WORKING PAPER SERIES
FILIPINOS IN CANADA:
ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF
IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT
Philip Kelly
CERIS Working Paper No. 48 (revised)
September 2006
Series Editor for 2006/07 M ichael J. Doucet, PhD Department of Geography Ryerson University 350 Victoria Street Toronto, Ontario M 5B 2K 3 mdoucet@ ryerson.ca
Joint Centre of Excellence for Research
on Immigration and Settlement – Toronto
Manuscripts on topics related to immigration, settlement, and cultural
diversity in urban centres are welcome. Preference may be given to the
publication of manuscripts that are the result of research projects funded
through CERIS.
All manuscripts must be submitted in both digital and hard-copy form,
and should include an Abstract of 100-200 words
and a list of keywords.
If you have comments or proposals regarding the CERIS Working Paper
Series please contact the Editor at:
(416) 946-3110 or e-mail at <[email protected]>
Copyright of the articles in the CERIS Working Paper Series
is retained by the author(s)
The views expressed in these articles are those of the author(s),
and opinions on the content of the articles should be communicated
directly to the author(s) themselves.
JOINT CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR RESEARCH
ON IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT – TORONTO (CERIS)
246 Bloor Street West, 7 Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V4
thi Philip Kelly Department of Geography York University E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT
The Philippines is now one of Canada’s most significant sources of immigrants; yet, relatively little analysis of Filipino settlement experiences has been conducted, aside from close scrutiny of the Live-In Caregiver Programme. This paper uses data from the 2001 census, and from the landing records of immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s, to generate a numerical portrait of Filipino immigration and settlement, with a particular focus on the economic dimensions of integration into Canadian cities and labour markets. While aspects of cultural, social, and political integration have been excluded here, and the qualitative dimensions of labour market processes also have been neglected, some important conclusions about the aggregate experiences of Filipino immigrants do emerge. Overall, we see a community of relatively recent and highly educated immigrants who are culturally and linguistically prepared for life in Canada, and who integrate well into the residential landscapes and workplaces of Canadian cities. But we also see a group experiencing processes of deskilling and economic marginalization, with high levels of occupational segmentation in the labour market and low earnings.
KEYWORDS: Filipino, immigration, settlement, economic integration, employment
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge Alex Lovell and Anne-Marie Debbane for their research assistance, CERIS for the supply of data sets, Michael Doucet for his editorial advice, and the ongoing research collaboration of Mila Astorga Garcia, Nel Moya, and the Community Alliance for Social Justice (CASJ). Versions of this paper have been presented to audiences at CASJ, at the Filipino-Canadian Real Estate Association, the University of the Philippines Alumni Association of Metro Toronto, and the City of Toronto conference on Community Crisis Response.
ii
ABSTRACT . . . i KEYWORDS . . . i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . i INTRODUCTION . . . Page 1 DATA AND DEFINITIONS . . . Page 2 Identifying the Filipino . . . Page 2 The Data . . . Page 4 IMMIGRATION AND ARRIVAL . . . Page 5 Period of Arrival . . . Page 5 Immigration Programmes and Categories . . . Page 9 Canada in the Context of Global Filipino Migrations . . . Page 11 The Geography of Settlement . . . Page 13 HUMAN CAPITAL AND DESKILLING . . . Page 17 Educational Assets . . . Page 18 Linguistic Assets . . . Page 20 Deskilling . . . Page 21 FILIPINOS IN THE LABOUR MARKET . . . Page 23 ECONOMIC FORTUNES: INCOMES AND EARNINGS . . . Page 27 ECONOMIC COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS . . . Page 34 CONCLUSIONS . . . Page 35 REFERENCES . . . Page 37
There are, however, some rich narratives contained in several community profiles, but they are now rather dated.
1
See, for example, Chen 1998; Laquian 1973; Cusipag and Buenafe 1993.
INTRODUCTION
The Philippines now represents one of Canada’s most important source countries for immigrants – ranking third in the 1990s, after China and India. In the 2001 census, just over 223,000 immigrants in Canada identified themselves as Filipino, and over 10,000 new arrivals have been added to this number every year since then. When these arrivals are added to the Canadian-born Filipino population, it is projected that Filipino-Canadians will number at least 500,000 by 2017 (Statistics Canada 2005). Despite the significance of Filipino immigration, and the size of the community, issues related to their settlement experiences have received relatively little scrutiny, either academically or politically. The exception to this has been the substantial attention focused on the Live-In Caregiver Programme (LCP) – an immigration channel dominated by Filipina women since the early 1990s. Beyond the LCP, however, little is known about the Filipino immigration and settlement experience. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to generate an aggregate portrait of1
the economic integration of Filipinos in Canada, including, but not limited to, those who arrived as caregivers.
This paper uses some of the extensive statistical data now available on Filipino immigration and settlement in Canada to develop a preliminary, and strictly numerical, portrait of a community. The paper relies entirely upon data generated by government agencies, in particular Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Statistics Canada. In the first section, the sources and limitations of these data are discussed, along with the problems associated with constructing a ‘statistical Filipino’ as the object of inquiry. The second section examines the patterns of immigrant arrivals from the Philippines, paying particular attention to the timing of immigration, the programmes under which Filipinos have landed, and the geography of settlement. The subsequent sections then trace the economic integration of Filipino immigrants in various ways, examining the human capital with which Filipino immigrants arrive in Canada, the processes of deskilling and occupational segmentation in the urban labour market, their incomes relative to other groups, and the overall economic burdens and benefits of Filipino immigration to the Canadian exchequer.
There is much that will be left out of this portrait. While the community profiles cited above provided rich accounts of the social, cultural, religious and political lives of Filipinos in Canada, this paper is limited to the quantitative picture that emerges from immigration and census statistics. It is also narrowly focused on the economic experiences of immigrants. Nevertheless, some important issues are highlighted in the data presented here. Overall, the picture that will emerge is of a group that is arriving in Canada in large numbers and equipped with high levels of educational, linguistic, and cultural preparedness. These characteristics have been translated into high levels of participation in the workforce, low levels of unemployment, and widely dispersed patterns of residential settlement. At the same time, Filipinos have experienced anomalously high levels of occupational segmentation and low average earnings. There is also some evidence that recent immigrants remain the most vulnerable to cyclical changes in the economy.
In the 2001 census, 99,780 immigrants in the Toronto CM A counted themselves as fitting into the ‘Filipino’ visible
2
minority category. Of these 97,750 were born in the Philippines, and 98,565 classified their ethnic origin as Filipino – 89,055 as Filipino alone, and 9,510 as Filipino in combination with another ethnic origin (the largest single combined response being Chinese). In this paper, the visible minority response is primarily used to define the Filipino population when using Census data, while country of birth is used in the case of immigration data. The differences between these definition, or one based on ethnic origin, are, at most, 1-2 per cent. For immigration data, the Landed Immigrant Data System (LIDS) records 223,572 immigrants landing in Canada between 1980 and 2001 with the Philippines as their country of birth; 223,739 with Philippine citizenship; and 215,733 with the Philippines as a country of last permanent residence. Clearly the last of these is the most unreliable (and reflects the practice of working elsewhere overseas before applying for immigration). In this paper, therefore, ‘country of birth’ is used to define ‘Filipino’ immigrants when using immigrant landing data.
