Immigration & Diversity in Canadian Cities & Communities...all immigration to Canada, and over 90 per cent of all refugees, QOLRS communities are losing their share of well-educated

FCMFederation of Canadian Municipalities

Fédération canadienne des municipalités

QUALITY OF LIFE IN

CANADIAN COMMUNITIES

FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES

Immigration &Diversity in CanadianCities & Communities

THEME REPORT #5

CELEBRATING DIVERSITY

and encouraging theintegration of immi-grants into the workforceare established practicesat CH2M HILL. Weare a global services com-pany and, as such, oursuccess depends onattracting and retaininggreat people with great

talents delivering great work to our clients. Findingtalented people is easier when we don’t limit thesources of that talent, and we certainly walk the talk:Of the close to 300 employees in our Toronto officeheadquarters, almost 70 per cent are immigrants.

Helping newcomers to Canada get established comesnaturally to CH2M HILL. We are a worldwide serv-ices business, and our success depends on havinggreat people with great talents delivering great workto our clients. Finding talented people is easier whenwe don’t limit the sources of that talent. That’s why,of the some 300 people working at our Torontoheadquarters, almost 70 per cent are immigrants.

Our firm has received a number of awards for itscommitment to diversity, including the RBC BestImmigrant Employer Award in 2008. That awardrecognized our unique partnership with MicroSkills,a Toronto non-profit organization that serves theunemployed, including newcomers. We were alsohonoured to receive the MicroSkills CorporateSpirit Award in 2008.

In 1997, we established a partnership with theCommunity MicroSkills Development Centre,which offers settlement, training, employment andself-employment services to women, youth andimmigrants. MicroSkills trains, guides and mentorsmore than 20,000 adults and youth annually. Weprovide two-month work placements for MicroSkillsgraduates from around the world in our informa-tion technology, business administration andfacilities departments.

We also sponsor the CH2M HILL Resource Centreof Excellence for Women and Newcomers at aMicroSkills facility. The centre, staffed by an employ-ment consultant, is equipped with computers for useby job seekers, and has information about the labourmarket and the Canadian workforce. Our employeesalso volunteer at the centre to conduct seminars, offercareer advice and mentor clients from MicroSkills.

The benefits of partnering with MicroSkills are enor-mous; chief among these is the opportunity to workwith highly skilled and dedicated people. MicroSkillsprovides the opportunity for its graduates to gainvaluable work experience, and CH2M HILL is giventhe chance to introduce, develop and promotetalented individuals.

At CH2M HILL, we believe passionately in thebenefits of diversity.

Bruce Tucker, P.Eng.President, CH2M HILL Canada Limited

MESSAGE FROM CH2M HILL

IMMIGRATION,WHICH

both enriches our com-munities and strengthensour economy, is on therise in Canada, bringingwith it both benefits andchallenges.

The 2006 Census dataclearly demonstratedhow immigration is

supporting population growth in Canada. It has notonly created diversity that strengthens neighbour-hoods and local economies, but has also brought ushighly skilled and knowledgeable workers to makeour cities and communities more competitive.

However, as this report clearly shows, immigrationalso brings challenges. Recent immigrants aresuffering from high rates of underemployment andpoverty. This has significant implications for munici-pal governments, as they struggle to provide adequateaffordable housing, emergency shelters, social assis-tance and public health services to newcomers.

Municipal governments play a critical role byadding to or adapting their services — doingeverything from providing culturally appropriaterecreation services to translating garbage pickupschedules and emergency services information.It’s a vital but unfunded role.

While no one questions the need for these services,municipal governments will continue to struggle toprovide them unless they receive the appropriate sup-port and resources.

This is as much about co-ordination and co-operationas it is about money. Despite being first in line whenit comes to helping immigrants with settlement chal-lenges, municipal governments are not consultedsystematically or included in decision-making onimmigration policies or programs.

The simple step of including municipal governmentsin these discussions would encourage better co-ordination of services delivered to newcomers. Justas importantl, municipalities require financialsupport to deliver the services newcomers need tosettle successfully.

The federal government has taken steps to streamlinethe immigration process and speed up foreign-credential assessment, which is good news forimmigrants and their communities. However, muchremains to be done. So far, federal investments inimmigrant settlement have not been designed to helpmeet municipal needs in this area.

By documenting the struggle of recent immigrants,this report substantiates our call for action to supportmunicipalities and agencies in their work helpingimmigrants become established. We want tosee municipal governments included in federal/provincial/territorial discussions on immigration, andwe need federal allocations to municipal and otherimmigrant services based on an equitable, predictableand sustained per capita funding formula.

Only then can our newest Canadians take theirrightful place in our cities and communities, wherethey can build lives for themselves and their familieswhile benefiting the country they have chosen tocall home.

Our thanks to all those who supported and assistedin the preparation of this report: our sponsor, CH2MHILL; the members of the Quality of Life TechnicalTeam; the 24 participating communities; and theconsulting team from Acacia Consulting & Research,led by Michel Frojmovic.

Jean PerraultPresident, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Theme Repor t #5 • Immigrat ion & Divers i ty in Canadian Cit ie s & Communit ie s

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

FCM Quali ty of Li fe Repor t ing Sys tem

Context.......................................................................................................................................................ii

Key Issues and Trends ...............................................................................................................................iii

Part 1 | Immigration Settlement Patterns...................................................................................................1

Part 2 | Diverse and Welcoming Communities ..........................................................................................9

Part 3 | Employment and Labour Force Integration.................................................................................17

Part 4 | Basic Needs of Recent Immigrants ..............................................................................................27

Part 5 | Catching Up and Closing the Gap ..............................................................................................39

All tables referenced in this report are available online at www.fcm.ca/QOLRS

iTheme Repor t #5 • Immigrat ion & Divers i ty in Canadian Cit ie s & Communit ie s

CONTENTS

ii FCM Quali ty of Li fe Repor t ing Sys tem

CONTEXT

This publication, the fifth theme report publishedby the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)as part of the Quality of Life Reporting System(QOLRS), focuses on trends and issues related toimmigration and diversity in 24 of Canada’s largestmunicipalities, regional municipalities and metropoli-tan communities, which account for 54 per cent ofCanada’s population.1 The report relies on datacovering the period 2001 to 2006, and compares and

contrasts three distinct groups: non-immigrants,Canadian citizens born in Canada; estab-

lished immigrants, foreign-born residentswho have lived in Canada for over

five years; and recent immigrants,foreign-born residents who have

lived in Canada for five yearsor less.

As with other QOLRSpublications, this report isdriven by the followingobjectives:

• identify strategic issuesand challenges facing largeand medium-sized munici-palities across Canada;• illustrate these issues interms of statistical trends;

• report on credible datafrom reliable sources; and

• describe actions being takenby Canadian municipal govern-

ments in response to these issues.

The information provided in this reportbuilds on the findings of earlier reports pre-

pared by FCM.2 Earlier analysis, along withresearch from local municipalities, points to the vitalimportance of immigration to the local economies ofCanadian municipalities and the significant contribu-tions being made by immigrants to their newcommunities. At the same time, the earlier analysis

also recognizes that immigration poses real andimportant challenges to Canada’s municipalgovernments.

Rather than encouraging comparisons betweenmunicipalities, this report is meant to offer a perspec-tive on trends and issues facing all members of theQOLRS project. While the scale of social, culturaland economic pressures facing municipalities varies,municipalities of all sizes must compete in order toattract and retain the most qualified and appropri-ately skilled immigrants. These new realities areplacing demands on municipal governments tochange their approach to program design andservice delivery, and to rely on co-ordinated inter-governmental approaches to meeting such needs. Intackling these challenges, municipal governmentshave become part of the solution. Municipal govern-ments provide valuable insights into local prioritiesfor immigrant settlement services. As they introduceprograms, policies, partnerships, funding arrange-ments and co-ordinated approaches to servicedelivery, municipalities increasingly offer opportuni-ties for sharing these experiences.

This report is also meant to support FCM’s callfor a series of actions to improve opportunities forrecent immigrants to Canada. These actions includeensuring municipal government participation in fed-eral/provincial/territorial dialogue on immigrationand settlement policy, program and service deliverydesign; ensuring an appropriate allocation to munici-pal governments and immigrant settlement agenciesfor immigration-related services based on an equi-table, predictable and sustained per capita fundingformula; introducing monitoring systems to measurethe effectiveness of agreements and improve account-ability related to funding allocations; and investing inlocal strategies to assist communities in attracting,retaining, settling and integrating newcomers.Information on the QOLRS and FCM immigrationpolicy reports are available at http://www.fcm.ca.

1While the 24 participants in the QOLRS are referred to throughout the report as “communities,” their legal status differs. QOLRS members include a mix of municipalities,regional municipalities and metropolitan organizations. Please note: Data for Windsor are included in this report, pending a final decision on Windsor’s membership. A guideto the QOLRS geography providing a more detailed description of these terms and associated issues is available at www.fcm.ca.

2 2005 Theme Report #2, Dynamic Societies and Social Change; 2004 Highlights Report; 2004 Scoping Study of Immigration.

This publication, the fifth theme report publishedby the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)as part of the Quality of Life Reporting System(QOLRS), focuses on trends and issues related toimmigration and diversity in Canada’s largest munici-palities, regional municipalities and metropolitancommunities during the five-year period from 2001to 2006. For the purposes of this report, the popula-tion of each of the 24 QOLRS member communitieshas been divided into three categories:

• non-immigrants/non-immigrant households —individuals/households with a primary maintainerwhose citizenship was granted on the basis ofhaving been born in Canada;

• established immigrants/established immigranthouseholds — individuals/households with aprimary maintainer granted permanent residentstatus and living in Canada for more than fiveyears; and

• recent immigrants/recent immigrant households —individuals/households with a primary maintainergranted permanent resident status and living inCanada for five years or less.

For more detailed definitions, see the Glossaryof Terms.

As a general trend, recent immigrants across all24 QOLRS communities face serious challengesduring their first five years of settlement in relationto both more established immigrants and non-immigrants. While the socio-economic situationfor immigrants improves significantly over time,even established immigrants ultimately remaindisadvantaged in relation to non-immigrants.

While many of the trends described in the reportaffect all communities, responses to these challengesmust be tailored to the particular needs and situationof each municipality. The municipal initiativesdescribed throughout the report illustrate thediversity of these responses.

Part 1 | Immigration Settlement PatternsA recurring theme evident throughout the analysis isthe distinct difference between recent immigrants inthe 24 QOLRS communities and those living in therest of Canada. While the 24 QOLRS communitiescontinue to account for approximately 85 per cent ofall immigration to Canada, and over 90 per cent ofall refugees, QOLRS communities are losing theirshare of well-educated and highly skilled immigrants.In addition to experiencing a net inflow of secondarymigration of recent immigrants between 2001 and2006, the rest of Canada saw its share of economicimmigrants more than double during this time.Within the 24 QOLRS communities, Canada’sbiggest cities and traditional immigrant-receivingcentres are experiencing a measurable erosion in theirshare of immigration. While the cities of Toronto,Montreal and Vancouver continue to receive themajority of immigrants, both recent immigrants andestablished immigrants appear to be shifting to sub-urban areas and smaller communities. As a result ofthese demographic shifts, suburbanization and sec-ondary migration require that municipal servicedelivery and planning become more dynamicand flexible.

Analysis in this report also provides compellingevidence that recent immigrants living in QOLRScommunities face significantly greater socio-economic challenges than those living in therest of Canada.

• Over twice the proportion of recent immigrantsliving in the 24 QOLRS communities relied onsocial assistance as compared to recent immigrantsliving in the rest of Canada.

• The unemployment rate gap between recentimmigrants and non-immigrants in the rest ofCanada — where unemployment among recentimmigrants was 1.4 times higher than amongnon-immigrants in 2006 — was significantlysmaller than the gap of 2.3 times higher inQOLRS communities.

iiiTheme Repor t #5 • Immigrat ion & Divers i ty in Canadian Cit ie s & Communit ie s

KEY ISSUES AND TRENDS

iv

• Within QOLRS communities, recent immigranthouseholds with low incomes accounted for 43per cent of all persons living in recent immigranthouseholds in 2006, nearly three times the rate ofnon-immigrant households.

• A higher proportion of recent immigrants living inQOLRS communities earned low incomes com-pared to their recent immigrant counterparts inthe rest of Canada.

• Recent immigrant households in the rest ofCanada were far more likely to be homeownersthan recent immigrants living in the QOLRScommunities.

• In stark contrast to their QOLRS communitycounterparts, recent immigrant homeownerhouseholds in the rest of Canada experienced a netimprovement in housing affordability.

These differences represent part of the challenge fac-ing Canada’s largest municipal governments as theycompete for the global pool of highly skilled andeducated immigrants.

