Insights on Canadian Society
The role of social capital and ethnocultural characteristics in the employment income of immigrants over time

Introduction

In recent years, the number of permanent residents admitted into Canada has been increasing, and reached record levels in 2018 when the government admitted 321,055 permanent residents.^{Note 1} In the 2016 Census, it was estimated that over 20% of Canadians were foreign born.^{Note 2} The Canadian immigration program admits individuals in three main categories: economic immigrants, immigrants sponsored by family and refugees. Immigrants admitted as principal applicants in the economic category are selected for their ability to contribute to the Canadian economy, whereas refugees are immigrants who are admitted based on a well-founded fear of returning to their home country. Most immigrants admitted to Canada in recent decades have been economic immigrants selected for their training and job skills.

The Longitudinal Immigration Database (IMDB)—a longitudinal database that combines immigrant admission data and taxation information—has been used in the past to examine how well immigrants do financially over time. An earlier study found that, relative to the average income of the Canadian-born population, the initial earnings of immigrant cohorts admitted in the early 2000s were lower than those who were admitted earlier.^{Note 3} However, despite that initial disadvantage, their average income levels caught up faster with those of the Canadian-born population (relative to earlier cohorts of immigrants). One limitation of the IMDB is that it does not include any information about the social relations of immigrants or their ethnic or cultural background, which may also affect incomes.

By integrating the IMDB with the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC), additional information can be retrieved on key immigrant characteristics that also influence employment income, such as social capital and ethnocultural characteristics.

Social capital refers to resources that are embedded in individuals’ social ties, such as friends, associations and communities. These resources can be converted into other social goods, including better education, better employment opportunities, improved health, safer societies and more functional democracies.^{Note 4} Social connections or affiliation with a civic association can help the larger economy by facilitating the flow of information in the market and reducing transaction costs. Social capital can also positively affect individuals’ economic performance by providing them with employment opportunities through informal channels and with work opportunities in the informal economy.

Social capital takes many different shapes, with different influences. One way to classify these differences is by separating “bonding” social capital from “bridging” social capital—sometimes called “strong” ties and “weak” ties. The former refers to ties between people with similar backgrounds and shared histories, and the latter refers to ties between people with different backgrounds, social statuses and social environments. In terms of economic performance, bonding social capital is good for “getting by,” while bridging social capital is good for “getting ahead.”^{Note 5} Bonding social capital tends to be more homogeneous and normally materializes through personal and family or friend connections, while bridging social capital is more diverse and materializes through formal associations and organizations.

Social capital is a particularly relevant factor in understanding the economic experiences of immigrants since the size, nature, density and consequences of their social connections are drastically different from those of the mainstream population.^{Note 6} For instance, immigrants experience a social capital deficit directly as a result of their migration and the uprooting that results from it.^{Note 7} In the words of another study, “immigrants tend to leave behind their social networks and other social relations that could otherwise help them in job acquisitions and occupational mobility.”^{Note 8}

Similarly, ethnocultural characteristics can also be a factor in immigrants’ income. The sociopolitical environment of immigrant-receiving countries has undergone a drastic transformation in the past few decades. Some studies in the United States have pointed to rising intolerance directed at immigrants.^{Note 9} In Canada, a large number of studies have demonstrated the presence of biases in the job market against immigrant groups of certain ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The disadvantaged groups include those identified as visible minorities; religious minorities; and from certain source regions, such as the Middle East.^{Note 10}

In this study, LSIC data were matched with IMDB data to examine the potential impact of social capital and ethnocultural characteristics on the income trajectory of immigrants across a 15 year period, for a cohort of immigrants aged 25 to 54 who came to Canada in 2001 (see the section Data sources, methods and definitions for additional details).

Nearly half of immigrants who came to Canada in 2001 had relatives living in the country prior to their admission

In the LSIC, various aspects of social capital are examined, including whether immigrants had any relatives living in Canada prior to admission, whether they had friends living in the country prior to admission, the characteristics of friends they made in Canada in their first six months after admission, and whether they contacted a work-related organization (for example, to get help in finding a job) or a non-work-related organization (such as ethnic or immigrant associations, or community organizations).

Nearly half (44%) of immigrants had relatives in the country prior to their admission, while a larger proportion (63%) reported that they had friends in the country prior to admission (Table 1). Women were more likely than men to have relatives who were living in the country prior to their admission in 2001 (48% compared with 41%), but were less likely than men to have pre-admission friends (59% compared with 66%).

