235 123,815 405 50,028 525 30,887 895 46,878

Table 3.5c: Comparison of Francophone versus All Ontario Immigrants (%)

EmploymentIncome

Self Employment EI Social Assistance

FR ALL FR ALL FR ALL FR ALLR 62.9 55.0 9.4 17.6 13.3 11.0 11.3 16.4

VR 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 MeanEarnings ($)Employment

IncomeSelf Employment EI Social Assistance

FR ALL FR ALL FR ALL FR ALLR 37,573 55,466 14,918 13,949 7,518 10,304 8,133 7,688VR 29,234 44,303 16,116 10,302 7,058 7,051 7,366 7,448

SECTION 3.4: BREAKDOWN BY INCOME TYPE


25/38

Table 3.6a: Summary Breakdown of Employed Francophones

Number %* Average Income ($)Recent 2,815 62.9 37,573Very 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 2.7Very Recent 13.9 23.9 15.8 4.2

Table 3.6c: Breakdown of Employed Francophones by Immigration Stream

Family Economic Refugee OtherRecent 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 Aprofessions (professions requiring a university education), followed by Skill Level B(requiring college or apprenticeship training). Table 3,7billustrates substantial differencesin 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 makesubstantially more money than those in Level C.


26/38

interesting finding as it indicates that francophone migrants who initially moved to smallermetropolises 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 weresubstantially higher than francophone immigrants elsewhere14.

Table 3.8a: Employment Income by CMA Breakdown (%)

Ottawa Toronto HamiltonRecent 18.7 34.3 0.0

Very Recent 19.5 29.6 0.7

Table 3.8b: Employment Income by CMA Breakdown, Mean Earnings ($)

Ottawa Toronto Hamilton

Recent 32,829 40,631 0Very 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% offrancophone immigrants reported self-employment earnings in 2010. There was a higherincidence of Self Employment amongst francophone immigrants who had been in Ontariolonger. The average Self Employment income of Francophone immigrants was substantiallylower 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 bothEmployment and Self-Employment Income on their income tax application. Someimmigrants tend to supplement their employment earnings with Self-Employment Income.Other immigrants may also have income derived from investments This report does not


27/38

Table 3.10a: Breakdown of Self Employed Francophones by Immigration Category(%)

Family Economic Refugee OtherRecent 2.6 4.9 0.6 0.1Very 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 9,248Very Recent 9,950 19,180 9,889 --

The majority of francophone immigrants who reported Self-Employment Income had anoccupation 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) asopposed to a university education ($17,271 for recent and $15,333 for very recent) (Table3.11b).

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 5.9Very Recent 0.1 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.8


28/38

Table 3.12: Summary Breakdown of EI Francophone Immigrants

Number % Mean Income ($)

Recent 595 13.3% 7,518Very Recent 525 9.5% 7,058

Table 3.13a illustrates that the majority of individuals on EI came from the Economicimmigration stream followed by the Family and Refugee classes. Table 3.13b shows thatearnings 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 OtherRecent 3.5 4.7 3.5 0.1Very Recent 2.6 2.7 2.0 0.6

Table 3.13b: EI Francophone Immigrants by Immigration Stream, Mean Earnings ($)

Family Economic Refugee OtherRecent 7,121 7,708 7,844 11,374Very Recent 7,506 7,008 6,761 6,313

Table 3.14a shows that the majority of francophone immigrants who used EI werecategorized 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 bothlanding cohorts Consistently those in the Skill Level A reported higher earnings than those


29/38

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 inboth landing cohorts (see Table 3.5c). The average income of francophone immigrants onthe Social Assistance was similar to that of all immigrants. As expected, there was a loweruse of the Social Assistance category amongst those francophone immigrants who had beenin Ontario for a longer period of time (a 5% decrease).

Table 3.15: Francophone Immigrants on the Social AssistanceNumber % Mean Income ($)

Recent 505 11.3 8,133Very Recent 895 16.3 7,366

The majority of Francophones in both landing cohorts who used Social Assistance came toCanada through the Refugee class (6.9% and 11.1%) (Table 3.16a). Interestingly, theEconomic 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 theRecentcategory. The Refugee (6.9%) and Family (2.2%) classes had the highest incidencerates in the Social Assistance category. However, in the very recent category those whohad 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 Assistancecategory more often than economic class immigrants. Further research is needed tounderstand this finding.