Although this paper is limited to a strictly statistical portrait of Filipino experiences, the economic marginalization described here is an important backdrop to, and outcome of, other processes of cultural, social, and political marginalization. This account is, therefore, important in understanding the context for recent Filipino political mobilization against racism and discrimination (described by Garcia, forthcoming).
DATA AND DEFINITIONS
Identifying the Filipino
Creating a coherent statistical account of the Filipino community in Canada is alluringly easy. When the 2001 Census of Canada asked respondents about their ‘visible minority’ status, ‘Filipino’ was an entirely separate category that specified a group far more closely than other responses, such as ‘Black’ or ‘Arab.’ ‘Filipino’ also counts as an ‘ethnic origin’ response, either alone or in combination with others. Moreover, these responses overlap almost exactly, both with each other and with immigration data on country of birth and country of citizenship. In this way, ‘Filipino’2
represents one of the most coherent and well-defined identity categories provided within the Canadian multiculturalism framework. Its members are easily identified by overlapping signifiers of birthplace, visible minority, ethno-cultural belonging, and, to some extent, even language and religion.
The result of this coherence is, however, that the ‘statistical Filipino’ is presented all too easily to the analyst. Unlike other immigrant groups whose most keenly-felt identities might be hidden beneath vague analytical categories such as ‘Latin American’ or ‘Chinese,’ there is a rare specificity to the Filipino label, and it is tempting to construct an ‘average’ Filipino for purposes of statistical representation. At the outset, therefore, it is important to make clear the diversity that exists within the Filipino ‘community’ (and, thus, to unpack the homogeneity which that word tends to imply). As some of the data presented later will show, gender, education, immigration category, year of arrival, and other factors all create distinctions within the Filipino community. The 2,327
Caregivers have, in fact, been resident in Canada as non-immigrants for several years before ‘landing’. See also
3
footnote 8.
Seventy-eight per cent of Filipinos declared a ‘strong’ sense of attachment to their identity, compared for example,
4
with 75 per cent of East Indians, 65 per cent of Portuguese, 58 per cent of Chinese, and 56 per cent of Italians (Statistics Canada 2003).
live-in caregivers who ‘arrived’ from the Philippines in 2001, for example, will have very different3
settlement experiences from the 33 who arrived under the business immigrant category, or the 2,983 who arrived as principal applicants in the skilled-worker category. All of them will have an entirely different relationship to their ‘host’ country from the 1,023 children under the age of 5 who also immigrated in the same year, and who will receive all of their education in the Canadian school system. To these variables must be added the differing experiences of those who arrived in the ‘early years’ (of the late 1960s and early 1970s) versus those who have come later; those who settled in the three ‘gateway’ cities versus those who came to reside in smaller centres; and the different experiences of men and women. There is, in short, no such thing as an average Filipino immigrant and so there is a danger that statistical evidence will obscure as much as it reveals.
Despite the multiple cross-cutting identities that intersect with Filipino-ness, there are still good reasons why a statistical Filipino is worth pursuing. Not least among them is the intensity of belonging felt by those who subscribe to a Filipino identity. In Statistics Canada’s Ethnic Diversity Survey in 2002, more Filipinos recorded a strong sense of belonging than any other ethno-cultural group (Statistics Canada, 2003). Clearly, then, Filipino-ness is a meaningful category to those who4
identify with it, even if great diversity exists within the group. A corollary, or more accurately perhaps, a cause, of this identification can be seen in its contribution to the formation of strong social networks among the Philippine-born population in Canada. These play an important role in settlement, for example, in helping recent migrants to secure residential accommodation and employment. ‘Filipino’ also has become an identity from which political and citizenship claims are staked. Much of the advocacy and activism around the Live-In Caregiver Programme, for example, has come from Filipino groups in Vancouver and Toronto in particular, which have come to identify the problems with the programme as a Filipino issue.
Besides the significance invested in Filipino-ness from within the ‘community,’ there are also reasons for retaining it as a foundational category, based on the exogenous definition and racialization of Filipinos as a group. In the mainstream Canadian media (and others around the world), there has developed a strong association between Filipino-ness and the performance of particular roles in the labour market. Within the Canada context, these relate especially to the identification of Filipino femininity with jobs in childcare and nursing. As the analysis in this paper will show, such identification is not without some basis in empirical fact, but the representation and the ‘fact’ are mutually reinforcing – the representation creates the fact, as much as it reflects it. Where such racialization exists, it is important to work with the category involved in order to dispel or add nuance to the stereotypes, assumptions, and associations that have been created.
As noted in footnote 1, Country of Birth is used here as the defining characteristic of ‘Filipino’ immigrants. These
5
data have been used with a presumption regarding their accuracy.
The Data
Three principal sources of data are used in this paper. The first two constitute the Longitudinal Immigration Database (or IMDB) created by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Statistics Canada. The first component of the database contains (at least in the version at the time of writing) the landing records of all immigrants to Canada who officially arrived between 1980 and 2001 (known as the Landed Immigrant Data System, or LIDS). Each record contains demographic data on the individual in question, the programme under which they entered Canada, and a number of personal attributes, such as intended occupation, educational attainment, and knowledge of official languages.5
The second component of the IMDB comprises income data for immigrants in each landing and taxation year from 1980-1997. This allows cohorts of immigrants from specific landing years to be traced in terms of their subsequent economic fortunes. The data were derived from tax returns and relate to average employment earnings, unemployment insurance income, self-employed earnings, and welfare benefits for a defined group in a specific year. The tabulations also allow immigrants to be defined according to country of origin, gender and other criteria to provide a nuanced picture of their economic integration in the years after settlement.
The final set of data used here were taken from the 2001 Census of Canada. The detailed version of the census, administered to 20 per cent of households, collects information on a wide range of socio-demographic, cultural, and economic characteristics, which are then extrapolated to represent the population as a whole. While these data can be unreliable (and sometimes are suppressed for privacy reasons) when used for small groups within the population, they can be considered accurate for a population as large as the Filipino community at the spatial scales used here (in most cases the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, or CMA). The census data for 2001 used here came in the form of tabulations prepared by Statistics Canada for research centres of excellence across the country. No custom tabulations or micro-data files have been used, and so the data are limited in some respects. Given, however, that the Filipino immigrant population can be isolated and compared against other groups using the visible minority response, these tabulations do provide a substantial source of information about the community.
Three levels of geography have been used with the data presented here. As noted above, census data primarily are given for the Toronto CMA. While other spatial scales could be used, where labour market characteristics are being discussed it makes most sense to restrict the analysis to a specific local labour market. Toronto is the obvious choice, as it contained 43 per cent of all Filipino immigrants in 2001 – more than twice the number present in the next largest centre (Vancouver, with 18 per cent). Some of the analyses presented here could, however, fruitfully be repeated in other Canadian cities for comparison purposes.
