CWP48 Kelly Final Colour Revised

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 2K3
mdoucet@ryerson.ca
Joint Centre of Excellence for Research

on Immigration and Settlement – Toronto
The CERIS Working Paper Series
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 <ceris.office@utoronto.ca>
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, 7th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V4
Telephone (416) 946-3110 Facsimile (416) 971-3094
Filipinos in Canada: Economic Dimensions of Immigration and Settlement
Philip Kelly
Department of Geography
York University
E-mail: pfkelly@yorku.ca
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.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
ii
Page 1
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.1 The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to generate an aggregate portrait of
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.
1
There are, however, some rich narratives contained in several community profiles, but they are now rather dated.
See, for example, Chen 1998; Laquian 1973; Cusipag and Buenafe 1993.
Page 2
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.2 In this way, ‘Filipino’
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
2
In the 2001 census, 99,780 immigrants in the Toronto CMA counted themselves as fitting into the ‘Filipino’ visible
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.
Page 3
live-in caregivers who ‘arrived’3 from the Philippines in 2001, for example, will have very different
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).4 Clearly, then, Filipino-ness is a meaningful category to those who
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.
3
Caregivers have, in fact, been resident in Canada as non-immigrants for several years before ‘landing’. See also
footnote 8.
4
Seventy-eight per cent of Filipinos declared a ‘strong’ sense of attachment to their identity, compared for example,
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).
Page 4
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.
5
As noted in footnote 1, Country of Birth is used here as the defining characteristic of ‘Filipino’ immigrants. These
data have been used with a presumption regarding their accuracy.
Page 5
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
Page 6
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

Page 7
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 1980,6 and in 2001
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
Filipino Percentage of Total

Period of Immigration
Immigrants 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 Minority 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
6
Thus, the data from the LIDS used later in this paper, which include all landings from 1980-2001, represent a very
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.
7
The age distribution of immigrants, who tend to be young or middle-aged, suggests that this would be small. Also,
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).
Page 8
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
Page 9
– as agricultural and fishery workers in Hawaii, California, and the Pacific Northwest in the early
years of the 20th century; as enlistees in the US Navy from the 1950s onwards, and as nurses,
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).
Page 10
Table 2
Landings by Immigrant Category, 1980-2001
All Immigrant Philippine-born Immigrant

Landings 1980-2001 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’8 in the caregiver category in 1993.
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
8
The word ‘landing’ is used only in the sense that Canadian immigration authorities recognize the immigrant as
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.’
9
It is also quite likely that there is some kind of ‘multiplier’ effect from those who are counted as applicants or
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,
Page 11
Figure 3
Immigration Categories of Philippine-Born Immigrants to Canada, 1980-2001
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
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.
Page 12
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
10
Here and elsewhere in the paper “Principal Applicants” refers to Philippine-born immigrants who were principal
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.
Page 13
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.
Page 14
Figure 4
Distribution of Filipinos in Canada by Major Census Metropolitan Areas, 2001
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
Page 15
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.
Page 16
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 Vancouver Vancouver, Winnipeg Winnipeg, Toronto Toronto,

Minority % of CTs population % of CTs population % of CTs population
Group
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 minority 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
Page 17
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
Total Riding Filipino Per Cent

FEDERAL RIDING
Population Population 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
Page 18
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.
Page 19
Table 6
Educational Qualifications of Philippine-born and All Principal Applicants, 1980-2001
% of P H ILIPPIN E - B O RN % of ALL Principal

Principal Applicants Applicants Holding
Holding Qualification Qualification
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
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.11 Figure 6 compares immigrant Filipino educational attainment with both that
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).
11
The Census also, of course, encompasses all Filipinos resident in Canada, including those who immigrated prior to
1980, a group which is not captured in the LIDS data.
Page 20
Figure 6
Population 15 years and over by highest level of schooling for Toronto CMA, 2001
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’12 – in most
12
Meaning a language other than English or French.
Page 21
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.
13
Significant data problems do, however, exist – ‘intended’ occupation, for example, may simply reflect what the
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.
Page 22
Table 7
Comparison of Educational Attainment and Intended Occupation Skill Requirements, for
Principal Applicants Landing in Canada, 1980-2001
Per Level of Skill Required for Per