Part 2 | Diverse and WelcomingCommunitiesIn contrast to the rest of Canada, QOLRS communi-ties are centres of significant and growing culturaland linguistic diversity, measured in terms of multi-ple places of origin and languages spoken at home.As discussed in Part 2, QOLRS communities werefive times more culturally and ethnically diverse thancommunities in the rest of Canada in 2006. Onemeasure of this diversity is that the U.S., the U.K.and Western/Northern Europe accounted for approx-imately 20 per cent of all recent immigrants in the


Toro

nto

CMM

Peel

Vanc

ouve

r

Calg

ary

York

Win

nipe

g

Surr

ey

Ott

awa

Edm

onto

n

Wat

erlo

o

Ham

ilton

Lond

on

Win

dsor

Hal

ton

Dur

ham

HRM

Lava

l

CMQ

Nia

gara

Sask

atoo

n

Gat

inea

u

Regi

na

Sudb

ury

Homeownership

Affordability

Low income

Income

Unemployment

Catching upFalling behind

Figure 1 – Performance of recent immigrants relative to non-immigrants on five key indicators,all communities, 2001-2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census Division, Custom Tables

Toro

nto

CMM

Peel

Vanc

ouve

r

Calg

ary

York

Win

nipe

g

Surr

ey

Ott

awa

Edm

onto

n

Wat

erlo

o

Ham

ilton

Lond

on

Win

dsor

Hal

ton

Dur

ham

HRM

Lava

l

CMQ

Nia

gara

Sask

atoo

n

Gat

inea

u

Regi

na

Sudb

ury

Homeownership

Affordability

Low income

Income

Unemployment

Catching upFalling behind

Figure 2 – Performance of established immigrants relative to non-immigrants on five key indicators,all communities, 2001-2006


http://municipaldata.ca/fcm/Theme_Report_Data/Theme_Report_5/Catch_Up.htm

http://municipaldata.ca/fcm/Theme_Report_Data/Theme_Report_5/Catch_Up.htm

rest of Canada, but less than seven per cent in theQOLRS. One consequence of this cultural diversityis that Canada’s largest municipalities face the realchallenge of building welcoming communities,including designing and delivering culturally appro-priate plans, programs and services, and addressingdiscrimination and racism.

Part 3 | Employment and LabourForce IntegrationEvidence presented in the third part of the reportclearly suggests that immigration is an integral part ofthe solution for addressing local labour force short-ages. All QOLRS communities are faced with thethreat of this shortage, measured as a ratio of thoseexiting the labour force over the next 15 years tothose entering the labour force. Several factors are atplay in this regard.

• The sheer number of immigrants to the QOLRScommunities provides an influx of working-ageindividuals into communities facing eitherstagnant growth in their labour force or shortagesof specific types of skills.

• Recent immigrants enter the QOLRS communi-ties with post-secondary education attainmentlevels considerably higher than those of non-immigrants. Immigration can, in principle, offera readily available, highly qualified labour force.

• An above-average proportion of recent and estab-lished immigrant families living in the QOLRScommunities have young children, suggesting alonger-term contribution to the local labour force.

• A significant proportion of recent immigrants andestablished immigrants in the QOLRS communi-ties have knowledge of both official languages,serving as a further indicator of proficiencyand capability.

At the same time, QOLRS communities arecontending with serious obstacles to realizing thesebenefits. Most troubling is that unemployment

among well-educated recent immigrants remainsconsistently high. While the proportion of recentimmigrants with university degrees was twice ashigh as that of non-immigrants, the unemploymentrate among university-educated recent immigrantswas four times greater than that of similar non-immigrants. Similarly, recent immigrants wereoverrepresented in low-paying service industryoccupations and under-represented in better-payingmanagement positions, suggesting a relatively highlevel of underemployment.

The report provides several examples of how munici-palities are responding to these challenges. However,there remains a pressing need for the federal govern-ment to support municipal investment in dealingwith the qualifications gap.

Part 4 | Basic Needs of Recent ImmigrantsDuring their first five years in Canada, immigrantsare characterized by relatively low incomes, relianceon scarce rental housing, housing affordability chal-lenges and a higher risk of homelessness. While thesecharacteristics all serve as indications of a need forsocial intervention, recent immigrants do not appearto be accessing services to the same degree as non-immigrants. Support for this argument rests on thefacts that reliance on social assistance among recentimmigrants is very low, there is limited evidence ofshelter usage among recent immigrants, and thehealth of recent immigrants suggests that this groupuses the health care system less than non-immigrants.

Part 5 | Catching Up and Closing the GapFigures 1 and 2 summarize the relative performanceof recent immigrants, established immigrants andnon-immigrants based on changes associated withfive variables between 2001 and 2006. Figure 1 illus-trates the extent to which recent immigrants caughtup to or fell behind non-immigrants during this five-year period; Figure 2 illustrates the relationshipbetween established immigrants and non-immigrants.

vTheme Repor t #5 • Immigrat ion & Divers i ty in Canadian Cit ie s & Communit ie s

vi

Recent immigrants in the majority of the 24 QOLRScommunities fell further behind non-immigrantswith respect to average incomes and housing afford-ability. On average, there was little change in therelative incidence of low-income households, thoughthis average masked significant variation, with recentimmigrants in similar numbers of communities eithercatching up or falling behind. In contrast to estab-lished immigrants, recent immigrants enjoyed relativeimprovements in unemployment rates and levelsof homeownership.

Compared to recent immigrants, established immi-grants fell even further behind the non-immigrantpopulation. Like recent immigrants, establishedimmigrants clearly lost ground relative to non-immigrants in the areas of income and housingaffordability. However, established immigrants alsofell further behind non-immigrants with respect tolevels of homeownership. Established immigrantsmade only negligible gains in the areas of unemploy-ment and the incidence of low incomes.


Larger Cities Receive theMajority of ImmigrantsCanada received more than 250,000 immigrants in2006. While immigrants to Canada settled in com-munities across the country, the actual numbers ofimmigrants destined for specific communities variedsubstantially. Chart 1 relies on Citizenship andImmigration Canada (CIC) landings data to illustratethis variation within the 24 QOLRS communities.According to the CIC data, six of the 24 communi-ties received at least 10,000 immigrants in 2006,with the City of Toronto receiving close to 60,000. Afurther nine of 24 communities received between2,500 and 10,000, ranging from Winnipeg (7,639)to Halton (2,504). A third group of nine QOLRScommunities received fewer than 2,500 immigrants.As described later in the report, these numbers do

not account for the movement of immigrants in thetime following their arrival.

CMM includes Laval within its boundaries. CMMfigures include Laval for all charts in this report;QOLRS averages appearing throughout the reporttake into consideration that Laval is includedin CMM.

In 2006, 95 per cent of Canada’s foreign-born popu-lation and 97 per cent of recent immigrants whoarrived in the last five years lived in an urban area.This compares with 78 per cent of the Canadian-born population. Consistent with these nationaltrends, Canada’s largest urban and suburban munici-palities, represented by the 24 members of theQOLRS project, continue to attract a substantial

1Theme Repor t #5 • Immigrat ion & Divers i ty in Canadian Cit ie s & Communit ie s

PART 1 | IMMIGRATIONSETTLEMENTPATTERNS

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

Chart 1 – Total immigrant landings, all communities, 2006

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics Division

Van

cou

ver

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

58,3

93

38,3

91

26,2

65

http://municipaldata.ca/fcm/Theme_Report_Data/Theme_Report_5/Chart_1.htm

2

share of this country’s immigration. This is summa-rized in Chart 2. According to CIC data, 84 per centof all immigrants accepted into Canada in 2006arrived in the 24 QOLRS communities, while thesecommunities collectively accounted for just over 54per cent of the national population.

Immigration Is Driving Population GrowthImmigration between 2001 and 2006 accounted formore than 80 per cent of total population growth in

the 24 QOLRS communities. Population growth ofQOLRS communities has become dependent onimmigration, due to the combined effects of low fer-tility rates and significant out-migration of certaingroups. Part of this out-migration involves recentimmigrants themselves. As discussed later in thereport, one of the challenges facing municipalities isto prevent the out-migration of recent immigrants.

In several cases, the number of recent immigrantsarriving between 2001 and 2006 exceeded total


2002

2006

Chart 2 – Share of total population and immigration, by class,QOLRS and rest of Canada average, 2002 and 2006

Sources: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics Division (landings); Statistics Canada,CANSIM (2002 population) and Census Division (2006 population)

47%

Total population All immigrant landings Economic Family class Protected persons Refugee claimants

53%

46%

54%

10%

90%

17%

83%

8%

92%

18%

82%

13%

87%

17%

83%

13%

87%

16%

84%

5%

95%

4%

96%

Rest of Canada QOLRS communities

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act definesthree basic classes of immigrants to Canada.

• Economic class immigrants are selectedfor their skills and ability to contribute toCanada’s economy. This class accounted for 55per cent of all landed immigrants arriving inCanada in 2006.

• Family class immigrants are sponsored bya Canadian citizen or permanent resident living inCanada, and accounted for 28 per cent of all

landed immigrants.

• Protected persons (or refugees) areaccepted as permanent residents underCanada’s Refugee and Humanitarian ResettlementProgram. In 2006, this class accounted for sevenper cent of all landed immigrants. Refugeeclaimants are temporary residents who haveapplied for permanent resident status underthe protected persons category. This groupaccounted for six per cent of all landed immi-grants in 2006.

BOX 1–IMMIGRANT CLASS IF ICATION


population growth. Between 2001 and 2006, 43,000immigrants arriving in Canada settled in Vancouver,while the city’s total population grew by 31,000 dur-ing that same time. In 2006, the City of Toronto washome to 267,000 recent immigrants who had arrivedin Canada since 2001. According to the Census,Toronto’s total population grew by fewer than 22,000during that five-year span.

Population dynamics in major immigrant-receivingcentres are also affected by the size of recent immi-grant households. The number of people living in theaverage recent immigrant household was significantly(32 per cent) larger than the number living in theaverage non-immigrant household, with this patternholding for all 24 QOLRS communities. This differ-ence diminished slightly between 2001 and 2006.The relative difference between recent immigrant andnon-immigrant household size was greatest in Surrey

(52 per cent) and Vancouver (50 per cent). Theaverage size of established immigrant householdswas slightly smaller than that of recent immigranthouseholds. In only two communities, Niagara andSudbury, were established immigrant householdssmaller than non-immigrant households.

The impact of immigration on overall population isreflected in the relative growth rates of the non-immigrant and foreign-born populations, captured inChart 5. The non-immigrant population in the 24QOLRS communities grew by under five per centbetween 2001 and 2006. During that same period,the population of foreign-born residents grew overthree times as quickly. Higher rates of growth amongforeign-born residents were evident across QOLRScommunities, with the exceptions of the cities ofVancouver and Sudbury.


Chart 3 – Estimated population growth without immigration, all communities, 2001-2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Note: “ROC”means “rest of Canada.”


4 FCM Quali ty of Li fe Repor t ing Sys tem

Chart 5 – Growth rates of non-immigrant and foreign-born populations,all communities, 2001-2006

Non-immigrant population growth Foreign-born population growth


-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Non-immigrant households Recent immigrant households


0

1

2

3

4

5

Chart 4 – Average household size, by immigrant type, all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Established immigrant households





Immigration Shifting TowardSuburbs and Smaller CitiesWhile the majority of immigrants continue to makeCanada’s largest cities their first point of entry, thereis also evidence of a shift in immigrant settlementpatterns toward nearby suburban communities andsmaller municipalities. These trends are captured inChart 2. While the QOLRS share of the nationalpopulation grew slightly between 2002 and 2006, theshare of landings fell significantly, from just under 90per cent in 2002 to 83 per cent by 2006. Measuredby class of immigrant, this trend was most pro-nounced with respect to economic immigrants. Theshare of economic immigrants destined for commu-nities in the rest of Canada more than doubled, fromunder eight per cent in 2002 to 18 per cent by 2006.In contrast, the proportion of refugee claimants des-tined for QOLRS communities remained largelyunchanged, accounting for over 96 per cent of all

16,000 who claimed refugee status in 2006. Thisshift is occurring for a range of reasons, including anattraction to affordable housing and growing socialnetworks of immigrant communities outsideCanada’s largest cities. One impact of this shift is toplace greater pressure on all municipalities to keep upwith demands for new and changing services.

As shown in Chart 6, QOLRS communities’ share ofprovincial immigrant landings remained dominantbut fell consistently between 2002 and 2006, fromover 90 per cent to under 85 per cent. Of note wasthe fall in the share of provincial landings in thelargest immigrant-receiving centres of Toronto,Montreal and Vancouver. At the same time, neigh-bouring suburban communities — notably York,Peel, Laval and Surrey — have increased their shareof provincial immigrant landings.