In the case of tax data from the IMDB, figures were available only provincially, and not at the level of the CMA. Thus, Ontario had to be employed as the scale of analysis in this case. It should be noted, however, that around 85 per cent of all Filipino immigrants in Ontario lived in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area in 2001, thus making the change in scale less significant than it might have been for other, less-concentrated groups. For data on the characteristics of immigrants from landing records in LIDS, all of Canada is used as the scale of analysis. Although a specific destination is listed on the landing record, there is no guarantee that an immigrant will actually stay in that location, and so it is inappropriate to use such records in order to characterize immigrant populations at smaller scales. It is also true, of course, that immigrants landing in Canada may not stay in Canada, and that the characteristics (such as level of education) of immigrants change over time. Thus, there are inevitably discrepancies between the information captured in landing records and Census data.
A number of further and more detailed caveats will be noted in the course of analysis in this paper, and all serve to reiterate the caution needed in constructing a statistical portrait of any immigrant group. Inevitably, the complexity, richness, and emotional engagement of individual stories are erased here and are reduced to numerical aggregations. The statistics, however, do constitute a skeletal foundation from which personal narratives can subsequently be fleshed out. It also should be noted that the data presented here remain at the level of descriptive statistics. I have not attempted, except in the very general sense of interpreting patterns, to seek correlations within the databases using multivariate statistics. While the data presented here do show important aggregate patterns, their usefulness in identifying causal relationships is limited.
IMMIGRATION AND ARRIVAL
Period of Arrival
Changes to Canada’s immigration regulations in the 1960s removed the automatic preference given to immigrants from Europe and the United States, and placed priority on education and skills in the selection of independent immigrants (Li 2003). In particular, the adoption of a universal ‘points system’ in 1967 significantly changed the composition of immigrant arrivals. Before that watershed, the number of Filipino settlers in Canada was very small indeed – largely limited to small numbers of professionals (especially in healthcare) who were able to enter after earlier regulatory changes in 1962. The flow of immigrants from the Philippines remained relatively small until the early 1970s. The declaration of martial law in the Philippines in September 1972, however, was a defining moment that led many middle- and upper-class Filipinos to re-evaluate their futures in their homeland. Even those not specifically targeted as political enemies or challengers by President Ferdinand Marcos saw a suspension of political freedoms and a deterioration of economic prospects. At the same time, the Marcos regime was actively promoting overseas contract work as an economic development strategy. While such contracts took workers primarily to the booming oil economies
of the Middle East, and later the industrializing ‘tigers’ of East Asia, many also sought permanent settlement in North America. At the same time, an expanding public sector in Canada led to an increasing demand for professionals such as nurses and teachers.
Figure 1 shows the trend in Filipino immigration to Canada since 1967. The first wave of immigrants reached a peak in 1974, but subsequently declined as regulatory changes in the mid-1970s prevented immigration applications during visits to Canada, imposed restrictions on the definition of ‘family’ for family reunification applications, and deducted points if applicants did not have pre-arranged employment. Over this period, then, patterns of Filipino immigration followed overall immigration trends. The same was true when arrivals increased again from the late 1980s onwards – reflecting changes in Canadian economic and labour-market circumstances in combination with a political commitment to high levels of immigration.
Figure 1
Filipino Immigrant Arrivals to Canada, 1967-2004
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, www.cic.gc.ca Note: Filipino is defined by country of last permanent residence
Thus, the data from the LIDS used later in this paper, which include all landings from 1980-2001, represent a very
6
substantial share of all Filipino immigrants. Note, however, that with continued large numbers of arrivals from the Philippines since 2001, this proportion is effectively declining.
The age distribution of immigrants, who tend to be young or middle-aged, suggests that this would be small. Also,
7
this is likely offset by the 5,000 or so immigrants who arrived in the early months of 2001 and are, therefore, counted in the census (but not in the landing records).
Table 1 shows the result of these immigration trends as captured in the 2001 census. Filipino immigrants across Canada were predominantly recent immigrants. Less than 5 per cent of the population had arrived prior to 1970, more than three-quarters had arrived since 1980, and in 20016
over half of all Filipinos in Canada had arrived in just the previous ten years.
Table 1
Period of Arrival for Filipinos in Canada, 2001
Period of Immigration Filipino Immigrants Percentage of Total Filipino Immigrants Before 1961 215 0.1 1961-1970 9,080 4.1 1971-1980 42,875 19.2 1981-1990 52,515 23.5 1991-1995 63,640 28.5 1996-2001 54,715 24.5 Total 223,035 100.0
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations.
Note: These data refer to the arrival dates of immigrants who declared themselves to be Filipino in response to the Visible M inority question in the 2001 census.
When landing records and census data are put together, an interesting discrepancy arises. Landing records indicate 254,742 arrivals between 1971 and 2000. But 2001 census data record only 213,745 Filipino immigrants who arrived between 1971 and the census date in May 2001 – a discrepancy of just over 40,000 people. Obviously, mortality accounts for some of the discrepancy.7
The 20 per cent sample in the 2001 census also introduces a degree of error as well. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the difference suggests that there is a substantial amount of onward or reverse migration among Filipino immigrants. In the case of onward migration (for which data are not collected by Canadian authorities), it seems likely that most is to the United States – probably with a view to joining family members there or taking advantage of more liberal labour-market regulations concerning professional licensing. In the case of return migration, it is possible that some (especially retirees) divide their time between the Philippines and Canada, but it is also
possible that a number have returned permanently. Either way, it seems possible that there may be more than 1,000 Filipino immigrants leaving Canada each year.
One point that both landing records and census data make clearly is that Canada’s Filipino community is predominantly comprised of recent immigrants and their children. This is illustrated by the demographic structure of Filipinos in Toronto (see Figure 2). Several features are clear. First, the recent nature of the immigration stream is evident in the age profile, with most Filipino-born immigrants in middle-aged cohorts and in the midst of their working lives. Second, nearly all Canadian-born Filipinos are children or young adults, and, thus, are the children of first-generation immigrants. Third, a distinct gender imbalance is evident among Philippine-born Filipino-Canadians – an issue we will discuss further below.
Figure 2
Demographic Structure of the Filipino Population in Toronto, 2001
Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations.
It is worth noting that the relatively recent history of Filipino settlement in Canada have created a quite different situation from that which exists in the United States. There, a century of colonial and post-colonial ties have facilitated several waves of immigration from the Philippines
– as agricultural and fishery workers in Hawaii, California, and the Pacific Northwest in the early years of the 20 century; as enlistees in the US Navy from the 1950s onwards, and as nurses,th
teachers; and other professionals since the 1960s (Espiritu 2003). These multiple waves of immigration to the US, and the distinctive colonial ties upon which they were predicated, has meant that the class, race, and gender identities of Filipinos in the US have been constructed in slightly different ways from the Canadian context. As a result, Toronto’s Filipino community is quite different from that found in San Diego or Los Angeles, for example, where a long history of immigration has created a more established and embedded community.