Level of Education On Landing
Cent Intended Occupation* Cent
1 % of Filipino M ale P.A.s with High % of Filipino M ale P.A.s destined for
14.9 19.0
School or less jobs requiring High School or less
2 % of Filipino M ale P.A.s destined for
% of Filipino M ale P.A.s with Post-
23.4 jobs requiring Community College or 53.1
Sec Educ (no degree)
Tech Institute Qual
3 % of Filipino M ale P.A.s destined for
% of Filipino M ale P.A.s with Degree
61.7 Management or jobs requiring BA 28.0
- BA or higher
higher
4 % of All M ale P.A.s with High School % of All M ale P.A.s destined for jobs
21.4 10.7
or less requiring High School or less
5 % of All M ale P.A.s destined for jobs
% of All M ale P.A.s with Post-Sec
28.6 requiring Comm College or Tech 33.0
Educ (no degree)
Instit Qual
6 % of All M ale P.A.s destined for
% of All M ale P.A.s with Degree - BA
or higher
higher
7 % of Filipino Female P.A.s with High % of Filipino Female P.A.s destined

34.5 75.8
School or less for jobs requiring High School or less
8 % of Filipino Female P.A.s destined
% of Filipino Female P.A.s with Post-
37.2 for jobs requiring Comm Coll. or 12.9
Sec Educ (no degree)
Tech Instit Qual
9 % of Filipino Female P.A.s destined
% of Filipino Female P.A.s with
28.3 for Management or jobs requiring BA 11.3
Degree - BA or higher
higher
10 % of All Female P.A.s with High % of All Female P.A.s destined for
29.9 34.0
School or less jobs requiring High School or less
11 % of All Female P.A.s destined for
% of All Female P.A.s with Post-Sec
35.9 jobs requiring Comm Coll. or Tech 31.5
Educ (no degree)
Instit Qual
12 % of All Female P.A.s destined for
% of All Female P.A.s with Degree -
BA or higher
higher
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)
Page 23
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 All Total

Immigrants Immigrants 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
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 self-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.
Page 24
Table 9
Self-Employment among Various Immigrant Visible Minority Groups, Toronto, 2001
Immigrant Visible % of labour force that is