According to CIC, more than 32,000 protected per-sons (refugees) and refugee claimants arrived in thecountry in 2006, representing 13 per cent of alllanded immigrants.The large majority of these land-ings — 84 per cent of refugees and 96 per cent ofrefugee claimants — took place in the 24 QOLRScommunities.Within the QOLRS, the five communi-ties of Toronto, Communauté métropolitaine deMontréal (CMM),Winnipeg, Calgary and Ottawaaccounted for over half of all refugees arriving inCanada in 2006. Over three-quarters of all refugeeclaimants were clustered in five QOLRS communi-ties: Toronto, CMM, Peel, London and York.

The number of refugee claimants entering the24 QOLRS communities increased by 52 per centbetween 2002 and 2006, by far the fastest growthrate of all immigrant classes.The number of refugeesgrew by a more modest 9.5 per cent, the second-highest growth rate among all classes.The numberof refugees and refugee claimants grew by 100 per

cent or more in seven communities: Sudbury,Niagara, Peel, Laval,York, London and Durham.

While secondary migration estimates for refugeesand refugee claimants are not available, immigrantsarriving in Canada under these classes are known tobe more likely to move from their original place ofentry. As a result, other major immigrant-receivingcentres such as Toronto, CMM and Vancouver feel animpact as secondary reception centres for refugeesmoving from smaller Canadian communities.

Adults and children arriving as refugees from war-torn countries face special challenges related to thetrauma they may have experienced in their home-lands. These can include serious mental health chal-lenges that may go untreated as these people arenot connected to mainstream mental health services.Refugees who arrive as teenagers have often beenpulled out of their homeland, leaving behind familymembers, friends and other core social supports.These teens are at greater risk of dropping out ofhigh school and turning to crime.

BOX 2–REFUGEES AND BIG CIT IES

6

Secondary Migration: Attracting andRetaining ImmigrantsLandings data from CIC offer the most accuratemeasure of immigrants’ first place of settlement inCanada. However, these numbers do not capture themovement of new arrivals to subsequent destinationswithin Canada. In contrast, the National Census ofPopulation includes a measure of immigrants whomoved into a specific community over the previousfive years. The phenomenon of recent immigrantsmoving from their original place of settlement withinweeks, months or a few years of their arrival is called“secondary migration.” It is possible to get an indica-tion of the extent of secondary migration bycomparing five years of cumulative CIC data for agiven community to the actual population of recentimmigrants living in that community as reported bythe Census. This analysis is presented in Chart 7.

In total, five-year cumulative landings to QOLRScommunities exceeded the 2006 Census recent immi-grant population by more than 100,000, indicating asignificant net loss of immigrants as a result of sec-ondary migration. With total immigration toQOLRS communities during this period exceedingone million, this suggests that more than one in 10recent immigrants landing in QOLRS communitiesmigrated to a secondary destination in the rest ofCanada over the five-year period. Consistent withthis trend, the Census indicates that the rest ofCanada experienced a net inflow of secondary migra-tion of recent immigrants during the same period.

The five-year cumulative total of immigrant landingswas at least 20 per cent greater than the 2006 Censuspopulation of recent immigrants in several QOLRScommunities. Municipalities contending with signifi-cant secondary out-migration include Toronto,


-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Chart 6 – Change in share of provincial landings, all communities, 2002-2006

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics Division

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q



-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Chart 7 – Net secondary migration of recent immigrants, all communities, 2001-2006

Sources: Statistics Canada, Census Division, Custom Tables; Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Immigration Statistics Division

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Net

loss

ofi

mm

igra

nts

Net

gai

no

fim

mig

ran

ts

Further evidence of a significant and sustained shiftin immigration from urban core areas to neighbour-ing suburban communities is reinforced by the CICdata provided in Table 2 associated with Chart 6.The 24 QOLRS communities are located in 16Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), which containboth urban and suburban communities.The share ofimmigrants destined for communities located out-side the largest urban municipalities within these16 CMAs grew from under 30 per cent in 2002 toclose to 44 per cent by 2006.

The greatest shift in immigrant settlement patternsoccurred in the suburbs surrounding Vancouver,Toronto and the pre-2002 City of Montreal. Forexample, whereas the City of Toronto received over80 per cent of immigrants to the Toronto CMA in2002, this share had fallen to 63 per cent by 2006.The former City of Montreal’s share fell from79 per cent in 2002 to 67 per cent in 2006, whilethe City of Vancouver’s share fell from 56 per centto 35 per cent.

BOX 3–SUBURBANIZATION: TORONTO,VANCOUVER, MONTREAL CMAS



8

Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax RegionalMunicipality (HRM). At the same time, severalQOLRS communities experienced a net inflow ofimmigrants. The highest levels of secondary in-migration, where the 2006 recent immigrantpopulation exceeded five-year cumulative landings,occurred in Edmonton, Waterloo, Halton and Laval.

The data also suggest that a significant proportion ofsecondary migration of immigrants was to a destina-tion outside Canada, reflecting the phenomenon ofrecent immigrants to Canada returning to their coun-try of origin.


Several individual and community factors influencethe phenomenon of secondary migration. Individualfactors include the following:

• age — people in the prime working age groupof 25 to 44 years are more likely to migrate;

• education — those with the highest educationare more likely to migrate;

• immigrant class — skilled workers andrefugees are more likely to migrate; and

• social supports — people with fewer socialsupports feel more isolated and so are morelikely to migrate.

Community factors include the following:• the presence of an established ethnic/cultural

community;

• economic, educational and employmentopportunities;

• access to public services, such as health,transportation and settlement services;

• community receptivity, with negative experiences,systemic discrimination or perceptions of nega-tive public attitudes; and

• general quality of life factors, such as climate,housing market, and recreational and culturalopportunities.

Source: Valerie Pruegger and Derek Cook, An Analysis ofImmigrant Attraction and Retention Patterns AmongWestern Canadian CMAs (Edmonton: Prairie MetropolisCentre, 2007). http://compartevents.com/Metropolis2008/E9-Pruegger^Valerie.pdf

BOX 4–FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SECONDARY MIGRATION

Ethnic and Cultural DiversityMeasured in terms of the visible minority population,QOLRS communities were five times more culturallyand ethnically diverse than communities in the restof Canada. Whereas more than one in four residentsof the 24 QOLRS communities was a member of avisible minority, this was true of only one in 20 resi-dents living in the rest of Canada (see Chart 8).Cultural diversity in Canadian cities can be dividedroughly into three very distinct groups. The mostculturally diverse communities are those where thevisible minority population accounts for 40 to 50 per

cent of the total population, and include Toronto,Peel and Vancouver. Other communities, such as theCommunauté métropolitaine de Montréal (CMM)and Calgary, fall into the 15 to 25 per cent range,while a third group is clustered below 10 per cent.

While immigration is having a significant impact onthe size of the visible minority population, immigrationand visible minority status are not synonymous. Asshown in Chart 8, many individuals self-reporting asmembers of visible minorities are non-immigrants. Onaverage, one-third of the visible minority population in


Chart 8 – Visible minorities as a percentage of the total population, all communities, 2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census Division

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

{ {{

Visibleminoritiesas a % oftotalpopulation

Non-foreign-bornvisible minorities

Foreign-bornvisible minorities

PART 2 | DIVERSE ANDWELCOMINGCOMMUNITIES



10

QOLRS communities was non-immigrant in 2006,ranging from 29 per cent in York to as much as 64per cent in HRM. The emphasis on immigration alsounderstates the extent of cultural diversity in prairiecities such as Regina and Saskatoon. For example,10 per cent of Regina’s population is Aboriginal, acharacteristic of the city not reflected in Chart 8.

Foreign-Born Population as a Percentageof the Total PopulationThe proportion of the total population living in the24 QOLRS communities born outside Canada israpidly approaching 30 per cent, rising from 27 percent in 2001 to over 28 per cent by 2006 (see Chart9). The story is markedly different in the rest ofCanada, where less than 10 per cent of the popula-tion was born outside the country, though thisproportion is also on the rise. The concentration ofimmigration within QOLRS communities isreflected in a group of four municipalities where

40 per cent or more of the 2006 population wasborn outside Canada: Toronto, Peel, Vancouverand York. The City of Surrey is rapidly approachingthis number.

Place of OriginRecent immigrants to QOLRS communities origi-nated from 23 distinct countries and regions locatedacross the globe. Chart 10 portrays this diversity andindicates the place of origin for the single largestnumber of recent immigrants living in each of the24 QOLRS communities. The place of origin profilevaried significantly across QOLRS communities.On the one hand, China, India, West CentralAsia/Middle East, other Southern Asia and EasternEurope were the principal places of origin for recentimmigrants in 17 of the 24 QOLRS communities,and contributed 60 to 70 per cent of immigrants tothe Greater Toronto Area (GTA).3 At the same time,these five places accounted for under 40 per cent of


A lack of respect for cultural diversity can lead tohate incidents and crimes. A recent Statistics Canadareport, Hate Crime in Canada, points to a linkbetween greater cultural and ethnic diversity andthe increased potential for acts of discrimination orconflict between individuals and groups. Some ofthese are recognized as hate crimes — criminaloffences motivated by hate toward an identifiablegroup. Hate crimes are unique in that they not onlyaffect those who may be specifically targeted by theperpetrator, but they also often indirectly affectentire communities.

Source: Mia Dauvergne, Katie Scrim and ShannonBrennan,“Hate Crime in Canada,” Canadian Centre forJustice Statistics Profile Series (Ottawa: Statistics Canada,June 2008). http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85F0033MIE/85F0033MIE2008017.htm

Discriminatory treatment related to accessing hous-ing, jobs and services or purchasing consumergoods leads some immigrants to try to find a betterlife in other parts of Canada, or to return to theirhomelands. Because they are locally based and

closely involved in the lives of their residents,municipal governments have an important role toplay in combating racism and discrimination and fos-tering equality among all citizens.To support thesegoals, more than 20 Canadian municipalities havejoined the Canadian Coalition of Municipalitiesagainst Racism and Discrimination, includingWindsor,Toronto, Oshawa, Sudbury,Vaughan,Oakville, Calgary, Edmonton, Gatineau, Montreal,Saskatoon and Winnipeg.The Coalition championsthe introduction of local policies to fight racism anddiscrimination in urban regions across Canada, andis part of a larger international coalition being pro-moted by UNESCO.The City of Toronto is one ofthe founding members of the Canadian coalition.Toronto’s Plan of Action for the Elimination ofRacism and Discrimination served as the model fordeveloping the Coalition’s 10-Point Action Plan.

Source: Canadian Coalition of Municipalities againstRacism and Discrimination. http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=10635&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. See alsohttp://www.cmard.ca

BOX 5–DISCRIMINATION AND RACISM

3The GTA comprises the City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York and Durham.

11Theme Report #5 • Immigrat ion & Divers i ty in Canadian Cit ies & Communit ies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2001


Chart 9 – Foreign-born population as a percentage of total population,all communities, 2001 and 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q2006

Chart 10 – Place of origin of recent immigrants, all communities, 2006

HalifaxCMQLavalCMM

GatineauOttawa

DurhamYork

TorontoPeel

HaltonHamilton

NiagaraWaterloo

LondonWindsorSudbury

WinnipegSaskatoon

ReginaCalgary

EdmontonSurrey

Vancouver The size of the circle corresponds to the percentage of Canadian immigrants originating from the region.The lines connect QOLRS members with the region from which the majority of their immigrants originate.


China13.6%

EasternAfrica2.9%

India12.5%

OtherSouthern

Asia9.9%

EasternEurope

8.8%

Philippines7.1%

West Central Asiaand Middle East

10.2%

SouthAmerica

5.5%

Caribbean/Bermuda

3.5%

CentralAmerica

1.6%

U.S.A.2.6%

U.K.1.5%

WesternEurope

2.3%

OtherSouthern

Europe2.2%

OtherEastern Asia

3.7%

OtherSE Asia

2.0%

WesternAfrica1.9%

CentralAfrica1.1%

Oceania0.6%

HongKong0.6%

SouthernAfrica0.4%

NorthernAfrica4.9%

OtherNorthern

Europe0.2%

Italy0.2%




12

immigration in seven other communities. In contrast,close to 30 per cent of recent immigrants living inWinnipeg in 2006 originated in the Philippines.In CMM, the Communauté métropolitaine deQuébec (CMQ) and Gatineau, immigration fromAfrica accounted for 25 to 30 per cent of all recent

immigrants, but well under 10 per cent in most otherQOLRS communities. Similarly, the U.S., U.K. andWestern/Northern Europe accounted for approxi-mately 20 per cent of all recent immigrants inthe rest of Canada, but under seven per cent inQOLRS communities.