Immigration Programmes and Categories
A further distinctive feature of the migration stream from the Philippines has been the heavy use of particular immigration programmes. Table 2 compares the immigration programmes used by immigrants born in the Philippines, with those used by all immigrants to Canada between 1980 and 2001. While the expense involved in the Investor and Entrepreneur class clearly have excluded many Filipinos (and political circumstances in the country have never created a significant stream of designated refugees), the ‘family’ and ‘assisted relative’ categories have been heavily used. Most notable, however, has been the importance of the Live-In Caregiver category, which alone accounted for 11.6 per cent of all Philippine-born arrivals during this period (including both principal applicants and dependents). Indeed Filipinos accounted for 25,846 of the 32,474 arrivals (79.6 per cent) under the caregiver programme; and even this probably is a significant underestimate, as the programme’s predecessor, the Foreign Domestic Movement, was not counted separately, with the figures related to it incorporated into the ‘Other Independent Class’ in Table 2.
Both the Foreign Domestic Movement (1980-1992) and the Live-In Caregiver Programme (1992-) involved the issuing of work visas to those who will work and live in the homes of their employers – usually caring for the elderly or for young children. After two years of work in the programme, participants can apply for immigrant status. Both scholars and activists have criticized these programmes in relation to workplace abuses, curtailed citizenship rights, the stigmatization and racialization of Filipina femininity, institutionalized deskilling, and the psychological traumas of family separation (see Pratt 2004; England and Stiell 1997; Bakan and Stasiulis 1997; McKay 2002).
The word ‘landing’ is used only in the sense that Canadian immigration authorities recognize the immigrant as
8
arriving in that particular year. In the case of dependents this may be true, but principal applicants in the domestic and caregiver categories will, of course, have been residing in Canada for several years before ‘landing.’
It is also quite likely that there is some kind of ‘multiplier’ effect from those who are counted as applicants or
9
dependents in the domestic worker and caregiver categories. That is, a significant number of those counted as skilled worker or family reunification cases may be connected in some way with a formal sponsor, or even just a contact,
Table 2
Landings by Immigrant Category, 1980-2001
All Immigrant Landings 1980-2001
Philippine-born Immigrant Landings, 1980-2001
Number Per Cent Number Percent
Family Class 1,394,935 35.4 101,427 45.4
Other Independent Class
(‘Skilled Worker’) 1,085,499 27.5 56,380 25.2
Assisted Relative Class 382,962 9.7 32,324 14.5
Convention Refugee Class 303,016 7.7 314 0.1
Designated Class 268,332 6.8 332 0.1
Entrepreneur Class 180,009 4.6 2,383 1.1
Investor Class 82,938 2.1 1,453 0.6
Self-Employed Class 65,886 1.7 819 0.4
Retired Class 52,706 1.3 531 0.2
Live-In Caregiver Class 32,474 0.8 25,846 11.6
Independents and Entrepreneurs (Old Act
1952) 31,385 0.8 773 0.3
OTHER 60,705 1.5 990 0.4
Total 3,940,852 100.0 223,572 100.0
Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Figure 3 provides a more graphic illustration of the importance of these programmes (and includes all foreign domestics and caregivers in a single category by extracting them, where applicable, from the skilled worker category). The use of such programmes peaked in the mid 1990s, with almost one third of all Philippine-born immigrants ‘landing’ in the caregiver category in 1993.8
Over the full 22-year period covered by the LIDS database, 19.5 per cent of all Philippine-born landings have been as domestic workers, live-in caregivers, or their dependents, and as Figure 3 shows, most of these were in the second half of this period. Despite the stereotypes that exist, then, caregivers and their dependents are far from being a majority of Filipino immigrants. Over 22 years, 45 per cent arrived under family reunification categories, 32 per cent under skilled worker categories, and 2 per cent as business immigrants. Nevertheless, the size and the distinctive conditions under which caregivers enter Canada (and the consequences for their subsequent economic integration) inevitably have shaped the overall statistical picture of the community as a whole.9
who entered under the live-in caregiver programme and will in turn help them to integrate. The job-search and accommodation-search networks that these contacts provide will mean that the circumstances of caregivers after they ‘graduate’ from the programme with their own immigration papers has a much wider significance.
Figure 3
Immigration Categories of Philippine-Born Immigrants to Canada, 1980-2001
Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
One notable result of the caregiver programme, which women have dominated, has been a gendered migration stream, with women comprising almost 60 per cent of immigrants from the Philippines in the period 1980-2001. This explains the distinctive gender profile among Toronto’s Filipino community seen earlier in Figure 2.
Canada in the Context of Global Filipino Migrations
The costs of applying for immigration to Canada under any programme are substantial – representing, at a minimum, several month’s salary for a relatively well-paid professional in Manila. As a result, it is common for an application to be financed from wages earned overseas. This support might come from relatives of the applicant already in Canada, already elsewhere in the world (for
Here and elsewhere in the paper “Principal Applicants” refers to Philippine-born immigrants who were principal
10
applicants on one of the following immigration categories: skilled worker; entrepreneur; investor; self-employed; and Live-In caregiver (the old Foreign Domestics category which preceded the caregiver programme is included within ‘skilled worker’). All applicants in the family, refugee, and retired categories are excluded.
example, East Asia, the Middle East, or the US), or from the applicant’s own prior work overseas. No data exist to fully substantiate this point, but immigration data do show that 6.3 per cent of principal applicants (in all categories) who were born in the Philippines had their last permanent residence outside the Philippines. Almost 100 countries are listed, with the most significant sources shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Country of Last Permanent Residence for Philippine-born Principal Applicants10
Immigrating to Canada, 1980-2001 Country of Last
Permanent Residence Number %
Philippines 66,803 93.7
Saudi Arabia 736 1.0
Hong Kong 596 0.8
France 381 0.5
United Arab Emirates 328 0.5
U.S.A. 236 0.3 Singapore 201 0.3 Kuwait 193 0.3 Jordan 165 0.2 Italy 128 0.2 Spain 126 0.2 England 116 0.2 Bahrain 111 0.2 Brunei 101 0.1 OTHER 1,102 1.5 TOTAL 71,323 100.0
Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Middle-Eastern countries feature prominently in this list, as would be expected given the most common destinations for Filipino contract workers. It is likely, however, that the list as a whole greatly underestimates the number of immigration applications financed from overseas earnings – some funds will come from relatives and not the applicant themselves, in other cases the applicant will return to reside in the Philippines before applying (and the country of last permanent residence will, therefore, appear as the Philippines). In her research in Vancouver, Deirdre McKay (2002) has noted the widespread phenomenon of Filipina immigrants under the Live-In Caregiver Programme entering Canada after spending time in a third country on contract work. Of her 42
respondents, 31 had spent time in other countries prior to applying for immigration to Canada. Not surprisingly, some of McKay’s respondents referred to Canada as a ‘graduate school’ for caregivers (McKay 2002, 16). The reasons for this were partly financial, but also because work experience required under the caregiver programme could be more easily documented and demonstrated when performed under formal contract outside the Philippines.