30/38

those in on social assistance tend to have lower levels of education. Average earnings wereslightly 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 theaverage earnings of all immigrants in the Social Assistance category (See Table 3.5d).

Table 3.17a: Breakdown by Skill Level (%)

Level 0 Level A Level B Level C Level D Notstated

Recent 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 9.9Very Recent 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 14.3

Table 3.17b: Breakdown by Skill Level, Mean Earnings ($)

Level 0 Level A Level B Level C Level D Notstated

Recent 0 8,853 6,651 0 0 8,185Very Recent 0 7,544 6,040 7,178 0 7,462

Table 3.18a shows that those on Social Assistance tended to live in Toronto (5.5% of recentand 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 inOttawa (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 (%)


31/38

31

AnnexAnnex 1: Number of Francophone Immigrants by Province

Prov 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Total

AB 256 193 217 331 344 479 490 553 678 730 669 685 5625BC 309 249 235 365 398 433 452 512 534 516 422 498 4923MB 111 66 81 109 237 184 265 186 248 331 336 383 2537NB 132 100 104 105 131 98 136 168 221 153 227 217 1792

ATL* 45 66 79 96 96 110 59 129 96 76 126 87 1065North 8 7 11 18 19 36 22 34 44 28 30 17 274

ON2933 2481 2227 2796 2945 2649 2837 3198 3083 3574 3400 2923 35046

QC 15521 15228 15606 17940 18248 19633 20045 20610 23833 26971 25008 26418 245061SK 15 28 14 37 49 38 50 50 64 69 85 134 633

TOTAL19330 18418 18574 21797 22467 23660 24356 25440 28801 32448 30303 31362 296,956

TOTAL** 3809 3190 2968 3857 4219 4027 4311 4830 4968 5477 5295 4944 51895

*Atlantic: includes PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Northern includes the NWT, Yukon & Nunavet.** Totalexcluding QC


32/38

32

Annex 2: Age Breakdown of Francophone Immigrants by % of All Landing Cohorts

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Atlantic Northern AB BC MN NB ON QC SK

0 to 14 years of age




65 years of age or more


33/38

33

Annex 3: Gender Distribution of Francophone Immigrants for All Years

2957 2363 1183 777 499 41

17966

115728

28526682560

1354 1015 566 24

17080

129333

348

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

Alberta British

Columbia

Manitoba New

Brunswick

Atlantic Northern CA Ontario Quebec Saskatchewan

Female

Male


34/38

34

Annex 4Top 5 Francophone CMA destinations throughout Canada (Excluding QC)

(with of Total Landing Cohort & Absolute Number)

Total 2011-2012 2006-2010 2001-20051) Toronto 36% (18367)2) Ottawa Hull 22% (11423)3) Vancouver 8% (3937)4) Calgary 5% (2595)5) Edmonton 5% (2301)

1) Toronto 29% (2953)

2) Ottawa Hull 23% (2356)3) Vancouver 7% (731)4) Winnipeg 6% (632)5) Edmonton 6% (613)

1) Toronto 34% (8042)

2) Ottawa Hull 21% (4909)3) Vancouver 8% (1972)4) Calgary 6% (1399)5) Edmonton 5% (1159)

1) Toronto 41% (7372)

2) Ottawa-Hull 23% (4158)3) Vancouver 7% (1234)4) Calgary 4% (665)5) Winnipeg 3% (554)

Annex 5

Toronto Francophone Source Country( as of Landing Cohort Total and Absolute Number)

Total 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)

Lebanon 14% (1066)Mauritius 13% (1001)France 11% (898)DRC 10% (815)Morocco 10% (746)

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


35/38

35

Annex 6Top Source Countries by Immigration Stream (Absolute Numbers & of Total Landing Cohort and Immigration

Stream)

Immigration Stream 2011-2012 20062010 2001-2005 TotalEconomic - P.A. Lebanon 19.4% (192)

France 19.0% (188Morocco 8.5% (84)Mauritius 8.3% (82)Federal Republic ofCameroon 8.1% (80)