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Chart 11 – Proportion of the population speaking neither official language at home,all communities, 2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q


Canadian cities have achieved levels of cultural diver-sity that are exceptional on a global scale.This is evi-dent when comparing Canadian cities with the mostdiverse metropolitan areas in other major immigrant-receiving countries. According to a report preparedby Statistics Canada, both the Toronto andVancouver metropolitan areas ranked higher thanany other metropolitan area in either NorthAmerica or Australia in terms of the immigrantpopulation as a percentage of the total population.Based on data available for 2006, these two regionsranked ahead of major urban centres such as Miami,

Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York in theUnited States, and Sydney and Melbourne inAustralia. Relying on a similar measure, a reportby CMM indicated that the metropolitan areas ofCalgary, Edmonton and Montreal also ranked in thetop 10 urban regions within North America in 2006.

Sources: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2008001/c-g/10556/5214733-eng.htm.Perspective Grand Montréal (Communautémétropolitaine de Montréal, January 2008).http://www.cmm.qc.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/peri-odique/0201_Perspective.pdf

BOX 6–CANADA’S GLOBALLY DIVERSE CIT IES


Language DiversityAs illustrated by Chart 11, a total of 16 per cent ofthe QOLRS population reported speaking a languageother than English or French at home. This propor-tion ranged from over 30 per cent of the populationin Toronto and Vancouver, to under four per cent inHRM, CMQ, Sudbury, Regina and Saskatoon. Lessthan five per cent of the rest of Canada’s populationreported speaking neither official language at home.

The diversity of languages spoken in QOLRScommunities reflects the place of origin patternsdescribed earlier. The data table accompanying Chart11 identifies the five most common non-officiallanguages spoken at home in QOLRS communitiesas Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese),Punjabi, Spanish, Italian and Arabic. These five lan-guages accounted for close to 50 per cent of allnon-official languages spoken at home. Chinese wasthe dominant non-official language spoken at homein fully one-half of QOLRS communities. Punjabi,Spanish and Arabic were each the principal non-

official language spoken in three QOLRScommunities. Consistent with the varied nature ofimmigration patterns to Canadian communities, notall QOLRS communities shared these top-fivenon-official languages. Other principal, dominant,non-official languages include Tagalog/Filipino(Winnipeg), Italian (Hamilton and Niagara) andGreek (Laval).

Also noteworthy is the shifting of dialects within alanguage evident in some large cities. For example,the number of persons reporting Mandarin as theirpredominant home language in Toronto increasedsignificantly between 2001 and 2006. Approximatelyone in five people who speak Chinese predominantlyin the home now converse in Mandarin. This wasnot the case 20 years ago, when Cantonese was by farthe predominant Chinese home language in Toronto.Such shifts in dialect are important, reflecting notonly the source countries but also the regions withinthose source countries and their differing socio-economic characteristics and cultural traits.


FCM recently commissioned a national survey of2,000 Canadians aged 18 years and older intendedto reveal the perceptions of Canadians on keymunicipal issues and challenges.The survey includedquestions on immigration and its impact oncommunities.

Consistent with previous research, Canadians con-tinue to be open to immigration: Only a smallminority (21 per cent) agree with the statement that“Too many immigrants have settled in my communityin the last few years.” Those living in communities of100, 000 to 500,000 residents are considerably morelikely than others to agree that too many immigrantshave settled in their community in the recent past

(28 per cent versus 14 per cent of those who live incommunities with fewer than 10,000 residents).

A majority of Canadians (61 per cent) agree that“the federal government should provide assistanceto municipalities to help immigrants settle in thecommunity.” Those most likely to agree with thisstatement are those from Canada’s largest cities(Montreal 73 per cent,Toronto 77 per cent) andthose from Quebec (69 per cent).

Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2008 Report on the KeyIssues and Challenges Facing Canadian Municipalities(Toronto and Ottawa: The Strategic Counsel,April 2008).http://www.fcm.ca//CMFiles/april1520081PBU-4172008-9553.pdf

BOX 7–NATIONAL SURVEY ON IMMIGRATIONAND ITS IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES


Just as Canada is involved in global competitionfor well-trained and skilled immigrants, so too aremunicipalities within Canada working to attractthese immigrants to their communities. Once theyarrive, municipalities also face the challenge of mak-ing sure these immigrants remain.The following area few examples of municipal policies, strategies andprojects designed to respond to this challenge. Ineach case, these initiatives have been developed inclose consultation with business, government, not-for-profit organizations, immigrant settlement organi-zations and immigrants themselves.These examplesalso serve as a tool to clarify the relationshipbetween municipal governments and their provincialand federal counterparts.

The City of Vancouver’s 2006 Report of the Mayor’sTask Force on Immigration recommended a numberof policy directions and actions to be undertaken bylocal stakeholders.These were intended to ensurethat Vancouver continues to be a welcoming city toall newcomers, and that newcomers have access andopportunities to participate fully in the social, culturaland economic life of the city.They will also ensurethat Vancouver, working with other orders of gov-ernment and key stakeholders, will play a vital role inthe development of best policies and practices relatedto immigration issues at a local level. Following thistask force’s report, the 2007 Mayor’s Task Force onImmigration called for council to adopt a “Visionand Value Statement Concerning Immigrants andRefugees.” Other recommendations included havingthe City explore different ways of providing input toother levels of government; continuing to engagewith other cities on immigration-related issues; con-vening a summit to discuss the feasibility of launch-ing a multi-sectoral immigrant employment initiative;ensuring that the 311 Access Vancouver MunicipalServices program meets the needs of newcomers tothe city, especially in the areas of staff training andservice delivery; and having the City encourageresearch on refugee issues, especially in the area ofaccess to affordable housing.

Source: http://www.mayorsamsullivan.ca/pdf/Mayors%20Task%20Force%20on%20Immigration%20-%20Nov%2007.pdf

Between 2005 and 2007,York Region’s HumanServices Planning Coalition (HSPC) co-ordinatedthe Inclusivity Action Plan (IAP), as a region-wide,community-based approach to promoting inclusivity.The IAP project focused on the broader issues ofYork Region’s ethno-cultural diversity and successfullyengaged leading service organizations in the Regionthat serve immigrant communities. Using the harddata provided by the Community Snapshots: RecentImmigrants Living in York Region report, the HSPCsuccessfully advocated for funding for Vaughan’sWelcome Centre and the York Region ImmigrationPortal. More recently, in July 2008,York Region wasconfirmed as the lead in the development of a LocalImmigration Partnership (LIP).Through LIP, YorkRegion will work with community stakeholders todevelop a “made-in-York-Region” strategy that willfocus on settlement, language training, labour marketintegration and other types of settlement supportsthat help newcomers to successfully adapt to livingin York Region.Working with community stakehold-ers, the Region will identify priorities, opportunitiesand activities to help address gaps and, where appro-priate, streamline activities.This initiative will befunded entirely by CIC under the Canada-OntarioImmigration Agreement and is part of a broaderinitiative intended to strengthen the role of localand regional communities in serving and integratingimmigrants.

Sources: http://atwork.settlement.org/sys/atwork_library_detail.asp?passed_lang=EN&doc_id=1004478 and http://www.york.ca/Departments/Planning+and+Development/Human+Services/HSPC/IAP/default+iap.htm

The Community Snapshots report is available athttp://www.york.ca/Departments/Community+Services+and+Housing/reports.htm

BOX 8–BUILDING WELCOMING COMMUNITIES: MUNICIPALIMMIGRANT ATTRACTION AND RETENTION STRATEGIES


In 2007, the City of Edmonton approved anImmigration and Settlement Policy to guide the workof its departments and provide a foundation for col-laboration with other community groups in the city.The policy also clarifies the City’s role in relation tothe provincial and federal governments. Led by theOffice of Diversity and Inclusion, the City ofEdmonton has put in place a series of programs tosupport attraction and retention.These include agrants program and a space rental subsidy to supportgroups for newly arrived immigrants; an ImmigrantInternship Program; the publication of a newcomerguide to services; a recognition program honouringimmigrant contributions to the economic, social andcultural life of the city; and additional staffing to sup-port capacity-building with immigrant and refugeegroups and engage in policy and program planning.

Source: http://compartevents.com/Metropolis2008/E9-Reilly%5EJohn.pdf

The Waterloo Region Immigrant EmploymentNetwork (WRIEN) brings together cross-sectoralpartners for the purpose of better attracting immi-grant talent and ensuring immigrants are much morevisible and successful within recruitment and selec-tion processes undertaken by employers inWaterloo Region. Source: http://www.wrien.com

The City of London’s Diversity and Race RelationsAdvisory Committee (LDRRAC) continues to play asignificant role in the area of social inclusion andcivic engagement, along with direct settlement serv-ices funded through the Cross Cultural LearnerCentre (CCLC) and other agencies. Central to sys-temic change have been London’s CelebratingCultural Diversity Conference in 2006, board diver-sity training, and the Building Inclusive and AccessibleFamily Services in London initiative.With submissionof project proposals for funding the LocalImmigration Partnership and the Community-University Research Alliances on WelcomingCommunities, the City hopes to improve its under-standing of immigration and diversity throughresearch and community collaboration.

Source: http://www.london.ca/About_London/PDFs/Welcoming_Cultural_Diversity_Action_Plan.pdf

HRM’s Immigration Action Plan is supported by thefollowing vision adopted by council in 2005:“HRM isa welcoming community where immigration is sup-ported and encouraged. Halifax Regional Municipalitywill work with other levels of government and com-munity partners to increase our collective cultural,social and economic diversity by welcoming immi-grants to our community.” The action plan identifiestwo priority areas. Under communications, HRM isexamining methods for increasing the accessibilityof municipal programs and services — such asrecreation, solid waste, library, police and fireservices — to diverse communities. Organizationalchanges include a review of the municipality’srecruitment strategy, and work to reduce or elimi-nate any barriers newcomers may encounter whentrying to secure employment with the municipality.These changes are consistent with the HRMEmployment Equity Policy, which states that themunicipality will represent the diverse communityit serves.

Source: http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/documents/ActionPlanSept05_WebRes.pdf

Working in close collaboration with local andregional partners, the Ville de Laval has put in placemore than 30 measures aimed at continuing toattract immigrants to the municipality, ensuring theirsuccessful settlement, and supporting positive andwelcoming intercultural relations between immigrantcommunities and the wider population.Theseactions are being put in place within the policyframework of sustainable development andEnsemble à Laval (Together in Laval).They includeproducing a series of five television programs to bebroadcast across Quebec, as well as a short web-video designed to attract immigrants to Laval. In thearea of increasing the accessibility of services, Lavaloffers a guide to local services for young immigrantfamilies.The Ville de Laval offers guided bus tours ofmunicipal services, as well as heritage sites and

BOX 8–BUILDING WELCOMING COMMUNITIES: MUNICIPALIMMIGRANT ATTRACTION AND RETENTION STRATEGIES (CONT’D)


tourist points of interest.The Ville de Laval under-takes cultural, social and professional needs analysesof immigrants living in the community in order tobetter design and deliver integrated programs andservices, co-ordinated with those of other partners.Recognizing the importance of taking full advantageof the immigrant labour force, the Ville de Lavalworks with local employers to support summeremployment targeting immigrant students.

Source: Ville de Laval.

Building Saskatoon to Become a Global City:A Framework for an Immigration Action Plan wasput in place to help the City of Saskatoon attract,

integrate and retain immigrants.The framework alsoprovides various other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in Saskatoon with a basisfor developing and implementing strategies andaction plans.The framework identifies five areasrequiring improvement: planning and co-ordinationcapacity of immigration services agencies; recruit-ment capacity, including recruitment from outsideCanada and from other provinces; reception capaci-ty; economic integration capacity; and communityintegration and civic engagement capacity.

Source: http://www.city.saskatoon.sk.ca/org/leisure/race_relations/immigration.asp?print=true

BOX 8–BUILDING WELCOMING COMMUNITIES: MUNICIPALIMMIGRANT ATTRACTION AND RETENTION STRATEGIES (CONT’D)

Labour Force Replacement (LFR) RatioThe issue of labour force replacement (LFR) buildson the discussion introduced in Part 1 regarding pop-ulation growth. A community’s capacity to sustainthe size of its labour force can be measured as a ratioof the current population aged 0-14 to the currentpopulation aged 50-64. In effect, the measure com-pares the population poised to enter the labour forceover the next 15 years to the one preparing to exitthe labour force over a similar time frame. A ratiogreater than one implies that a community’s labourforce will remain capable of supporting growth in the

economy, whereas a ratio below one suggests along-term contraction in the size of the economicallyactive population in relation to young and retiredindividuals.

The average LFR ratio for all QOLRS communitiesfell from 1.19 in 2001 to just under 1.0 in 2006(see Chart 12). This suggests that, on average, anddespite current levels of immigration, Canada’s largestmunicipalities can expect to see long-term declines intheir labour force population. This trend affected allQOLRS communities, without exception. The range


PART 3 | EMPLOYMENT ANDLABOUR FORCEINTEGRATION

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2001


Chart 12 – Labour force replacement ratio (age 0-14: age 50-64),all communities, 2001 and 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

2006



18

in the LFR remained significant, from a high of 1.27in Peel to under 0.75 in CMQ and Vancouver. TheLFR ratio for communities in the rest of Canada fellfaster and to a significantly lower level than theQOLRS average.