The Geography of Settlement
The geography of Filipino settlement in Canada has been both decidedly urban and concentrated in just a handful of predictable gateway cities. Of the 308,575 people who declared their visible minority status to be Filipino in the 2001 census (including both immigrants and Canadian-born), 133,675 were resident in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (43.3 per cent). Many of the rest were in the Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Montreal metropolitan areas (see Figure 4). Filipinos have, therefore, tended to settle in Canada’s urban centres, with Toronto the single largest destination.
Within Toronto and Vancouver, however, Filipinos are remarkably dispersed. Analysis has shown that, statistically, Filipinos exhibit among the lowest levels of segregation of any visible minority group in Canada (see Bauder and Sharpe 2003). Figure 5 shows the distribution of Filipinos in the Toronto region. Although some areas of distinct concentration are apparent – along a corridor extending north up Bathurst Street from St Clair and in several locations in Scarborough, Mississauga, and Brampton – the overall picture is one of wide dispersal. There are multiple areas of Filipino settlement, few of them with exceptionally high concentrations, and all of them spread widely across the metropolitan region. This provides an indication of the spatial integration of Filipinos into the urban fabric of Toronto.
Figure 4
Distribution of Filipinos in Canada by Major Census Metropolitan Areas, 2001
Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations. Note: Filipino refers here to immigrants and non-immigrants who declared themselves to be Filipino in response to the visible minority question in the 2001 census
Figure 5
Distribution of Filipino Population in Toronto by Census Dissemination Area and Census Tract, 2001
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001Census.
An alternative way of establishing the degree of concentration exhibited by different groups is to examine the number of census tracts that need to be counted in order to locate 50 per cent of the group’s members in a given urban area. The larger the number of tracts that need to be counted in such an analysis, the lower the level of concentration of a group. Table 4 provides both the absolute populations of visible minority groups in three Canadian cities, and the percentage of census tracts that are required to reach the 50 per cent threshold.
Table 4
Per Cent of Census Tracts Needed to Locate 50 Per Cent of Visible Minority Group, and Absolute Visible Minority Populations, in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto, 2001
Visible Minority Group Vancouver % of CTs Vancouver, population Winnipeg % of CTs Winnipeg, population Toronto % of CTs Toronto, population Chinese 15.5 342,664 12.9 10,925 9.3 409,535 W. Asian 7.8 21,430 6.7 830 9.8 52,980 S.E. Asia 11.4 28,460 8.6 5,030 10.0 53,565 Korean 12.4 28,845 7.4 955 10.5 42,620 Arab 10.4 5,905 6.7 1,115 11.6 42,835 L. Amer. 17.9 18,715 14.1 4,550 12.6 75,910 S. Asian 10.1 164,360 8.6 12,285 13.3 473,805 Japanese 19.9 24,025 13.5 1,585 14.9 17,415 Filipino 16.8 57,025 6.7 30,100 15.0 133,680 Black 19.9 18,405 19.6 11,440 15.8 310,500
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
Note: Visible m inority groups are ranked according to levels of concentration in Toronto. In this case, the figures include both immigrants and non-immigrants. However, the difference between the two groups is likely to be very small, as most Filipino non-immigrants are the children of immigrants, and m any are relatively young – see Figure 2.
These data need to be treated with caution, as many visible minority categories contain a great deal more internal heterogeneity than the Filipino category. When using this index, the low relative level of concentration recorded for Blacks in Toronto, for example, is likely a reflection of the many distinctive communities within the ‘Black’ identity – each of which may, in isolation, show high levels of concentration. Nevertheless, the data indicate the particularly low relative levels of concentration for Filipinos in Toronto, fairly low levels in Vancouver, but quite high levels in Winnipeg. Explaining these patterns of settlement can only be speculative, but it would seem likely that the immigration of Filipinos seeking employment in Winnipeg’s textile industry in the early 1970s led to identifiable residential clusters in certain parts of the city. In Vancouver and Toronto on the other hand, the larger Filipino communities present in these cities, the diversity of immigration programmes used (included the LCP, which seems likely to be a de-concentrating factor), and perhaps the high levels of employment in spatially dispersed sectors such as public healthcare, all have combined to facilitate dispersal. It is, however, also important to note that the cultural and linguistic familiarity of Filipino immigrants with their host society has meant that living in a ‘Filipino neighbourhood’ has not been seen as a necessity. Hence, the cities with the largest Filipino populations have not developed ‘little Manilas’ or ‘Filipino-towns’ in the way that they have for other minority groups.
Although issues of political representation and mobilization are beyond the scope of this analysis, it is worth hypothesizing that the relatively low levels of residential concentration among
Filipino immigrants are one reason for the relative absence of Filipino legislators in federal, provincial, and municipal governments. Table 5 shows the twelve federal electoral ridings with the largest Filipino populations and the percentage of the total population in each. With the exception of two ridings in Winnipeg, the Filipino population does not exceed 8 per cent anywhere in the country. It is no coincidence, then, that the only Filipino federal Member of Parliament ever elected in Canada represented Winnipeg (Rey Pagtakhan), and only in Manitoba have provincial and municipal levels of government seen any consistent Filipino representation.
Table 5
Filipino Populations in Selected Federal Ridings, 2001
FEDERAL RIDING Total Riding
Population Filipino Population Per Cent Filipino Winnipeg North, MB 79,415 14,070 17.7 Winnipeg Centre, MB 80,930 10,290 12.7 Vancouver Kingsway, BC 115,325 8,325 7.2
Scarborough Rouge River, ON 115,430 7,780 6.7
Mississauga East-Cooksville, ON 122,565 7,385 6.0
Scarborough Centre, ON 102,810 7,020 6.8
Montreal - Mont Royal, QC 98,340 6,750 6.9
Scarborough Southwest, ON 105,435 6,195 5.9
Vancouver South, BC 113,065 6,115 5.4
York Centre, ON 113,195 6,100 5.4
Mississauga Brampton-South, ON 113,825 6,055 5.3
Toronto Centre, ON 114,680 5,850 5.1
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
Note: Filipino here refers to the visible minority category and including both immigrants and non-immigrants. (It also includes those who are ineligible to vote, for example due to age or citizenship).
HUMAN CAPITAL AND DESKILLING
A key question in assessing the economic integration of Filipino immigrants (and, indeed, all immigrants) is whether their skills and qualifications (or human capital) are fully recognized in the host labour market. Extensive evidence suggests that immigrants, in general, face substantial
barriers in getting their credentials recognized and, therefore, suffer a process of deskilling as they are consigned to work that is mismatched with their qualifications.