Start of table 1



End of table

The LSIC also includes information about the type of friends made in the first six months after migrating to Canada. About 58% of immigrants who were admitted in 2001 reported that the friends they made after they were admitted to Canada were mostly from their own ethnic group. About 20% of immigrants reported that most of the friends they made after migrating to Canada were from outside their ethnic group. Another 11% said that their post-immigration friends were equally divided between those who were from the same ethnic group and those who were from other ethnic groups. The remainder reported that they did not make any friends in their first six months after admission (12%). Results were similar between men and women.

Another way for immigrants to build social capital is to contact organizations, either for help in finding a job or for help with other aspects of life, such as finding a place to live or getting better access to services. In the first six months following admission, however, a relatively small proportion of immigrants reported having contacted a work-related organization (about 1%). Approximately one in five reported having participated in the activities or were members of a social organization that was unrelated to finding work, with small differences between men and women.

Ethnocultural variables present in the LSIC include visible minority status and religious affiliation (as reported by LSIC respondents six months after their admission in Canada). Results indicate that one-quarter of immigrants admitted in 2001 reported no religious affiliation—the highest result of all categories. About 18% of immigrants were Catholic, 18% were Muslim, 17% reported an Eastern religion (including Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist) and 12% were Protestant (Table 2). With regard to visible minority status, one-quarter of the immigrants admitted in 2001 were Chinese, one-quarter were South Asian or Southeast Asian, and one-fifth were not part of a visible minority group. The rest were distributed across other visible minority groups.

Start of table 2



End of table

Immigrants who did not make friends after their admission had lower levels of income than those who made friends

The research on the impact of social capital on immigrants’ economic performance has yielded mixed results, with some suggesting little to no impact and others even finding a negative effect.^{Note 11} More particularly, a previous study found that immigrants’ wages were negatively affected by the number of relatives in Canada and their proximity.^{Note 12} Conversely, recent studies have found that social capital has a positive impact on immigrants’ wages, beyond the contribution of their education or experience.^{Note 13}

In this section, average employment income levels of immigrants from 2002 to 2016 are examined across various types of social capital.

The descriptive data shown in charts 1.1 and 1.2 indicate that, for both sexes, employment income was higher for immigrants without relatives in Canada at the time of their admission, by a margin of about $9,000 for men and $7,000 for women in 2016. For the most part, this result is because the profiles of immigrants with and without relatives in Canada differ. Immigrants admitted in the sponsored family categories, in particular, generally report lower earnings than economic immigrants.^{Note 14}

Data table for Chart 1.1



Data table for Chart 1.1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 1.1. The information is grouped by Men (appearing as row headers), Had relatives in Canada and Did not have relatives in Canada, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Men	Had relatives in Canada	Did not have relatives in Canada
	dollars
2002	31,400	33,600
2003	34,700	37,400
2004	38,100	41,800
2005	41,700	45,200
2006	44,800	50,200
2007	48,300	55,200
2008	50,300	57,700
2009	49,700	58,000
2010	52,300	60,600
2011	53,400	62,500
2012	54,900	65,300
2013	57,500	66,600
2014	58,200	67,800
2015	59,600	69,300
2016	60,900	70,200
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Data table for Chart 1.2



Data table for Chart 1.2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 1.2. The information is grouped by Women (appearing as row headers), Had relatives in Canada and Did not have relatives in Canada, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Women	Had relatives in Canada	Did not have relatives in Canada
	dollars
2002	18,600	21,100
2003	21,400	24,200
2004	24,200	26,100
2005	26,300	29,100
2006	28,400	32,400
2007	31,300	35,500
2008	32,700	39,200
2009	34,500	40,600
2010	36,200	42,400
2011	36,400	44,300
2012	37,600	45,900
2013	39,200	47,900
2014	40,400	48,600
2015	41,300	49,000
2016	41,700	49,100
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Having friends, by contrast, was positively related to immigrants’ employment incomes. In their first six years in Canada, men reported similar levels of income, regardless of whether they had pre-admission friends (Chart 2.1). However, after 2008,^{Note 15} a gap started emerging, and by 2016, immigrant men with pre-admission friends earned more than $10,000 more than those who did not have friends in the country prior to their admission ($69,700 compared with $59,400). For women, the difference in income was noticeable after the second year of landing and grew over time. By 2016, women who had pre-admission friends earned more than $7,000 more than their counterparts who did not (Chart 2.2).