Minority Population 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
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.
Page 25
Table 10
Occupational Distribution of Filipino Immigrants 15 years and over in the Labour Force,
Toronto CMA, 2001
Male Female
Occupational Category Filipino Occupational Category Filipina
Immigrants Immigrants
Clerical 3,370 Clerical 8,180
Sales and service 2,880 Child care and home support 4,160
Machine operators in
2,515 Sales and service 3,285
manufacturing
Assemblers in
2,515 Nurse supervisors and RNs 2,495
manufacturing
Technical jobs related to Assisting occupations in
1,895 2,135
natural and applied sciences support of health services
Professional occupations in Professional occupations in
1,885 1,620
natural and applied sciences business and finance
Trades helpers, construction
1,095 Assemblers in manufacturing 1,300
and transportation labourers
Retail salespersons and sales
Mechanics 1,025 1,280
clerks
Labourers in processing, Technical and related
980 1,250
manufacturing and utilities occupations in health
Professional occupations in
900 Cashiers 1,055
business and finance
OTHER Occupations 10,905 OTHER Occupations 14,020
Total MALE Filipino Total FEMALE Filipina
Immigrants in the Labour 29,965 Immigrants in the Labour 40,780
Force Force
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 over-represented. Higher location quotients (LQs) denote over-
representation, lower LQs represent under-representation.
Page 26
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 3.3 Assisting occupations in support
health services 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 1.8 Assemblers in manufacturing
health
2.5 Machine operators in manufacturing 1.7 Mechanics
2.1 Labourers in processing, manufacturing 1.4 Machinists, metal forming,
and utilities shaping and erecting occupations
0.4 Judges, lawyers, psychologists, social 0.3 Senior management occupations
workers, ministers of religion, and
policy and program officers
0.4 Construction trades 0.3 Technical occupations in art,
culture, recreation and sport
0.3 Professional occupations in art and 0.3 Professional occupations in art and
culture 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
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.
Page 27
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
$24,321 $27,834
for those with such income ($)
Mean FEMALE Employment
Earnings for those with such income $19,114 $18,272
($)
Total Number of 1980-1996
54,390 745,930
immigrants Filing Taxes
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.
Page 28
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.
Page 29
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
Page 30
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
14
Unfortunately, data were not available that were cross-tabulated with country of origin.
Page 31
immigrant residency, in that it does not differentiate the data according to year of landing (which,
as Figure 7 showed, is highly correlated with income).
Notwithstanding these problems, the data from the 2001 census are dramatic, with Filipino
men and women earning less than any other comparison group – indeed only gender was a more
significant predictor of earnings than being Filipino (Table 13). Figure 10 presents some of these
figures in graphical form.
Table 13
Earnings (C$) of Filipinos and Others in the Toronto CMA, 2000
Filipino All Visible All Visible All All Non- Entire

Immigrants M inority M inority Non- Immigrants Immigrants Population
Immigrants Immigrants
Male
$39,295 $43,162 $46,746 $50,748 $66,133 $58,789
Income
Female
$31,846 $33,273 $39,088 $36,198 $45,395 $40,984
Income
Note: These figures refer to average employment incomes in Canadian dollars from full-year full-time
employment in 2000 for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area.
These data place the situation of Filipina women, in particular, in a somewhat different light.
In the 1997 employment earnings data, Filipina women were seen to earn more, on average, than
immigrant women in general. However, once all types of earnings are accounted for, and part-time
work is excluded, it becomes evident that Filipinas are, in fact, earning considerably less than
immigrant women generally.15
The picture of Filipino incomes, then, is not a positive one. Despite the high average levels