Child Care NeedsCompared to both non-immigrant and establishedimmigrant families in QOLRS communities, theproportion of recent immigrant families with youngchildren — 56 per cent in 2006 — was quite high,and higher still than comparable figures for the restof Canada. As outlined in Chart 13, this situationwas evident across all QOLRS communities. Thisphenomenon suggests a need for more services for

recent immigrant children, including recreation,education and health services. In contrast, establishedimmigrant families had marginally fewer youngchildren than non-immigrant families, a trend thatheld true in almost all QOLRS communities.

The relatively high proportion of immigrant familieswith young children, combined with a relativelylow average age, suggests an important contributionbeing made by immigration to improving the LFRratio. The proportion of families with young childrenalso indicates the level of need for child care services.Access to child care, in turn, influences the capacityof immigrants to participate in the labour force andtheir ability to access employment.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Non-immigrants Recent immigrants


Chart 13 – Proportion of households with children aged 0-12, by immigrant type,all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Established immigrants



Language Proficiency: Knowledge ofCanada’s Official Languages

The ability to speak at least one of the country’s twoofficial languages is arguably a critical prerequisite tosecuring adequate employment. In 2006, just over nineper cent of recent immigrants to QOLRS communitieswere proficient in neither English nor French, rangingfrom under five per cent in several communities togreater than 15 per cent in Vancouver and Surrey(see Chart 14). Lack of proficiency in either officiallanguage fell off significantly among established immi-grants to a QOLRS-wide average of 6.5 per cent.

At the other end of the spectrum, an even greaterproportion of recent immigrants demonstrated strongproficiency in both official languages. Whereas24 per cent of non-immigrant residents in QOLRScommunities were proficient in both languages,

13 per cent of recent immigrants were similarlyproficient (see Chart 15). This was over half thenon-immigrant population proportion of languageproficiency and nearly identical to that of non-immigrant residents living in the rest of Canada. Thefigure reinforces other indicators that suggest that, onthe whole, recent immigrants to Canada are a highlyskilled and capable population. At the same time, thisadds to the evidence that recent immigrants face bar-riers to employment that are often unrelated to theirspecific skills or training.

The Qualifications Gap: EducationalAttainment, Unemployment andOccupational ProfilesAs shown in Chart 16, the proportion of recentimmigrants between the ages of 25 and 54 with a


0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%



Chart 14 – Proportion of the population speaking neither official language,by immigrant type, all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q





0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Chart 15 – Proportion of the population speaking both official languages,by immigrant type, all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Foreign-born

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Chart 16 – Proportion of the population aged 25-54 with a university certificate, degreeor diploma, by immigrant type, all communities, 2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q





university certificate, degree or diploma was twice ashigh as that of non-immigrant residents in the sameage range. Despite this relatively high level of educa-tional attainment, the unemployment rate amonguniversity-trained recent immigrants aged 25 to54 in QOLRS communities was four times greaterthan that of their non-immigrant counterparts (seeChart 17). This difference in unemployment ratesdecreased significantly for university-trained immi-grants who had spent over five years in Canada.However, these more established immigrants alsofaced greater difficulty in securing employment com-pared to the non-immigrant population.

Unlike the situation for non-immigrants, having auniversity degree appeared to have only a marginalimpact on the unemployment rates of recent immi-grants. At 12.1 per cent, unemployment amonguniversity-trained recent immigrants aged 25 to 54was only slightly lower than the average for allrecent immigrants (12.8 per cent). In contrast, the

unemployment rate among university-trainednon-immigrants was almost half that of all non-immigrants (3.0 versus 5.6 per cent), and in no singlecommunity were unemployment rates for university-trained non-immigrant adults higher than those forall non-immigrant adults.

Recent immigrants’ high rates of unemploymentin 2006 were matched by rates of labour forceparticipation substantially lower than those of eitherestablished immigrants or non-immigrants (see Chart18). One reason for this difference could well be thediscouraging effect of not being able to secure suit-able employment during the first five years ofsettlement. However, participation rates amongestablished immigrants were considerably higher thanthose of recent immigrants, and exceeded those ofnon-immigrants in all 24 QOLRS communities.This points to the contribution of immigrants to theCanadian labour force once they are established.


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%



Chart 17 – Unemployment rate for the population aged 25-54 with a university certificate,degree or diploma, by immigrant type, all communities, 2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q



22

According to Statistics Canada, average annual earn-ings in 2006 for all occupations in Canada were$37,707. Sales and service occupations accounted for24 per cent of the labour force, and offered averageearnings of $21,163, less than 60 per cent of theaverage for all occupations. Some of the more typicaljobs within this occupational sector included retailsales clerks, security guards and cleaners. In contrast,average earnings for management occupations —accounting for nine per cent of the Canadian labourforce — were $72,296, close to twice the average forall occupations.

Reinforcing the unemployment data, recent immi-grants were generally overrepresented in lower-earning occupations and underrepresented in higher-earning occupations. The proportion of recent

immigrants working in sales and service occupationswas more than 50 per cent higher than that of non-immigrant workers in communities such as Ottawa,Gatineau, Regina and Calgary (see Chart 19a).Similarly, the representation of non-immigrants inmanagement occupations was twice that of recentimmigrants in several communities (see Chart 19b).More established immigrants were less likely thannon-immigrants or recent immigrants to be workingin the sales and service sector. However, establishedimmigrants were underrepresented in higher-earningmanagement occupations.

Chart 19b also suggests that both recent immigrantsand established immigrants in the rest of Canadawere overrepresented in management sectoroccupations compared to non-immigrants.


40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Chart 18 – Labour force participation rate, by immigrant type, all communities, 2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q




0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%



Chart 19a – Proportion of the labour force in sales and service occupations,by immigrant type, all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Foreign-born

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%



Chart 19b – Proportion of the labour force in management occupations, by immigranttype, all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Foreign-born






Municipal governments are engaged locally in initia-tives to close the gap between immigrant qualifica-tions and employment experiences.The followingexamples offer a modest indication of the natureof municipal government involvement in theseinitiatives.

Toronto’s Profession to Profession MentoringImmigrants Program is a joint initiative of the City ofToronto, the Toronto Region Immigrant EmploymentCouncil and the Consortium of Agencies ServingInternationally Trained Professionals.At least117 city employees have volunteered as mentorsin this program since 2004.They are matched withinternationally trained professionals seeking employ-ment in their fields of expertise. Mentors providejob search advice to help ease the transition ofthese newcomers into the Canadian labour market.With the approval of their managers, mentors com-mit four to six hours per month during work hoursfor a four- to six-month period.The occupationsincluded in the program are accounting/finance, cityplanning, communications, engineering, event plan-ning, facility management, human resources, informa-tion and technology, legal, public policy, purchasingand social work.

Source: http://www.toronto.ca/diversity/mentoring/

The Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council(TRIEC) was created to address the urgent need inthe Toronto Region for effective and appropriateinclusion of immigrants into the labour market.Established in September 2003,TRIEC comprisesmembers representing various groups: employers,labour, occupational regulatory bodies, post-secondary institutions, assessment service providers,community organizations and all three levels ofgovernment.TRIEC's primary goal is to find andimplement local solutions that help break down thebarriers immigrants face when looking for work inthe Toronto Region.To achieve this goal, the councilfocuses on three objectives:

• increase access to and availability of services thathelp immigrants gain access to the labour marketmore efficiently and effectively;

• change the way stakeholders value and work withskilled immigrants; and

• change the way governments relate to one anoth-er in planning and programming aroundthis issue.

Source: http://www.triec.ca

The City of Toronto is a signatory to a memoran-dum of understanding (MOU) with the Governmentof Canada and the Province of Ontario.The Canada-Ontario-Toronto MOU on Immigration andSettlement (signed in 2006) is an important provi-sion under the Canada-Ontario ImmigrationAgreement (COIA, signed in 2005) for partnershipwith municipal governments in Ontario on immigra-tion matters. COIA recognizes the role of municipal-ities and the benefit of the federal and provincialgovernments working with municipalities in theimmigration and settlement policy area.This MOUoutlines four major areas of interest: access toemployment; access to education and training; accessto services; and citizenship and civic engagement.

Source: http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLIsh/department/laws-policy/agreements/ontario/can-ont-toronto-mou.asp

Peel Region’s Community Immigration Strategy is amulti-stakeholder process involving business, labour,non-profit, education and government orgnizations.Common to all actions within the strategy is a focuson employment and support for integration into thelabour force and community.The emphasis is on aCommunity Newcomer Strategy, which providesco-ordinated services to newcomers; the LiveablePeel Immigration Project, which includes a focuson integration into the local economy; and theCommunity Immigration Web Portal, which providesinformation for new arrivals even before they arrive.

Source: http://compartevents.com/Metropolis2008/B11-White%5EShelley.pdf

BOX 9–MUNICIPAL INIT IATIVES TOADDRESS THE QUALIF ICATIONS GAP


Calgary’s Immigrant Service Sectoral Council (ISSC)was established in early 2003 through a partnershipof the federal, provincial and municipal governments,immigrant-serving agencies, and smaller ethno-cultural community groups.The ISSC provides anintegrated and coherent approach to immigrationissues.The ISSC affords smaller communities anopportunity to work with immigrant service agen-cies in an environment otherwise characterized byterritoriality issues, competition for governmentfunding, downloading and overlap of services.

Source: http://www.isccalgary.ca/

The Waterloo Region Immigrant EmploymentNetwork (WRIEN) includes a number of initiativesdesigned to address the qualifications gap.TheMentorship Program is a coaching program thatmatches a skilled or professional Canadian mentorwith an internationally trained professional menteefor a four-month mentorship.The Newcomer LoanProgram provides loans up to $5,000 based on themerits of a career plan that will assist and supportthe immigrant applicant in securing work in his orher field.The Internship Program matches interna-tionally trained professionals with local employersproviding paid workplace placements. It matches theimmigrants’ skill sets to the employers’ needs for afour-month period.The immigrants enhance theirworkplace English, gain Canadian experience, developnetworks and usually receive a letter of referenceto complement their job search. CredentialRecognition — a forum involving immigrants,employers, human resources professionals,WRIEN team members and credential-grantingorganizations — is planned for March 2009 todiscuss credential recognition progress, issues andnew initiatives.

Source: http://www.wrien.com

Hamilton’s Education City Marketing Plan is a collab-orative effort to promote the city’s competitiveadvantage as a centre for educational opportunity,research and discovery.The plan was produced

by a roundtable consisting of senior leaders fromHamilton’s top educational institutions.Two dimen-sions of the plan relate specifically to immigration.“Transitions” focuses on offering ready and afford-able access to learning at all stages of developmentin order to continue helping newcomers integrateinto the community and labour market;“Globalism”emphasizes advancing diversity, immigration and inte-gration, and consolidating Hamilton’s reputation as aleading education city that welcomes newcomers.Education City complements Hamilton’s immigrationstrategy, which will include education and training askey elements to ensure that visitors and newcomersfeel welcome and valued in the community.

Source: http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/BA32C944-9D1D-4CF9-8449-3D93B7E49B87/0/EducationCityMarketingPlan.pdf

The City of London’s 2007-2010 Council StrategicPlan is a collaborative effort to continue to makethe city a great place to live in and to strengthenthe health and well-being of all Londoners. Having anample supply of workers at all skill and knowledgelevels is a cornerstone of the City’s strategic priori-ties related to economic development, communityvitality, and aspirations to be a creative, diverseand innovative city. In partnership with the Cityof London and the United Way of London andMiddlesex, a group of community stakeholdersrepresenting employment, health, settlement, govern-ment and other sectors developed a CommunityPlan on immigration and cultural diversity in spring2006. Notable among the plan’s employment-relatedinitiatives are the Immigrant Employment Task Forceand Mentorship program of WIL EmploymentConnections, Global Talent resource guides foremployers and workers of the London EconomicDevelopment Corporation, and the Access Centrefor Regulated Employment.

Source: http://www.welcome.london.ca/ http://www.lon-don.ca/launchpad

BOX 9–MUNICIPAL INIT IATIVES TOADDRESS THE QUALIF ICATIONS GAP (CONT’D)


The Niagara Immigrant Employment Council (NIEC)is intended to create a labour market whereemployers recognize and use the skills and experi-ence of immigrants to the Niagara Region.Thiseffort includes developing strategies to assistemployers with recruitment and retention of inter-nationally trained individuals; developing a collabora-tive and integrated service model that recognizesinterrelationships among settlements, education andemployment; and ensuring that the prior learning

and credentials of immigrants are appropriately rec-ognized. The regional municipality hosts the NIECSecretariat, which offers a collaborative forum forNiagara Region businesses, immigrants, communityorganizations, credential assessment services andregulatory bodies, educational institutions, threeorders of government, economic and workforcedevelopment agencies, and labour unions.