Lebanon 20.5% (790)

France 14.0% (540)Morocco 13.1% (506)Mauritius 9.8% (378)Federal Republic ofCameroon 6.3% (244)

Lebanon 19.1% (727)

Morocco 14.2% (542)Mauritius 14.1% (536)Haiti 10.8% (413France 10.8% (411)

Lebanon 19.7% (1709)

France 13.2% (1139)Morocco 13.1% (1132)Mauritius 11.5% (996)Haiti 7.9% (681)

Economic S.D. Lebanon 13.3% (160)France 12.2% (147)Mauritius 10.1% (122)Federal Republic ofCameroon 9.1% (110)Morocco 8.5% (103)

Lebanon 17.1% (731)Mauritius 14.0% (599)France 11.3% (484)Morocco 10.0% (426)Haiti 6.3% (271)

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)

Family ClassHaiti 16.3% (255)France 9.4% (148)Morocco 8.5% (133)Democratic Republic ofCongo 7.1% (112)India 5.9% (93)

Lebanon 17.4% (553)Haiti 11.7% (373)Morocco 11.4% (363)France 9.8% (310Democratic Republic ofCongo 6.3% (201)

Lebanon 23.1% (629)Haiti 9.3% (252)France 8.6% (233Morocco 8.4% (228)Democratic Republic ofCongo 7.3% (199)

Lebanon 17.0% (1268)Haiti 11.8% (880)Morocco 9.7% (724)France 9.2% (691)Democratic Republic ofCongo 6.9% (512)

Other Immigrant Democratic Republic ofCongo 28.8% (68)Haiti 20.3% (48)France 8.1% (19)Burundi 5.1% (12)Rep. of Djibouti 3.8%

(n/a)

Democratic Republic ofCongo 31.0% (200)Haiti 10.2% (66)France 7.3% (47)Rep. of Djibouti 4.5% (29)Lebanon 4.3%

(28)

Democratic Republic ofCongo 30.6% (106)France 12.1% (42)Lebanon 5.5% (19)Rep. of Djibouti 5.2% (18)Morocco 3.8% (13)

Democratic Republic ofCongo 30.5% (374)Haiti 10.2% (125)France 8.8% (108)Rep. of Djibouti 4.6% (56)Lebanon3.8% (47)

Refugee Haiti 49.9% (1158)Democratic Republic ofCongo 16.4% (381)Burundi 10.9% (252)Rwanda 5.9% (137)United States of America 4% (83)

Democratic Republic ofCongo 34.7% (1173)Haiti 19.4% (655)Burundi 14.4% (486)Rwanda 8.6% (292)Federal Republic ofCameroon (2.5%) 85

Democratic Republic ofCongo 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 ofCongo 32.0% (2639)Haiti 22.6% (1861)Burundi 14.0% (1154)Rwanda 7.7% (637)Republic of Djibouti 2.4%(200)


36/38

36

Annex 7

Annex 8

Top Francophone Economic Region Destinations

Total 2011-2012 2006-2010 2001-2005

Toronto (52.0%)

Ottawa (33.1%)

Hamilton NiagaraPeninsula (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 BrucePeninsula (0.2%)

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-WaterlooBarrie

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%)

Ontario Top 10 CMA Destinations for Francophone Immigrants

Total 2011-2012 2006-2010 2001-2005

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%)

1) Toronto 2970 (47%)2) Ottawa-Hull 2357 (37%)3) Hamilton 295 (5%)4) Windsor 106 (2%)5) St. Catharines- Niagara 89 (1%)6) London 84 (1%)7) Oshawa 51 (1%)8) Kingston 41 (1%)9) Greater Sudbury 32 (0.5%)10)Guelph 23 (0.4%)

1) Toronto 8081 (52.7%)2) Ottawa-Hull 4924 (32.1%)3) Hamilton 521 (3.4%)4) Windsor 401 (2.6%)5) London 311 (2.0%)6) Kitchener 241 (1.6%)7) St. Catharines-Niagara 188

(1.2%)8) Oshawa 89 (0.6%)9) Kingston 76 (0.5%)10)Greater Sudbury 74 (0.5%)