Educational Assets
The Landed Immigrant Data System provides a rich source of information on immigrants’ educational qualifications at the time of their arrival, although it does not give any indication of qualifications obtained after arriving in Canada. Philippine-born principal applicants in the period 1980-2001 had an average of 13.1 years of schooling, while principal applicants from all countries of origin had a mean of 14.3 years. With a mean of 12.4 years of schooling, Filipino principal applicants in the Live-In Caregiver category had, on average, slightly less formal education than other categories, but not significantly so.
If educational qualifications, rather than years of schooling, are used as an indicator of human capital, some striking patterns emerge. Table 6 provides a simplified breakdown of educational attainment for Philippine-born principal applicants alongside all principal applicants. The data show that Filipino male principal applicants have been unusually highly qualified – with more than 60 per cent holding a bachelors degree or higher (compared with only 50 per cent across all immigrant principal applicants). It is also worth noting that the education system in the Philippines largely has been built upon American institutional foundations, and specific courses frequently use American texts. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that, while there is a range of quality among Philippine degree-granting institutions (as in the United States), the curricular content of many degrees from Philippine institutions is commensurate with that of equivalent programmes in North America. According to the data, fewer than average Filipina women had university educations prior to their arrival in Canada, but more had had non-university post-secondary training. As with so much of the Filipino immigrant profile, this likely reflects the importance of the domestic worker and caregiver categories which do not have the same requirements for degree-level qualifications.
The Census also, of course, encompasses all Filipinos resident in Canada, including those who immigrated prior to
11
1980, a group which is not captured in the LIDS data.
Table 6
Educational Qualifications of Philippine-born and All Principal Applicants, 1980-2001
Qualification % of PH IL IPP IN E-BO R N Principal Applicants Holding Qualification % of ALL Principal Applicants Holding Qualification
Males High School or less 14.9 21.4
Post-Secondary Training (no
degree) 23.4 28.6
Degree - BA or higher 61.7 50.0
Females High School or less 34.5 29.9
Post-Secondary Training (no
degree) 37.2 35.9
Degree - BA or higher 28.3 34.2
Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
As noted earlier, the data from immigrant landings provide only a very partial picture of the human capital obtained by immigrants in Canada because they exclude any qualifications obtained after arrival. Census data, therefore, provide a better indication of educational attainment in the immigrant workforce. Figure 6 compares immigrant Filipino educational attainment with both that11
of all immigrants and the total population in the Toronto CMA. It indicates a strikingly high level of educational attainment among immigrant Filipinos in Toronto, 57 per cent of whom have university qualifications (compared with 33.1 per cent for all immigrants and 34.6 per cent for the total population).
M eaning a language other than English or French.
12
Figure 6
Population 15 years and over by highest level of schooling for Toronto CMA, 2001
Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations.
Linguistic Assets
A further, and important, dimension of human capital held by Filipino immigrants is a strong command of the English language. In the Philippines, English is widely spoken and is the formal language of government, most print media, a large number of television broadcasts, and instruction in tertiary education. In practice, the lingua franca is usually a combination of local dialects and English, but exposure to English is, nevertheless, very high. This is reflected in the ‘Canadian Language Capability’ recorded for Filipino immigrants in the Landed Immigrant Data System. Proficiency in neither English nor French was recorded for 44 per cent of all immigrants between 1980-2001, but for only 21 per cent of Philippine-born immigrants.
Census data also make this point. According to the 2001 census, only 18.3 per cent of Filipino immigrants in Toronto reported using neither English nor French as a “home” language (21.3 per cent used English alone, and 59.4 used English and a ‘non-official language’ – in most12
Significant data problems do, however, exist – ‘intended’ occupation, for example, may simply reflect what the
13
immigrant was doing in their country of origin; only where an immigrant has a job waiting will they know with any certainty what the Canadian labour market has in store for them. However, these percentages are calculated using the proportions of those with a declared and intended occupation (thus excluding those who have no intended job), and the uncertainty applies equally to the different groups and so a comparison, at least, is legitimate.
cases a Filipino dialect). This compares with 29.3 per cent of all immigrants who reported using only ‘non-official’ languages in their homes. We should probably not read too much into these statistics (use of another language at home does not, for example, preclude high proficiency in English, and nor does the colloquial use of English imply a high level of technical competency), but alongside the landing data they do serve as a reminder that Filipino immigrants are generally arriving in Canada with a good command of the English language.
Deskilling
It is now commonplace to note that immigrants to Canada tend to be deskilled upon integration into the Canadian workforce. That is, they tend to be channeled into jobs that do not match their level of education or training. Anecdotal evidence of this process abounds – nurses working as nannies, accountants working as data entry clerks, and engineers as production operators. One way of demonstrating this process statistically is through data on wages and labour-market segmentation, and this will be discussed later. Another source of data, however, is available from the Landed Immigrant Data System (LIDS), which provides educational attainment and an intended occupation for every landing immigrant. For each of these occupations a ‘skill requirement’ (defined in terms of educational achievement) is assigned. A motor mechanic, for example, would be assigned a skill level of ‘Community College or Technical Institute (Two Years),’ while a sewing machine operator would be assigned ‘One to Four Years of Secondary Education.’ Using the dataset as a whole allows immigrants’ educational profile on landing to be compared with the skills required to carry out the jobs for which they are destined.13
The data in Table 7 reveal some striking comparisons. When all principal applicants are examined, there is a fairly close correspondence between those with university educations (lines 6 and 12), and those destined for jobs requiring these skills. In fact, for male principal applicants the proportion intending to work in such jobs exceeds those ‘qualified’ for them. For Filipino immigrants, however, there is a clear disconnect between qualifications and level of employment. While over 60 per cent of Filipino male principal applicants captured in the LIDS data held university degrees (line 3), less than 30 per cent were destined, at the time of arrival, for commensurate employment. For Filipina women (line 9), the figures were even more dramatic. While 28.3 per cent of such principal applicants had a university education, only 11.3 per cent were destined for appropriate jobs. Indeed, more than 75 per cent intended to work in jobs designated at the lowest level skill (high school graduation or less) (line 7). Again, the effects of the Live-In Caregiver programme are evident, although this alone cannot account for all of the discrepancy, nor can it account for the male Filipino experience.