Source: http://compartevents.com/Metropolis2008/D11-Gnaniah%5ESathya.pdf

BOX 9–MUNICIPAL INIT IATIVES TOADDRESS THE QUALIF ICATIONS GAP (CONT’D)

Income AssistanceLess than 10 per cent of all adults in QOLRScommunities received income from social assistancein 2005, a small decline from 2001. Despite substan-tially higher rates of unemployment, a significantlysmaller proportion of recent immigrants relied onsocial assistance in comparison to the general popula-tion. While this number rose marginally between2001 and 2005, in only eight of 24 communitieswere recent immigrants more reliant on social assis-tance as a source of income than the generalpopulation. Four of these eight communities werelocated in Quebec (see Chart 20b).

The profile of social assistance as a source of incomewas similar among the general population, whetherthey were living within QOLRS communities or inthe rest of Canada. However, over twice the propor-tion of recent immigrants living in the 24 QOLRScommunities relied on social assistance as comparedto recent immigrants living in the rest of Canada,where less than three per cent of recent immigrantswere in this position.


PART 4 | BASIC NEEDSOF RECENTIMMIGRANTS

In the face of the suburbanization of immigration,evidence indicates that many immigrants andrefugees arriving in Canada experience considerablesettlement difficulties due to a lack of services.Thesettlement patterns of new immigrant groups out-side higher-density, inner-city neighbourhoods havecreated challenges in allocating services that provideorientation to new immigrants and help them learnan official language, find jobs, locate housing, placechildren in the education system and developsocial networks.

A study of immigration services in the TorontoCMA concluded that there exists a spatial mismatchbetween the supply of and demand for settlementservices in the CMA, more so for newer immigrantgroups than for other groups. Even for groups withlonger immigration histories, more services areneeded in suburbs. In terms of service needs, thestudy found few differences between those living inthe city core and those in the suburbs in terms ofofficial language skills and unemployment or under-employment rates. However, an overwhelmingmajority of agencies offering employment serviceswere still in the city core. Language instructioncourses funded by CIC had suburbanized, but theircapacity had not caught up with the populationincreases in those areas.

Source: Lucia Lo et al., Immigrant Settlement Services inthe Toronto CMA:A GIS-Assisted Analysis of Supply and

Demand, CERIS Working Paper No. 59 (Toronto: CERIS,July 2007). http://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Library/WKPP%20List/WKPP2007/CWP59.pdf

The City of Toronto has adopted a “place-based”approach to neighbourhood investments, byexamining the proximity of human services tothe neighbourhood residents making the most useof them. All types of human services, such as childcare, immigrant settlement services and services forseniors, were examined across all of Toronto’s140 neighbourhoods as part of the City’s StrongNeighbourhood Strategy. Other risk factors(e.g., crime and health) were also examined todetermine those areas that required priority atten-tion. It was found that access to services is a keyfactor in measuring neighbourhood vitality.

Source: http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/sntf/researchproductnumber4.pdf

The City of Edmonton’s Office of Diversity andInclusion has found that even within well-establishedimmigrant-receiving centres, there are indicationsthat immigrants face difficulties accessing availableservices.This can be related at least in part tochanging language skills and income levels. Recentimmigrants may be uninformed of the servicesessential to their health and well-being in the com-munity. Where services require the payment of afee, lower-income immigrants are often excluded.

Source: City of Edmonton.

BOX 10–ACCESS TO COMMUNITY SERVICES


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

All Canadians Recent immigrants

Source: Statistics Canada, Small Area and Administrative Data Division, Custom Tables

Chart 20b – Proportion of the population receiving social assistance, by immigrant type,all communities, 2005

Van

cou

ver

Can

ada

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Foreign-born

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

All Canadians Recent immigrants

Source: Statistics Canada, Small Area and Administrative Data Division, Custom Tables

Chart 20a – Proportion of the population receiving social assistance, by immigrant type,all communities, 2001

Van

cou

ver

Can

ada

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Foreign-born





Rental Housing and Housing AffordabilityAs shown in Chart 21, more than two-thirds ofall recent immigrant households living in the24 QOLRS communities were renters in 2006, incontrast to the over one-third of non-immigranthouseholds in this category. Recent immigrant house-holds in QOLRS communities were also far morelikely to be renters than recent immigrants living inthe rest of Canada. As described in Section 5, oncethey settle in Canada, immigrants move out of rentalaccommodation at rates far greater than their non-immigrant counterparts: less than 30 per cent ofestablished immigrant households living in the24 QOLRS communities were renters. These trendswere evident across the 24 QOLRS communities.

With few exceptions, both recent and establishedimmigrant renter households faced affordabilitychallenges measurably greater than those facing non-immigrant renters. While close to 40 per cent ofnon-immigrant renter households were spendingmore than 30 per cent of their income on shelter in2006, this proportion was closer to 50 per centamong recent immigrant households, with moreestablished immigrants falling somewhere in between(see Chart 22). Rental affordability issues facingrecent immigrant households varied considerablyacross QOLRS communities, affecting between 30per cent (Windsor) and 57 per cent (York) of recentimmigrant renter households. While they remainedrelatively high, absolute levels of affordability amongrenter households remained largely unchanged


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Chart 21 – Renter households as a percentage of all households, by immigrant type,all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q




30

between 2001 and 2006, falling marginally for recentimmigrant renter households, and rising slightlyamong non-immigrant and established immigrantrenter households.

Risk of HomelessnessTwo indicators are presented as a measure of the rela-tive risk of homelessness facing recent immigrantsand established immigrants in 2006: the proportionof renter households spending 50 per cent or moreof their income on shelter; and the proportion oflone-parent households with low incomes, defined asbefore-tax incomes falling below the officially definedLow Income Cut-Off (LICO).

Whereas non-immigrant and established immigranthouseholds experienced no change, the proportion ofrecent immigrant renter households spending morethan 50 per cent of income on shelter declinedslightly between 2001 and 2006. Nevertheless, morethan one in four recent immigrant renter householdsfaced serious affordability challenges and a height-ened risk of homelessness in 2006 (see Chart 23b).Recent immigrants living in the six largestimmigrant-receiving communities faced some ofthe most serious affordability challenges, thoughaffordability issues were also severe in smallerimmigrant-receiving centres, such as Hamilton,London, Halton and HRM.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Chart 22 – Proportion of renter households spending more than 30 per cent of theirincome on shelter, by immigrant type, all communities, 2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Chart 23a – Renter households spending more than 50 per cent of their income on shelter,by immigrant type, all communities, 2001


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Chart 23b – Renter households spending more than 50 per cent of their income on shelter,by immigrant type, all communities, 2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q






0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Chart 24a – Proportion of lone-parent families with low incomes (before tax),by immigrant type, all communities, 2001


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Chart 24b – Proportion of lone-parent families with low incomes (before tax),by immigrant type, all communities, 2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q





Data used to develop Chart 24 indicate that in2006, approximately 14 per cent of all recent immi-grant families were headed by a single parent, aslightly lower proportion than that among establishedimmigrant families and non-immigrant families.In addition, fewer recent immigrant families wereheaded by single parents in 2006 than in 2001.4

Nevertheless, close to 60 per cent of all recent immi-grant families led by a single parent had incomesbelow LICO in 2006, reaching 70 per cent or morein some communities. Furthermore, this rateincreased significantly compared to 2001. Ratesamong lone-parent, established immigrant familieswere half those of lone-parent, recent immigrantfamilies, and more closely resembled rates amonglone-parent, non-immigrant families. In contrastto recent immigrants, rates of low income fell for

families led by non-immigrant or established immi-grant lone parents.

Health OutcomesResults from the 2005 Canadian Community HealthSurvey (CCHS) offer some insight into a range ofhealth conditions affecting non-immigrant individu-als, recent immigrants who had arrived less than10 years prior to the survey, and established immi-grants who had arrived in Canada at least 10 yearsprior to the survey. Indicators are presented withrespect to five areas of health: obesity, physical inac-tivity, mental health, smoking and access to doctors.

Results of the CCHS survey summarized in Chart 25show that established immigrants were more over-weight than recent immigrants. Under 30 per cent of


4This figure should be treated with some caution, as the actual number of recent immigrant families headed by lone parents was under 100 inseveral communities.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Non-immigrants Recent immigrants (0-9 years)

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 3.1

Chart 25 – Proportion of the population self-rating as obese or overweight,by immigrant type, all communities, 2005

Established immigrants (10+ years)

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q




There is insufficient knowledge and informationabout the scale of absolute and hidden homelessnessamong immigrants and refugees (see Glossary ofTerms).This knowledge gap impedes the develop-ment of policy and program initiatives that addresshomelessness among immigrants and refugees in asystematic manner. Generally, immigrant and refugeegroups are believed to be at a high risk of homeless-ness. Even though newcomers face high shelter costburdens, extreme housing stress and high rates ofcore housing need, the extent of newcomers whoexperience absolute homelessness is lower thanexpected.A 2003 study estimated that 14 per centof Toronto shelter users were born outside ofCanada, despite the fact that about one-half of thegeneral population of Toronto at the time of datacollection was foreign born. Acacia Consulting &Research’s 2006 study on eviction and homelessnesssuggests immigrant and refugee populations aremore likely to avoid eviction and absolute homeless-ness by “doubling up” or living in overcrowdedconditions, and are less likely to seek assistance orshelter from housing services. Instead, these groupsrely heavily on informal types of support fromfriends and community networks.

Source: Acacia Consulting & Research, Highlights Report:Immigration, Housing and Homelessness (Ottawa:ACR, 2007).

The Panel Study on Homelessness in Ottawa is alongitudinal investigation of individuals’ pathwaysinto and out of homelessness over time. More than400 individuals who were homeless in 2004 wereinterviewed and 62 per cent were interviewed againtwo years later.Approximately one in four were for-eign born. Overall, the foreign-born homelessrespondents had different characteristics than thoseborn in Canada.Their reasons for being homelesswere more clearly linked to a series of external bar-riers, such as not enough affordable housing, restric-tions on the ability to compete for jobs or inade-quate child care supports.The non-immigrant groupon the whole was more vulnerable in terms of men-tal and physical health, education, or problems with

alcohol or drugs. In comparison to a general popula-tion sample, foreign-born respondents were definedby relatively strong mental and physical well-being.This was in sharp contrast to non-immigrant individ-uals, whose physical and especially mental health sta-tus was lower. Compared to their non-immigrantcounterparts, the foreign-born respondents experi-enced greater housing stability. Foreign-born respon-dents were also more likely to reside in subsidizedhousing.The increased access to subsidized housingis likely an important contributor to housing stability.It may be a result of housing policies that favourfamilies with children, as well as women escapingdomestic violence. Foreign-born respondents wereless likely to use health and social services thanwere non-immigrant respondents.

Source: Fran Klodawsky and Tim Aubry, ComparingForeign-born and Canadian-born Respondents:The PanelStudy on Homelessness in Ottawa. http://canada.metrop-olis.net/pdfs/klodawsky_e.pdf

A 2007 study co-authored by the City of Calgaryconcluded that there is a high need for culturallyappropriate emergency shelter services for immi-grants and refugees, but also found that data meas-uring homelessness among immigrants and refugeesare generally not available.Anecdotal evidence basedon the front-line observations of emergency shelterproviders indicated significant increases in shelterusage by immigrants and refugees. However, housingand shelter service providers are generally not man-dated or resourced to meet the affordable housingand service needs of individuals and families withunique linguistic and cultural requirements.Thereport calls for greater investment in research inorder to develop homelessness prevention strate-gies tailored to the new and evolving reality of agrowing immigrant population.

Source: City of Calgary and Poverty Reduction Coalition,Housing Issues of Immigrants and Refugees in Calgary(Calgary: City of Calary, 2007). http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/cns/homelessness/housing_issues_immigrants_refugees.pdf

BOX 11–HOMELESSNESS AND THE RISK OFHOMELESSNESS AMONG RECENT IMMIGRANTS

recent immigrants reported being overweight orobese, compared to the non-immigrant QOLRSaverage of 42 per cent. However, established immi-grants reported average body mass indexes (BMIs)higher than those of non-immigrant respondents,suggesting the possibility of an increase in BMIlevels once immigrants have settled in Canada. Thesignificant difference in BMIs between recent andestablished immigrants suggests a higher risk ofobesity-related disease facing immigrants once theyhave become established in Canada.

Rapidly rising levels of obesity among immigrantswere consistent with self-reported levels of physicalinactivity presented in Chart 26. Recent immigrantsin QOLRS communities reported being significantly

less physically active than either non-immigrantindividuals or established immigrants. Unlikenon-immigrant residents, foreign-born residents ofQOLRS communities were generally less physicallyactive than their counterparts living in the restof Canada.