of employment, education, and cultural capital that are exhibited by the Filipino immigrant
population of Toronto, their incomes remain among the lowest in the entire region. While is it only
a weak indicator of economic marginalization, a mapping of Filipino residential patterns over low
income areas of Toronto suggests a strong correlation between the two. Thus, not only are Filipino
immigrants earning low incomes relative to most other comparison groups – they are also, as might
be expected, living in the lower income neighbourhoods (Figure 11).
15
It should also be noted that the two sets of data have different geographies – the IMDB taxfile data are for
Ontario, while the census data used here are for the Toronto CMA.
Page 32
Figure 10
Average Employment Income (C$) in Toronto in 2000, for Population over 15 Years
with Full-Year, Full-Time Employment
Page 33
Figure 11
Filipino Residential Settlement in Toronto and Per Cent Incidence of Families below Low
Income Cut-Off (LICO) in Toronto Census Tracts, 2001
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census.
Note: Filipinos are defined by visible minority status. Dots are located over Census Dissemination Areas
(comprising 400-700 individuals). The underlying map is divided by Census Tracts, and is shaded according
to the percentage of the entire population (Filipino and Non-Filipino) living below the Low Income Cut –Off
(LICO). The LICO is an index of poverty based on the percentage of income that individuals and families
spend on the basic needs or necessities in comparison with the rest of Canadians.
Page 34
ECONOMIC COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
The immigration debate in Canada has occasionally descended into rather crass calculations
concerning the financial costs and benefits of immigrants. These calculations are often spurious as
they lump together immigrants with enormously diverse profiles into a single identity. Thus, an
investor-class immigrant from Hong Kong is grouped with a refugee from Somalia under a common
analytical category, ‘immigrant.’ Such analyses also assume very simplistic quantitative calculations
of contributions (in the form of taxes) and costs (in the form of welfare and other benefits). Quite
aside from the incompleteness of such accountings on their own terms (which generally do not
include all forms of either the financial costs or benefits), they also assume that immigrants benefit
the Canadian economy only in the extent to which they pay taxes. There is, of course, a great deal
more at stake than that, including measures of productivity – not just among Filipino workers
themselves, but also among the wealthier employers whose lucrative working lives they facilitate
through their much lower-paid childcare services. Nor do such calculations give any weight to
unquantifiable cultural enrichment. Most importantly, and ironically, such calculations fail to
acknowledge that it is those immigrants who pay the least in taxes, because they earn the least, who
are contributing the most to Canada’s corporate profitability and competitiveness. If immigrants are
paid less, and overall this is conclusively true, then their ‘surplus value’ is serving to collectively
enrich others.
Notwithstanding these criticisms, a cost-benefit analysis can quickly dispense with any notion
that the Filipino community is a burden upon the Canadian treasury. As Table 14 shows, in the
taxation year 1997, Filipino immigrants claimed far less as a proportion of total earnings in the form
of unemployment or welfare benefits (4.1 per cent) than immigrants as a whole (8.1 per cent).16
Furthermore, while the percentage of the Filipino immigrant population claiming Unemployment
Insurance was higher (12.5 per cent, compared with 10.5 per cent of all immigrants), the proportion
claiming welfare benefits was far lower (5.8 per cent of Filipinos compared with 12.7 per cent of all
immigrants). Comparable data for the non-immigrant population, or for immigrants from other time
periods, are not available, but clearly the evidence at hand suggests that Filipino immigrants are far
from being a burden on the Canadian welfare state.
16
These data relate to all Filipino immigrants who landed between 1980 and 1996 and who then filed an income tax
return in 1997.
Page 35
Table 14
Benefits Claimed and Incomes Earned, in 1997,
by Immigrants Who Landed in 1980-1996, Ontario
Philippine-born All Immigrants