Table 7
Comparison of Educational Attainment and Intended Occupation Skill Requirements, for Principal Applicants Landing in Canada, 1980-2001
Level of Education On Landing Per Cent
Level of Skill Required for Intended Occupation*
Per Cent
1 % of Filipino M ale P.A.s with High
School or less 14.9
% of Filipino M ale P.A.s destined for jobs requiring High School or less 19.0 2
% of Filipino M ale P.A.s with
Post-Sec Educ (no degree) 23.4
% of Filipino M ale P.A.s destined for jobs requiring Community College or Tech Institute Qual
53.1
3
% of Filipino M ale P.A.s with Degree
- BA or higher 61.7
% of Filipino M ale P.A.s destined for M anagement or jobs requiring BA higher
28.0
4 % of All M ale P.A.s with High School
or less 21.4
% of All M ale P.A.s destined for jobs requiring High School or less 10.7 5
% of All M ale P.A.s with Post-Sec
Educ (no degree) 28.6
% of All M ale P.A.s destined for jobs requiring Comm College or Tech Instit Qual
33.0
6
% of All M ale P.A.s with Degree - BA
or higher 50.0
% of All M ale P.A.s destined for M anagement or jobs requiring BA higher
56.3
7 % of Filipino Female P.A.s with High
School or less 34.5
% of Filipino Female P.A.s destined
for jobs requiring High School or less 75.8 8
% of Filipino Female P.A.s with
Post-Sec Educ (no degree) 37.2
% of Filipino Female P.A.s destined for jobs requiring Comm Coll. or Tech Instit Qual
12.9
9
% of Filipino Female P.A.s with
Degree - BA or higher 28.3
% of Filipino Female P.A.s destined for M anagement or jobs requiring BA higher
11.3
10 % of All Female P.A.s with High
School or less 29.9
% of All Female P.A.s destined for
jobs requiring High School or less 34.0 11
% of All Female P.A.s with Post-Sec
Educ (no degree) 35.9
% of All Female P.A.s destined for jobs requiring Comm Coll. or Tech Instit Qual
31.5
12
% of All Female P.A.s with Degree
-BA or higher 34.2
% of All Female P.A.s destined for M anagement or jobs requiring BA higher
34.5
Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Note: These figures are a percentage of the total number who intended to work. Those not intending to work are excluded from the total. The figures for educational attainment, however, relate to all principal applicants and not just those intending to work. (The difference is actually negligible: over 97 per cent of principal applicants do intend to work)
Overall, the picture that emerges at the time of landing is one in which a highly qualified cohort of immigrants is being channeled into work that is not commensurate with their skills and qualifications. In the next section, the patterns of labour market participation for Filipinos in Canada will be examined in more detail.
FILIPINOS IN THE LABOUR MARKET
Filipinos exhibit exceptionally high levels of participation in the labour market, significantly exceeding, on average, immigrants as a whole and the population in general (as shown in Table 8). Filipina women, in particular, are far more likely to participate in the workforce than immigrant women in general. Filipino men show even higher levels of participation. Many factors could contribute to this phenomenon, but the demographic profile of Filipino immigrants (primarily of working age – see Figure 2 above) is surely a factor, as is the concentration of Filipinos in lower-paid employment (see below), which necessitates high levels of participation by household members.
Moreover, this participation is relatively successful, at least in terms of finding employment. Only 5 per cent of Filipina women participating in Toronto’s labour market are unemployed, and only 4 per cent of Filipino men. These figures are lower than the equivalents for all immigrants and for the population as a whole.
Table 8
Labour-Market Participation and Unemployment Rates in Toronto for Adults 25 Years and Over
Filipino Immigrants All Immigrants Total Population Participation rate - Males 25 years and over 83 74 77.6
Unemployment rate - Males 25 years and over 4 5 4.3
Participation rate - Females 25 years and over 75 59 63.2
Unemployment rate - Females 25 years and over 5 7 5.5
Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations.
While participation in the labour market is high among Filipinos, for most of them it tends to be as an employee, rather than in a employed capacity. As shown in Table 9, levels of self-employment among the Filipino community are exceptionally low compared with figures for other recent immigrant groups.
Table 9
Self-Employment among Various Immigrant Visible Minority Groups, Toronto, 2001 Immigrant Visible
Minority Population
% of labour force that is self employed Korean 36.0 Japanese 20.3 West Asian 16.6 Arab 15.3 Chinese 13.5 South Asian 9.4 Latin American 8.2
South East Asian 6.7
Black 6.1
Filipino 3.2
Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations.
In some ways, this low level of self-employment could be seen as a testament to ‘successful’ economic integration, given that immigrant self-employment and entrepreneurship is often a way of coping with the linguistic, cultural, and institutional barriers to entering the formal waged workplace. Given the high levels of participation, and low levels of unemployment, workplace integration would not appear to be a problem for Filipino immigrants.
If finding work is apparently unproblematic, the question remains concerning the kinds of jobs Filipinos are finding. In terms of sectoral distribution, Filipino immigrants exhibit one of the highest levels of concentration of any group in the Canadian labour market – with large numbers occupying relatively few labour market niches (e.g. see Hiebert 1999). Clerical work, healthcare, hospitality, retail, and manufacturing, in particular, are prime destinations for working Filipinos, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Occupational Distribution of Filipino Immigrants 15 years and over in the Labour Force, Toronto CMA, 2001 Occupational Category Male Filipino Immigrants Occupational Category Female Filipina Immigrants Clerical 3,370 Clerical 8,180
Sales and service 2,880 Child care and home support 4,160 Machine operators in
manufacturing 2,515 Sales and service 3,285
Assemblers in
manufacturing 2,515 Nurse supervisors and RNs 2,495
Technical jobs related to
natural and applied sciences 1,895
Assisting occupations in
support of health services 2,135 Professional occupations in
natural and applied sciences 1,885
Professional occupations in
business and finance 1,620 Trades helpers, construction
and transportation labourers 1,095 Assemblers in manufacturing 1,300
Mechanics 1,025 Retail salespersons and sales
clerks 1,280
Labourers in processing,
manufacturing and utilities 980
Technical and related
occupations in health 1,250 Professional occupations in
business and finance 900 Cashiers 1,055
OTHER Occupations 10,905 OTHER Occupations 14,020
Total MALE Filipino Immigrants in the Labour Force
29,965
Total FEMALE Filipina Immigrants in the Labour Force
40,780
Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations. Note: Filipino is defined in this case according to the ‘Filipino’ visible minority response to the census
A numerical way of representing concentration in the labour market using the 2001 census is to calculate the ratio (or location quotient) between the percentage of Filipinos in a job category and the percentage of the population as a whole in a job category. In healthcare, for example, Filipino men and women are respectively 5.3 and 3.3 times as likely to be working in ‘assisting occupations’ than the population as a whole. But in occupations such as physician, dentist, or surgeon, Filipinos are greatly under-represented – using a similar calculation, there are about one quarter as many Filipino men and about one half as many Filipina women as there ‘should be’ in such occupations. Table 11 shows the occupational categories in which Filipino immigrant men and women are most under- and represented. Higher location quotients (LQs) denote over-representation, lower LQs represent under-representation.
Table 11
Selected Occupational Location Quotients (LQ) for Filipino Immigrants in Toronto, 2001
LQ MALE Filipino Immigrants LQ FEMALE Filipina Immigrants
5.4 Nurse supervisors and registered nurses 4.1 Child care and home support workers
5.3 Assisting occupations in support of health services
3.3 Assisting occupations in support of health services
3.6 Child care and home support workers 2.7 Nurse supervisors and registered nurses
3.0 Assemblers in manufacturing 2.2 Technical and related occupations in health
2.9 Technical and related occupations in health
1.8 Assemblers in manufacturing 2.5 Machine operators in manufacturing 1.7 Mechanics
2.1 Labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities
1.4 Machinists, metal forming, shaping and erecting occupations 0.4 Judges, lawyers, psychologists, social
workers, ministers of religion, and policy and program officers
0.3 Senior management occupations
0.4 Construction trades 0.3 Technical occupations in art,
culture, recreation and sport 0.3 Professional occupations in art and
culture
0.3 Professional occupations in art and culture
0.2 Professional occupations in health 0.2 Teachers and professors
0.2 Teachers and professors 0.0 Construction trades
0.2 Senior management occupations 0.0 Heavy equipment and crane operators, including drillers
Source: Calculated from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, Metropolis Project Core Data Set Tabulations.