According to Chart 27, nearly three out of fournon-immigrant residents in QOLRS communitiesreported excellent or very good mental health, onlyslightly higher than self-rated mental health amongrecent immigrants. In fact, the proportion of recentimmigrants reporting excellent or very good mentalhealth was higher than that of the non-immigrantpopulation in nearly half of QOLRS communities.In contrast, self-rated mental health among


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Chart 26 – Proportion of the population self-reporting as physically inactive,by immigrant type, all communities, 2005


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q




50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Chart 27 – Proportion of the population self-reporting excellent or very goodmental health, by immigrant type, all communities, 2005


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Chart 28 – Proportion of the population self-reporting as not smoking, by immigrant type,all communities, 2005


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q





established immigrants was generally lower than thatof recent immigrants.

A relatively large proportion of recent immigrants inQOLRS communities — 86.5 per cent — reportednot smoking at all. This proportion declined amongestablished immigrants and was lowest among non-immigrant individuals, at 76.4 per cent.

More than three-quarters of recent immigrantsreported having access to a doctor, lower than theproportion among established immigrants and non-immigrants within QOLRS communities, but higherthan that of recent immigrants in the rest of Canada.This proportion varied significantly, exceeding85 per cent in some communities and falling below50 per cent in several others. Established immigrantsreported levels of access to a doctor greater than thoseof the non-immigrant population, a trend that wasevident in nearly all QOLRS communities.


40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Chart 29 – Proportion of the population with access to a regular doctor in the past12 months, by immigrant type, all communities, 2005


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q




A study published by Simon Fraser University inBritish Columbia in 2008 reports that the health ofimmigrants to Canada decreases with each decadethey stay in the country and actually gets worse thanthe health of non-immigrants.The study suggeststhat this trend is likely due to factors such asstress, language barriers, and changes to diet andphysical activity.

Source: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/525011

Immigrants initially experience lower rates of dis-ease and report better health status than similarlyaged non-immigrant counterparts.This is called the“healthy immigrant effect.” Several factors have beensuggested to explain this phenomenon: the demandsof the relocation effort tend to screen out individu-als with health problems and fewer resources toovercome them; the Canadian immigrant selectionprocess excludes applicants with severe healthconditions and accepts those with higher socio-economic status, which is normally associated withgood health; and immigrants often arrive withhealth-related behaviours that confer a healthadvantage.

Source: Champlain LHIN, Champlain Migration HealthReport (Draft): A Champlain/Ottawa region immigranthealth profile (Ottawa: Champlain LHIN, 2007).

The City of Ottawa has established a city-wideMulticultural Health Program to promote and pro-vide equitable and improved access for ethnic, racialand cultural groups who may experience barriers toservices. Roughly 20 per cent of the city’s populationspeaks a language other than English or French.The“Wake Up! Get a Working Smoke Alarm” campaignis delivered to Ottawa residents in multiple lan-guages; girls, and women’s sports programs are pro-moted, including a women-only swim program; and adiabetes prevention peer education strategy is beingdeveloped with the Somali and Arabic community inpartnership with the Canadian Diabetes Association.The program is also providing injury prevention edu-cation related to booster seat fitting stations, watersafety, helmet safety and cycling with the Somali,Chinese,Arabic,Vietnamese and Farsi communities.

Source: http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/snapshots/diversity_en.html

BOX 12–HEALTH STATUS OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS

An important consideration in attracting andretaining immigrants and ensuring a welcomingenvironment is the period of time needed for newarrivals to Canada to catch up to non-immigrants.The theme of catch up is also important whencomparing the situation of established immigrantsto that of non-immigrants. The following analysiscompares recent immigrants who arrived within fiveyears prior to the 2006 Census, established immi-grants who arrived over five years prior to the Censusand non-immigrants. Five variables are considered:

unemployment rates, average incomes, rates of lowincome, rates of homeownership and housing afford-ability. This section also introduces the concept of agrowing or shrinking “gap” between recent immi-grants, established immigrants and non-immigrants.

Unemployment RatesRates of unemployment were on a general downwardtrend between 2001 and 2006, with non-immigrants,established immigrants and recent immigrants all


PART 5 | CATCHING UPAND CLOSINGTHE GAP

-10

-5

0

5

10



Chart 30 – Change in unemployment rate, by immigrant type,all communities, 2001-2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Ch

ang

e(p

oin

ts)



40

benefiting to varying degrees. However, the pace ofthis change benefited recent immigrants more thanany other group. In contrast, non-immigrants andestablished immigrants experienced a far smalleraverage decrease in unemployment rates. Whereasrates of unemployment for recent immigrants fellbetween 2001 and 2006 in 20 of 24 QOLRScommunities, the unemployment rate for thenon-immigrant labour force increased in 11 of 24QOLRS communities during that period.

As a result of these trends, the unemployment rategap between recent immigrants and non-immigrantsin QOLRS communities shrank between 2001 and2006. The narrowing unemployment rate gap was

further reinforced due to the pace of this change.Whereas recent immigrant unemployment rates were2.4 times greater than those of non-immigrant resi-dents in 2001, this ratio had fallen to under 2.3 by2006. The ratio fell in 17 of 24 communities, includ-ing CMM, the GTA and Vancouver. At the sametime, the unemployment rate gap between recentimmigrants and non-immigrants in the rest ofCanada was significantly smaller in 2006, at 1.38.

The unemployment gap between establishedimmigrants and non-immigrants was marginal andremained largely unchanged between 2001 and 2006.In fact, unemployment rates for established immi-grants were comparable to or lower than rates for


-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Chart 31 – Change in average income, by immigrant type, all communities, 2001-2006

Foreign-born

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q



non-immigrant residents in 17 of 24 QOLRScommunities.

Average IncomesUnadjusted for inflation, incomes for non-immigrants, all foreign-born residents and recentimmigrants all increased between 2001 and 2006,when averaged across all QOLRS communities.This trend held true for both non-immigrants andall foreign-born residents in all 24 QOLRS commu-nities. In contrast, growth in average incomes forrecent immigrants was either stagnant (below threeper cent) or negative in nine of 24 communities.Not surprisingly, this change over the five-year periodbenefited non-immigrant earners relative to both

established and recent immigrants, though theincome gap separating non-immigrants and recentimmigrants grew widest.

Whereas average incomes for recent immigrants werejust under 60 per cent of non-immigrant incomes in2001, this number had fallen to 51 per cent by 2006.Foreign-born residents also saw a relative deteriora-tion in their incomes, which were close to 90 percent of non-immigrant incomes in 2001 but hadfallen to 82 per cent by 2006. This relative declinefor both recent immigrants and foreign-bornCanadians was felt in 20 of the 24 QOLRS commu-nities. By 2006, recent immigrants were earningincomes no greater than half the size of non-


-10

-5

0

5

10



Chart 32 – Change in the proportion of households with low incomes (before tax),by immigrant type, all communities, 2001-2006


Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q

Ch

ang

e(p

oin

ts)



42

immigrant incomes in seven QOLRS communities,including the largest immigrant-receiving centres.The foreign-born population saw its average earningsfall to under 80 per cent of non-immigrant incomesin six communities by 2006. The widest incomegaps were generally evident in the larger immigrant-receiving communities.

Rates of Low IncomeImmigrants faced a widening gap with respect tothe incidence of low incomes, measured in terms ofhouseholds with incomes below the Low IncomeCut-Off (LICO) established by Statistics Canada.Recent immigrant households with low incomesaccounted for 43 per cent of all persons living inrecent immigrant households in 2006, nearly threetimes the proportion in non-immigrant households;the proportion of established immigrant householdswith low incomes (19 per cent) was substantiallylower than that of recent immigrants, though stillhigher than that of non-immigrant households.These trends generally held across QOLRScommunities, with recent immigrant householdsexperiencing low incomes at a proportion two tofour times greater than that of non-immigrant house-holds, and affecting as much as 50 to 55 per cent ofall recent immigrant households.

In general, the proportion of households with lowincomes fell slightly between 2001 and 2006 for bothnon-immigrant and recent immigrant households.However, the magnitude and extent of the declinewere marginally greater for non-immigrant house-holds. The proportion of non-immigrant householdswith low incomes fell in 16 of 24 communities. Theproportion of relative poverty among establishedimmigrant households remained largely unchangedover this time.

The gap between non-immigrants and establishedimmigrants, and between non-immigrants and recentimmigrants, widened between 2001 and 2006. Thiswas true in 14 of the 24 QOLRS communities.In 2001, the proportion of established immigrant

households with low incomes exceeded that of non-immigrant households in 17 of 24 communities. By2006, this had increased to 18 of 24 communities.The gap narrowed somewhat in the Greater TorontoArea, though, in this case, a greater proportion ofnon-immigrant, established immigrant and recentimmigrant households were earning incomes belowLICO in 2006, compared to 2001.

A higher proportion of recent immigrants living inQOLRS communities earned incomes below LICO,compared with their recent immigrant counterpartsin the rest of Canada. This gap widened furtherbetween 2001 and 2006.

Rates of HomeownershipAs suggested in the discussion of rental housing inPart 4, rates of homeownership grew significantlybetween 2001 and 2006 for non-immigrants, estab-lished immigrants and recent immigrants in virtuallyall 24 QOLRS communities. Levels of homeowner-ship for all three groups were substantially higher inthe rest of Canada.

The homeownership gap dividing recent immigrantsand non-immigrants shrank significantly between2001 and 2006. Whereas the level of homeownershipamong recent immigrants was 47.5 per cent that ofnon-immigrants in 2001, this level had increased to51.2 per cent by 2006. With few exceptions, levelsof homeownership grew faster among recent immi-grants between 2001 and 2006 than amongnon-immigrants.

This drive to homeownership was also reflected inthe fact that homeownership levels among establishedimmigrants were generally — and often significantly —higher than those among non-immigrants. This wastrue in 23 of 24 QOLRS communities in 2001.However, non-immigrants’ levels of homeownershipgrew marginally faster than those of establishedimmigrants between 2001 and 2006. Even so, by2006, over 70 per cent of established immigrantsin QOLRS communities were homeowners,


compared to 63 per cent of non-immigrants.Homeownership levels among establishedimmigrants were higher than those of non-immigrants in 22 of 24 communities.

Housing AffordabilityRapid accession to homeownership among recentimmigrants, and the high levels of homeownershipevident among established immigrants, came at aprice measured in terms of housing affordability.Affordability issues were most dramatic amongforeign-born homeowners. Fully one-half of all recentimmigrant homeowners were spending over 30 percent of their income on shelter in 2006. This was in

stark contrast to non-immigrant homeowners, only16 per cent of whom faced housing affordabilityproblems. The proportion of recent immigranthomeowner households spending at least 30 per centof their income on shelter approached or exceeded60 per cent in several of the largest immigrant-receiving communities, notably Toronto, Peel,Vancouver, York and Surrey.

The housing affordability situation confronting allhomeowner households deteriorated noticeablybetween 2001 and 2006, but affected recent andestablished immigrant homeowner households to agreater degree. As a result, the housing affordabilitygap between non-immigrants and immigrants


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Chart 33 – Homeowner households as a proportion of all households, by immigrant type,all communities, 2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q




44

widened between 2001 and 2006. Compared tonon-immigrant homeowner households, over threetimes as many recent immigrant homeownersand 1.6 times as many established immigranthomeowners faced affordability issues by 2006.

Measured in terms of housing affordability, recentimmigrants were catching up to non-immigrants inonly a handful of communities, notably Edmonton,HRM, Saskatoon, Regina and Sudbury. In theremaining 19 communities, recent immigrant home-ownership affordability either deteriorated at rates

greater than those among non-immigrants or did notimprove to the same extent. The housing affordabil-ity gap between non-immigrants and establishedimmigrants widened in all but five of the 24 QOLRScommunities. Vancouver and Winnipeg were twonotable exceptions.

The situation facing recent immigrants in the rest ofCanada was far better. Whereas housing affordabilitydeteriorated for both non-immigrants and establishedimmigrants, recent immigrants experienced a netimprovement.