1) Toronto 7402 (55.3%)2) Ottawa-Hull 4163 (31.1%)3) Hamilton 402 (3.0%)4) Windsor 370 (2.8%)5) London 196 (1.5%)6) Kitchener 182 (1.4%)7) St. Catharines-Niagara 141

(1.1%)8) Kingston 57 (0.4%)9) Greater Sudbury 56 (0.4%)10)Oshawa 51 (0.4%)


37/38

37

Annex 9

Top 10 NOC2 Occupations for Francophone Immigrants

Total 2011-2012 2006-2010 2001-2005 Professional Occupations

in Natural & AppliedSciences 2224 (6.3%)

Professional Occupationsin Social Science,Education, GovernmentServices and Religion 1412(4.0%)

Professional Occupationsin Business & Finance 943

(2.7%) Skilled Administrative &

Business Occupations 903(2.6%)

Technical OccupationsRelated to Natural &

Applied Sciences 563(1.6%)

Professional Occupationsin Health 515 (1.5%)

Skilled Sales & ServiceOccupations 431 (1.2%)

Management

Business,Finance & Administration410 (1.2%)

Management Sales &Service 409 (1.2%)

Professional Occupationsin Art & Culture 321(0.9%)

Professional Occupations inSocial Science, Education,Government Services &Religion 194 (3.1%)

Professional Occupations inNatural & Applied Sciences149 (2.4%)

Professional Occupations inBusiness & Finance

Professional Occupations in

Health 126 (1.8%) Management Business,

Finance & Administration115 (1.2%)

Skilled Sales and ServiceOccupations 74 (1.1%)


Skilled Administrative &Business Occupations 65(0.6%)

Intermediate Sales & Service

Occupations 38 (0.5%) Clerical Occupations 34

(0.5%)




Professional Occupations inBusiness & Finance 296(1.9%)


Professional Occupations inHealth 240 (1.6%)

Technical OccupationsRelated to Natural & AppliedSciences 228 (1.5%)

Management Business,Finance & Administration

169 (1.1%) Skilled Sales & Service

Occupations 151 (1.0%)

Professional Occupations inArt & Culture 120 (0.8%)


Professional Occupations inBusiness & Finance 521(3.9%)



Technical OccupationsRelated to Natural & AppliedSciences 301 (2.2%)

Skilled Sales & ServiceOccupations 211 176 (1.6%)

Professional Occupations inArt & Culture 176 (1.3%)

Management Business,Finance & Administration

167 (1.2%) Professionals Occupations in

Health 160 (1.2%)


38/38

38

Annex 10Top 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 & AdvertisingManagers 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 VocationalInstructors 130 (0.4%)

Professional Occupations toBusiness Services toManagement 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%)


Accountants 71 (1.1%) Secondary School Teachers 38

(0.6%)

Financial Managers 37 (0.6%)

University Professors 36(0.6%)

College & VocationalInstructors 36 (0.6%)


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 inBusiness 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 Scientists14 (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%)


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 VocationalInstructors 76 (0.5%)

Information Systems Analysts &Consultants 75 (0.4%)

Specialist Physicians 68 (0.4%) Financial Managers 64 (0.4%)

Computer Programmers &Interactive Media Development57 (0.4%)

Professional Occupations inBusiness Services to Management56 (0.4%)

Retail Trade Managers 55 (0.4%) Information Systems & Data

Processing Managers 54 (0.4%)



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 & ElectronicsEngineers 54 (0.4%)

Computer Systems Analysts 53(0.4%)

Translators, Terminologists &

Interpreters 52 (0.4%) Mechanical Engineers 50

(0.4%)

Profession Occupations inBusiness Services toManagement 48 (0.4%)

Secondary School Teachers 47(0.4%)

Computer Engineers 44 (0.3%)

Post-secondary Teaching andResearch Assistants 42 (0.3%)

Elementary School &Kindergarten Teachers 40

(0.3%) Financial & Investment Analysts

32 (0.2%)


University Professors 29 (0.2%)

Biologists & Related Scientists28 (0.2%)


Administrative Officers 22(0.2%)

Ontario Francophone Immigrant Profile

Documents

Transcript of Ontario Francophone Immigrant Profile