Immigrants
Welfare + Unemployment Insurance, as
percentage of Employment and Self- 4.1 8.1
Employment Earnings
Per cent of population claiming UI 12.0 10.5
Per cent of population claiming Welfare 5.8 12.7
Per cent of population with Self-
4.4 11.6
Employment Income
Mean Male Employment Earnings $24,320.8 $27,833.5
Mean Female Employment Earnings $19,113.5 $18,272.3
Source: IMBD
Note: Mean employment earnings is the average if those with such earnings. Those without are not included
in this calculation.
CONCLUSIONS
A great many notes of caution have been sounded throughout this paper – both in relation
to the ‘statistical Filipino’ who gets constructed all too easily out of convenient analytical categories,
and with regard to the limitations of the data that can be generated to try to shed light on this group.
Nevertheless, some aggregate patterns are apparent in the experiences of Filipino immigrants in
Canada (and, more specifically, in Toronto), and they are distinctive enough that they justify the
relevance of starting with ‘Filipino’ as an analytical category. In short, the data presented here show
that Filipinos comprise an important, and relatively recent, stream of immigration to Canada, one
that has a distinctive profile in terms of the immigration programmes/categories that they have used.
In particular, the Live-In Caregiver Programme has been an important part of the immigration
process and has had several consequences in terms of both labour-market outcomes for ‘graduates’
from the programme and a gender-skewed demographic profile for the community as a whole. The
LCP does not, however, provide the full story when accounting for the labour-market experiences
of Filipino immigrants.
On arrival, Filipino immigrants tend to have high levels of education as well as less tangible
forms of cultural preparedness, such as high levels of English language competency. Overall, these
assets have resulted in a relatively successful integration, both into the social fabric of Canadian
cities and into formal employment. Filipinos have very high levels of participation in the labour
force, low levels of unemployment and welfare claims, and a low incidence of self-employment.
Page 36
Nevertheless, integration has tended to be in subordinated places and roles. In Toronto, Filipinos,
while quite spatially dispersed residentially, generally are living in poorer neighbourhoods and are
heavily concentrated in certain occupational roles. These roles tend to be deprofessionalized
versions of their occupational identities back home in the Philippines and result in anomalously low
earnings. There is also some evidence that recent immigrants, both male and female, suffer the
vagaries of cyclical economic downturns far more acutely than those with longer periods of
residency.
Several avenues for further research are suggested by the foregoing analysis. First, the
quantitative data presented here could be analyzed with greater sensitivity to distinctions within the
Filipino community. While some attempt has been made to distinguish Filipino immigrants based
on gender and length of residency, further attention to the experiences of immigrants arriving under
different programmes is needed. In particular, the differences between those arriving under the LCP
and those under the independent skilled-worker programmes need to be better understood. Second,
the construction of Filipino masculinity in Canada has not been explored in any detail. While the
LCP has received substantial attention, the labour market experiences of Filipino men are largely
unknown. Qualitative research is needed to fill this gap. Third, the micro-politics and practices of
job searches, interviews, promotion panels, and inter-ethnic relationships in the workplace need to
be explored in more qualitative depth. While there are well-known barriers based on credential
recognition in certain licensed professions, there are also more subtle barriers to advancement based
on the ways in which Filipino identity gets socially constructed in workplaces and labour markets.
Ultimately, then, an understanding of the Filipino experience in Canada must come to terms with
the construction of difference in Canadian society – through processes of racialization,
discrimination, and stereotyping of Filipino-ness.
Page 37
REFERENCES
Bakan, Isabel and Stasiulis, Daiva, eds. 1997. Not One of the Family: Foreign Domestic Workers
in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bauder, Harald and Sharpe, Bob. 2002. Residential Segregation of Visible Minorities in Canada’s
Gateway Cities. The Canadian Geographer 46: 204-22.
Chen, A. B. 1998. From Sunbelt to Snowbelt: Filipinos in Canada. Calgary: Canadian Ethnic
Studies Association, University of Calgary.
Cusipag, Ruben and Buenafe, Maria. 1993. Portrait of Filipino Canadians in Ontario (1960-1990).
Toronto: Kalayaan Media Ltd.
England, Kim and Stiell, Bernadette. 1997. ‘They think you’re as stupid as your English is’:
Constructing Foreign Domestic Workers in Toronto. Environment and Planning A 29: 195-215.
Espiritu, Yen Le. 2003. Home Bound: Filipino American Lives across Cultures, Communities, and
Countries. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Garcia, M. (forthcoming) The Road to Empowerment, Moving from Crisis to Community Capacity
Building. Toronto: Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement -
Toronto.
Hiebert, Daniel. 1999. Local Geographies of Labour Market Segmentation: Montreal, Toronto,
and Vancouver. Economic Geography 75: 339-69.
Laquian, E. R. 1973. A Study of Filipino Immigration to Canada, 1962-1972, 2nd ed. Ottawa: United
Council of Filipino Associations in Canada.
Li, P. 2003. Destination Canada: Immigration Debates and Issues. Toronto: Oxford University
Press.
McKay, Deirdre, 2002. Filipina Identities: Geographies of Social Integration/Exclusion in the