The pattern of relative concentration in Table 11 displays important differences from Table 10. While Filipino men or Filipina women might be in a particular sector in large numbers, it is only when such concentrations are high relative to the population as a whole that segmentation is really taking place. Thus, the large numbers involved in clerical and sales/service jobs are not unusual. But high concentrations in health services and in manufacturing are clearly anomalous relative to the rest of the population. It is also notable that within given sectors, Filipinos are over-concentrated in lower-end occupations and under-represented in higher-end, higher paid, jobs. This is reflected in the income data to be discussed in the next section.
ECONOMIC FORTUNES: INCOMES AND EARNINGS
A first cut at determining income levels for Filipino immigrants is possible using the IMDB, which provides employment earnings for the tax year 1997, covering all Philippine-born immigrants who landed between 1980 and 1996. The figures, shown in Table 12, exhibit a notable gender gap between men and women among both Filipinos and immigrants as whole. They also indicate that Filipino men lag substantially behind immigrant men as a whole. Filipina women, on the other hand, had average employment earnings that exceeded female immigrants in general. These figures do, however, need to be treated with caution. Most importantly, they represented only employment earnings and, therefore, exclude all individuals without wages from a formal employer. Those working as self-employed nannies, baby-sitters, and the like, would not be included here, nor would those without employment. The figures also do not indicate whether the earnings recorded came from full-time or part-time work, and whether part-time income was supplemented in other ways.
Table 12
Mean 1997 Employment Earnings for Immigrants in Ontario Who Landed in Canada 1980-1996.*
Tax-Filing Immigrants in Ontario Who Landed 1980-1996 Philippine-born All Immigrants Mean MALE Employment Earnings
for those with such income ($) $24,321 $27,834
Mean FEMALE Employment
Earnings for those with such income ($)
$19,114 $18,272
Total Number of 1980-1996
immigrants Filing Taxes 54,390 745,930
Source: IMDB
Note: This average includes only those who reported employment earnings
Another caveat that must be applied to these figures is that they represent only a single snapshot of immigrant earnings. Given the increasing share of Filipinos in Canada’s immigration streams, and the higher proportion of Filipino immigrants (than of all immigrants) who are recent arrivals, it is likely that earnings for Filipinos represent in part the effect of a shorter residency in Canada. As Figure 7 shows for 1997, earnings for recent immigrants were significantly less than for those who had been in residence for some time – indeed there is a fairly linear relationship between residence and average employment income. Figure 7 indicates that (for 1997 at least) Filipino men needed 6-7 years of residency before reaching the average income for all Ontarians, while Filipina women required 8-14 years.
Figure 7
Average 1997 Employment Income,
Plotted against Year of Immigrant Landing, Ontario
Source: IMDB
One way of controlling for the effects of recent immigrancy on earnings is to look at earnings at a specific interval following arrival for both Filipinos and all immigrants. Figure 8 does this using a two year interval - that is, it charts employment earnings of immigrants for the tax year two years after their landing year. These figures show that male Filipinos have always earned less than the male immigrant average with two years of residency, except for a short period in the early 1990s. Interestingly, female Filipina immigrants have consistently exceeded the average for immigrant women.
The same pattern appears, but it is accentuated further, when a 5-year gap between landing and income measurement is used (see Figure 9). Here we see that Filipino men are consistently below the average for all male immigrants (with some narrowing of the gap towards the end of this period), while Filipina women are consistently above average. A very substantial gender gap in earning still exists for both groups, and in fact is greater for immigrants as a whole than it is for Filipino immigrants in particular.
Figure 8
Mean Employment Earnings for Immigrants with 2 Years of Residency, Ontario, 1982-1997
Figure 9
Mean Employment Earnings for Immigrants with 5 Years Residency, Ontario, 1985-1997
Unfortunately, data were not available that were cross-tabulated with country of origin.
14
These figures are difficult to interpret in any more depth without a great many caveats. As noted earlier, they refer only to the average employment earnings among those who actually filed tax returns with employment earnings in a given year. They thus exclude all without employment earnings (and, therefore, do little to indicate extreme economic marginalization). They also exclude self-employment earnings, and do not distinguish between full time and part-time work. Both may apply to many Filipina women who have immigrated under the live-in caregiver category and work as self-employed nannies, babysitters, and the like. Finally, while Figures 8 and 9 isolate the effects of gender and length of residency on employment earnings, they do not reflect the significant changes in the composition of Filipino immigration over the years. Thus, while ‘independent’ categories were a significant part of Filipino immigration in the late 1980s, by the early 1990s, the family-reunification and domestic-worker categories were predominant. A more finely grained analysis of this kind would require, for example, the use of employment earnings for ‘independent’ (that is, ‘skilled-worker’) immigrants alone.14
Given these caveats (and of course the now rather-dated vintage of the data being used), any conclusions from these data are best stated as hypotheses for further exploration, rather than conclusions, but they are intriguing nevertheless. First, the pattern of earnings in Figure 8 shows a much more accentuated rise and then decline between the late 1980s and mid-1990s, coinciding with a period of general economic expansion followed by decline and recession. In Figure 9, however, the pattern of earnings for ‘5-year immigrants’ is far more modulated. This would seem to suggest that recent immigrants (with 2 years of residency) are far more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of cyclical economic activity than are longer-term residents. This could form the basis, at least, of an analysis that explores the structural role played by recent immigrants in the labour market. Is there economic evidence to suggest that recent immigrants are absorbing the worst effects of economic recession?
The second hypothesis that arises from these figures is that Filipino men, while fewer in number than Filipina women, are more economically marginalized. That is, their average employment earnings are consistently below those of all male immigrants after 5 years of residency, while female Filipinas consistently exceed the earnings of immigrant women as a whole. At the same time, it needs to be reiterated that, in general, men earn far more than women. The gendering of labour markets is well known, but the performance of Filipino men has not been addressed in the literature on immigrant labour markets. It would seem likely that there are issues around the segmentation of Filipino men in the labour market, which may well be connected with racialization, and these need to be addressed.
One way of addressing some of the problems with the IMDB data (while at the same time introducing other problems), is to use census data. Census tabulations from 2001 provide average earnings for the year 2000 in the Toronto CMA, among men and women over the age of 15 who worked full time for the full year. Use of these data removes the problem of part time work, or self-employed income (which is also included here). It does, however, re-introduce the problem of