-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20



Chart 34 – Change in the proportion of homeowners spending more than 30 per centof their income on housing, by immigrant type, all communities, 2001-2006

Van

cou

ver

QO

LRS

RO

C

Cal

gar

y

Edm

on

ton

Sask

ato

on

Reg

ina

Win

nip

eg

Surr

ey

Sud

bu

ry

Lon

do

n

Win

dso

r

Wat

erlo

o

Nia

gar

a

Ham

ilto

n

Hal

ton

Peel

York

Toro

nto

Du

rham

HRM

CM

M

Lava

l

Ott

awa

Gat

inea

u

CM

Q


Ch

ang

e(p

oin

ts)




FCM QOLRS INDICATORSFi

gu

re3

FCM

QO

LRS

Ind

icat

ors

Dem

og

rap

hic

&B

ackg

rou

nd

Info

rmat

ion

(DB

I)

DB

I1Po

pu

lati

on

Gro

wth

DB

I2H

ou

seh

old

&Fa

mily

Com

po

siti

on

DB

I3A

vera

ge

Inco

me

DB

I4R

ente

rs&

Ow

ner

s

EM1

Une

mp

loym

ent/

Emp

loym

ent

Rat

es

EM2

Qu

alit

yo

fEm

plo

ymen

t

EM3

Lon

g-T

erm

Un

emp

loym

ent

EM4

Lab

ou

rFo

rce

Rep

lace

men

t

PS1

You

ng

Off

end

ers

PS2

Vio

len

tC

rim

es

PS3

Pro

per

tyC

rim

es

PS4

Inju

ries

and

Pois

on

ing

s

Aff

ord

able

,A

pp

rop

riat

eH

ou

sin

g(A

AH

)

Civ

icEn

gag

emen

t(C

E)

Com

mu

nit

yan

dSo

cial

Infr

astr

uct

ure

(CSI

)

Edu

cati

on

(ED

)Em

plo

ymen

t(E

M)

Loca

lEc

on

om

y(L

E)

Nat

ura

lEn

viro

nm

ent

(NE)

Pers

on

al&

Com

mu

nit

yH

ealt

h(P

CH

)

Pers

on

alFi

nan

cial

Secu

rity

(PFS

)

Pers

on

alSa

fety

(PS)

DB

I5Po

pu

lati

on

Mo

bili

ty

LE1

Bu

sin

ess

Ban

kru

ptc

ies

LE2

Con

sum

erB

ankr

up

tcie

s

LE3

Ho

url

yW

ages

LE4

Ch

ang

ein

Fam

ilyIn

com

e

LE5

Bu

ildin

gPe

rmit

s

CE5

Ch

arit

able

Do

nat

ion

s

DB

I6Fo

reig

nB

orn

PC

H1

Low

Bir

th-

Wei

gh

tBab

ies

PC

H2

Teen

Bir

ths

PC

H3

Prem

atu

reM

ort

alit

y

PC

H4

Wo

rkH

ou

rsLo

st

PC

H5

Suic

ides

PC

H6

Infa

nt

Mo

rtal

ity

DB

I8La

ng

uag

eSp

oke

nat

Ho

me

DB

I9V

isib

leM

ino

riti

es

DB

I7N

ewIm

mig

ran

tG

rou

ps

NE1

Air

Qu

alit

y

NE2

Urb

anTr

ansp

orta

tion

NE3

Pop

ula

tio

nD

ensi

ty

NE4

Wat

erCo

nsu

mp

tio

n

NE5

Was

tew

ater

Trea

tmen

t

NE6

Solid

Was

te

NE8

Rec

reat

ion

alW

ater

Qu

alit

y

NE7

Eco

log

ical

Foo

tpri

nt

ED1

Edu

cati

on

Leve

ls

ED2

Lite

racy

Leve

ls

ED3

Ad

ult

Lear

nin

g

ED4

Edu

cati

on

Exp

end

itu

res

ED5

Cla

ssro

om

Size

ED6

Stu

den

t/Te

ach

erR

atio

ED8

Spen

din

go

nPr

ivat

eEd

uca

tio

n

ED7

Post

-Se

con

dar

yTu

itio

n

CSI

1So

cial

Ho

usi

ng

Wai

tin

gLi

sts

CSI

2R

ent-

Gea

red

-to-

Inco

me

Hou

sin

g

CSI

3So

cial

Ass

ista

nce

Allo

wan

ce

CSI

4Su

bsi

diz

edC

hild

Car

eSp

aces

CSI

5Pu

blic

Tran

sitC

ost

s

CSI

6So

cial

Serv

ice

Pro

fess

ion

als

CSI

7Pr

ivat

eH

ealt

hC

are

Exp

end

itu

res

PFS

1Co

mm

un

ity

Aff

ord

abili

ty

PFS

2Fa

mili

esR

ecei

vin

gEI

/So

cial

Ass

ista

nce

PFS

3Ec

on

om

icD

epen

den

cyR

atio

PFS

4Lo

ne-

Pare

nt

Fam

ilies

PFS

5In

cid

ence

ofL

ow-I

nco

me

Fam

ilies

PSF

6C

hild

ren

Livi

ng

inPo

vert

y

PFS

7In

com

eG

ap

DB

I10

Ab

ori

gin

alPo

pu

lati

on

AA

H1

30%

+In

com

eo

nSh

elte

r

AA

H2

50%

+In

com

eo

nSh

elte

r

AA

H3

Core

Ho

usi

ng

Nee

d

AA

H4

Sub

stan

dar

dU

nit

s

CE1

Vo

ter

Turn

ou

t

CE2

Wo

men

inM

un

icip

alG

over

nm

ent

CE3

New

spap

erC

ircu

lati

on

CE4

Vo

lun

teer

ing

AA

H5

Ch

ang

ing

Face

of

Ho

mel

essn

ess

AA

H6

Vac

ancy

Rat

es

AA

H8

Mo

nth

lyR

ent

AA

H7

Ren

tal

Ho

usi

ng

Star

ts


Table 1—QOLRS Members

Community Short Name Province Population (2006)5

City of Vancouver Vancouver British Columbia 578,045

City of Surrey Surrey British Columbia 394,976

City of Calgary Calgary Alberta 988,195

City of Edmonton Edmonton Alberta 730,370

City of Saskatoon Saskatoon Saskatchewan 202,340

City of Regina Regina Saskatchewan 179,245

City of Winnipeg Winnipeg Manitoba 633,455

City of Windsor Windsor Ontario 216,473

City of London London Ontario 352,395

City of Greater Sudbury Sudbury Ontario 157,910

Regional Municipality of Waterloo Waterloo Ontario 478,120

Regional Municipality of Niagara Niagara Ontario 427,420

City of Hamilton Hamilton Ontario 504,560

Halton Region Halton Ontario 439,255

Region of Peel Peel Ontario 1,159,405

York Region York Ontario 892,715

City of Toronto Toronto Ontario 2,503,280

Region of Durham Durham Ontario 561,260

City of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario 812,130

Ville de Gatineau Gatineau Quebec 242,125

Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal CMM Quebec 3,532,575

Ville de Laval6 Laval Quebec 368,710

Communauté métropolitaine de Québec CMQ Quebec 711,735

Halifax Regional Municipality HRM Nova Scotia 372,860

5 Statistics Canada, Census Division, 2006.6Ville de Laval is located within the boundaries of the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal.

The QOLRS consists of 24 member communities inseven provinces (see Table 1). New additions to theQOLRS since the previous report include theCommunauté métropolitaine de Montréal (CMM),Ville de Laval, Ville de Gatineau, the Region ofDurham and the City of Surrey. Data acquired forthe QOLRS correspond to the actual boundaries ofthe 24 member communities. These include regionalmunicipalities and lower-tier or single-tier municipal-ities, and are represented by Census divisions andCensus subdivisions, respectively. The exceptions arethe Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal(CMM) and the Communauté métropolitaine deQuébec (CMQ), which comprise 82 and 28 munici-palities respectively, and are represented by CensusMetropolitan Area (CMA) data. Both CMM andCMQ are similar in population and area to CMAs.For example, while the population living within theboundaries of CMM was 3,532,575 in 2006, theMontreal CMA population was 3,635,571. Similarly,CMQ’s Census population was 711,735, while theQuebec CMA population was 715,515. A fulldescription of the QOLRS geography is available atthe FCM Quality of Life Reporting System website.

Statistics Canada Census of PopulationThe Census provides consistent and reliable datathat correspond accurately to the QOLRS memberboundaries. The Census also offers an extremely richarray of variables that can be cross-tabulated. At thesame time, the Census presents certain limitationswith respect to an analysis of immigration. As dataare only available every five years, comparisons ofimmigrants arriving within that five-year period arenot possible. In addition, no information is availableon home country dynamics, such as income andoccupation prior to arriving in Canada. Finally, theCensus does not distinguish between classes of immi-grant (economic, family, refugee) and does notcapture any data on refugee claimants.

Since the universe of Census households contains amix of immigrants and non-immigrants, it was notpossible to capture an “immigrant household” with-out either including non-immigrants or excludingimmigrants. Throughout the report, the term“immigrant household” refers to a household with aforeign-born primary maintainer.

Although Statistics Canada makes great efforts tocount every person, some people are missed in eachCensus (e.g., people may be travelling, or somedwellings are hard to find). Some municipalities haveidentified the possibility that the Census may haveundercounted more of the population than usual.This undercount would affect data related topopulation and households. In the case of recentimmigrants, a large number live in apartments, wherethere is a greater likelihood of being missed, andlanguage barriers may make them fearful of givinginformation to a stranger. At the time of this publica-tion, some municipalities are investigating this issue.

Statistics Canada Small Area andAdministrative Data (SAAD)These data are compiled using income tax formscompleted by Canadian tax filers. Statistics Canadaproduces a wealth of annual economic and demo-graphic data. These data are compiled at geographiesas low as postal walks and therefore the report wasable to obtain data matching the geographic profilesof QOLRS communities.

Statistics Canada Canadian CommunityHealth Survey (CCHS)The CCHS is a national survey that collects informa-tion related to health status, health care utilizationand health determinants. Since it relies on a largesample size, it is able to provide reliable estimates atthe health region level. Data are available for the2001, 2003 and 2005 periods. As of 2007, data


DATA SOURCES ANDLIMITATIONS

48

collection occurs annually. With respect to immigra-tion, the CCHS distinguishes among Canadian-bornrespondents, foreign-born respondents who havelived in Canada for nine years or less, and foreign-born respondents who have lived in Canada for10 years or more.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)CIC’s Immigration Statistics Division provides exten-sive data on the number of new immigrants arrivingeach year. This information includes the intended

destination within Canada and socio-economic datafor each new arrival. All data from CIC are availableat the Census subdivision level and therefore matchexactly the geographic boundaries of QOLRS mem-ber communities. However, these data are onlyavailable for the initial place of settlement and do notreflect the impact of secondary migration. In addi-tion, CIC data do not allow for comparison betweenrecent immigrants and either established immigrantsor the non-immigrant population.


5FCM’s Quality of Life Reporting SystemThis is one in a series of reports on quality of life in Canadian communities prepared by the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities (FCM) using information derived from a variety of national and municipal data sources.The statistics used in these reports are components of a larger reporting system containing hundreds of variablesthat measure changes in social, economic and environmental factors. Taken together, these data form FCM’sQuality of Life Reporting System (QOLRS). QOLRS indicator tables and reports are available at www.fcm.ca

The analysis of trends affecting quality of life in Canadian cities relies on a framework defined by FCM, based onthe understanding that quality of life is enhanced and reinforced in municipalities that do the following:• develop and maintain a vibrant local economy;• protect and enhance the natural and built environment;• offer opportunities for the attainment of personal goals, hopes and aspirations;• promote a fair and equitable sharing of common resources;• enable residents to meet their basic needs; and• support rich social interactions and the inclusion of all residents in community life.

Quality of life in any given municipality is influenced by interrelated issues concerning the state of affordable,appropriate housing, civic engagement, community and social infrastructure, education, employment, thelocal economy, the natural environment, personal and community health, personal financial security and personal safety.

The 24 communities participating in the QOLRS account for 54 per cent of Canada’s population and arelocated in seven provinces. These communities comprise some of Canada’s largest urban centres and many ofthe suburban municipalities surrounding them. By providing a method to monitor quality of life at the locallevel, the QOLRS ensures that municipal government is a strong partner in formulating public policy inCanada. Developed by FCM and municipal staff, each report is also intended to serve as a planning tool formunicipalities. Each report considers quality of life issues from a municipal perspective and uses data segre-gated by actual municipal boundaries, not Census Metropolitan Areas, as is often the case in other studies.

The reporting system is equally important as a tool for community organizations, research institutes and otherorders of government, allowing them to:• identify and promote awareness of issues affecting quality of life in Canadian municipalities;• better target policies and resources aimed at improving quality of life;• support collaborative efforts to improve quality of life; and• inform and influence decision-makers across Canada.

Subsequent volumes in the QOLRS report series will examine in more detail issues such as income and hous-ing affordability among specific demographic populations, community safety and security, and the urbanenvironment. Some of these future reports will benefit from 2006 Census data, as well as the results of afuture survey of QOLRS members’ policies and programs.

Federation of Canadian MunicipalitiesThe Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has been the national voice of municipal governments since1901.The organization is dedicated to improving the quality of life in all communities by promoting strong, effectiveand accountable municipal government. FCM membership of more than 1,775 municipal governments includesCanada’s largest cities and regional municipalities, small towns, rural municipalities, and 18 provincial and territorial municipal associations.

Documents

Immigration & Diversity in Canadian Cities & Communities...all immigration to Canada, and over 90 per cent of all refugees, QOLRS communities are losing their share of well-educated