Canadian Metropolis, Working Paper Series, No.02-18. Vancouver: Centre of Excellence: Research
on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis (RIIM).
Pratt, Geraldine. 2004. Working Feminism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Statistics Canada. 2003 Ethnic Diversity Survey: Portrait of a Multicultural Society (89-593-
XIE2003001). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. 2005. Population Projections of Visible Minority Groups, Canada, Provinces and
Regions, 2001 to 2017 (91-541-XIE). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
CERIS
The Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement - Toronto (CERIS) is
one of five Canadian Metropolis centres dedicated to ensuring that scientific expertise contributes
to the improvement of migration and diversity policy.
CERIS is a collaboration of Ryerson University, York University, and the University of Toronto, as
well as the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the United Way of Greater Toronto,
and the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.
CERIS wishes to acknowledge receipt of financial grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the data provided by
Statistics Canada.
CERIS appreciates the support of the departments and agencies

participating in the Metropolis Project:
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Citizenship & Immigration Canada
Department of Canadian Heritage
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Status of Women Canada
Statistics Canada
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada
Department of Justice Canada
For more information about CERIS contact:

The Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement - Toronto
246 Bloor Street West, 7th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V4
Telephone: (416) 946-3110 Facsimile: (416) 971-3094
http://ceris.metropolis.net
The Metropolis Project
Launched in 1996, the Metropolis Project strives to improve policies for managing migration and
diversity by focusing scholarly attention on critical issues. All project initiatives involve
policymakers, researchers, and members of non-governmental organizations.
Metropolis Project goals are to:
• Enhance academic research capacity;
• Focus academic research on critical policy issues and policy options;
• Develop ways to facilitate the use of research in decision-making.
The Canadian and international components of the Metropolis Project encourage and facilitate
communication between interested stakeholders at the annual national and international
conferences and at topical workshops, seminars, and roundtables organized by project members.
For more information about the Metropolis Project

visit the Metropolis web sites at:
http://canada.metropolis.net
http://international.metropolis.net

CWP48 Kelly Final Colour Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CWP48 Kelly Final Colour Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORKING PAPER SERIES

CERIS Working Paper No. 48 (revised)

Series Editor for 2006/07

Joint Centre of Excellence for Research

Manuscripts on topics related to immigration, settlement, and cultural

If you have comments or proposals regarding the CERIS Working Paper

Copyright of the articles in the CERIS Working Paper Series

The views expressed in these articles are those of the author(s),

JOINT CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR RESEARCH

KEYWORDS: Filipino, immigration, settlement, economic integration, employment

DATA AND DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

IMMIGRATION AND ARRIVAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

HUMAN CAPITAL AND DESKILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17

FILIPINOS IN THE LABOUR MARKET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23

ECONOMIC FORTUNES: INCOMES AND EARNINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 27

ECONOMIC COSTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 34

DATA AND DEFINITIONS

Identifying the Filipino

IMMIGRATION AND ARRIVAL

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, www.cic.gc.ca

Note: Filipino is defined by country of last permanent residence

Filipino Percentage of Total

Immigration Programmes and Categories

All Immigrant Philippine-born Immigrant

Immigration Categories of Philippine-Born Immigrants to Canada, 1980-2001

Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Canada in the Context of Global Filipino Migrations

Source: Landed Immigrant Data System,

The Geography of Settlement

Source: Statistics Canada, 2001Census.

An alternative way of establishing the degree of concentration exhibited by different groups

Visible Vancouver Vancouver, Winnipeg Winnipeg, Toronto Toronto,

Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census

Total Riding Filipino Per Cent

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

HUMAN CAPITAL AND DESKILLING

% of P H ILIPPIN E - B O RN % of ALL Principal

Females High School or less 34.5 29.9

Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada

It is now commonplace to note that immigrants to Canada tend to be deskilled upon

Per Level of Skill Required for Per

7 % of Filipino Female P.A.s with High % of Filipino Female P.A.s destined

Source: Landed Immigrant Data System, Citizenship and Immigration Canada

FILIPINOS IN THE LABOUR MARKET

Moreover, this participation is relatively successful, at least in terms of finding employment.

Filipino All Total

Participation rate - Males 25 years and over 83 74 77.6

Immigrant Visible % of labour force that is

LQ MALE Filipino Immigrants LQ FEMALE Filipina Immigrants

ECONOMIC FORTUNES: INCOMES AND EARNINGS

Tax-Filing Immigrants in Ontario

Philippine-born All Immigrants