Data table for Chart 2.1



Data table for Chart 2.1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 2.1. The information is grouped by Men (appearing as row headers), Had friends in Canada and Did not have friends in Canada, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Men	Had friends in Canada	Did not have friends in Canada
	dollars
2002	32,800	32,400
2003	36,700	35,400
2004	40,800	39,100
2005	44,400	42,400
2006	48,400	47,000
2007	52,800	51,300
2008	55,700	52,400
2009	56,300	51,100
2010	59,300	52,800
2011	61,200	53,700
2012	63,200	56,400
2013	65,800	56,700
2014	66,700	58,000
2015	68,900	58,100
2016	69,700	59,400
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Data table for Chart 2.2



Data table for Chart 2.2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 2.2. The information is grouped by Women (appearing as row headers), Had friends in Canada and Did not have friends in Canada, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Women	Had friends in Canada	Did not have friends in Canada
	dollars
2002	20,500	19,000
2003	23,200	22,200
2004	26,300	23,500
2005	29,700	24,900
2006	32,300	27,700
2007	35,500	30,400
2008	39,000	31,500
2009	40,600	33,200
2010	42,500	34,800
2011	43,600	35,800
2012	45,200	36,900
2013	47,400	38,200
2014	48,100	39,500
2015	49,300	39,300
2016	48,500	41,100
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Incomes also appeared to grow faster for immigrants who had made friends in Canada six months after their admission. From 2002 to 2016, those who did not make any friends during their first six months after admission had employment income levels that were almost consistently lower than those who made friends.

The ethnic characteristics of friends also made a difference in employment income levels. Among men, for example, the incomes of those whose friends were from their own ethnic group were lower than the incomes of those who had friends from different ethnic groups (Chart 3.1). For example, those whose friends were mostly from different ethnic backgrounds earned $72,600 on average in 2016, compared with $64,400 among those whose friends were mostly of the same ethnicity, and $60,900 among those who did not make friends at all in their first six months after their admission.

Data table for Chart 3.1



Data table for Chart 3.1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 3.1. The information is grouped by Men (appearing as row headers), Most friends were from a different ethnic group, About half of friends were from a different ethnic group, Most friends were from the same ethnic group and No friends made after six months, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Men	Most friends were from a different ethnic group	About half of friends were from a different ethnic group	Most friends were from the same ethnic group	No friends made after six months
	dollars
2002	40,100	37,300	29,500	29,500
2003	44,500	42,000	32,800	32,600
2004	46,100	45,200	37,700	36,400
2005	48,800	48,400	41,900	38,300
2006	53,900	54,000	45,700	42,600
2007	58,300	58,500	50,200	45,000
2008	61,700	61,900	52,200	45,200
2009	62,200	60,400	52,400	44,800
2010	63,300	63,700	55,100	48,400
2011	63,700	64,300	57,400	49,100
2012	66,300	66,100	59,500	52,600
2013	66,800	68,200	61,800	54,400
2014	68,600	67,000	63,000	55,700
2015	71,800	70,500	63,500	57,400
2016	72,600	69,700	64,400	60,900
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Among women, all categories had similar earning levels at the beginning of the period (in 2002), but those who made friends in the first months after their admission eventually earned higher incomes than those who did not make any friends during their post-admission months (Chart 3.2). By 2016, women who did not make friends in the first six months after admission had an employment income that was slightly over $40,000, compared with income levels that varied between $46,000 and $48,000 for those who made friends after their admission. For women, the ethnicity of their post-admission friends did not seem to make a difference on employment income.

Data table for Chart 3.2



Data table for Chart 3.2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 3.2. The information is grouped by Women (appearing as row headers), Most friends were from a different ethnic group, About half of friends were from a different ethnic group, Most friends were from the same ethnic group and No friends made after six months, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Women	Most friends were from a different ethnic group	About half of friends were from a different ethnic group	Most friends were from the same ethnic group	No friends made after six months
	dollars
2002	21,700	20,600	19,400	18,600
2003	26,100	23,600	21,900	21,400
2004	29,600	24,800	24,600	21,600
2005	31,200	28,500	27,400	23,800
2006	34,600	30,800	30,400	24,800
2007	35,600	37,000	33,300	28,600
2008	37,900	38,800	36,500	29,400
2009	40,200	42,000	37,800	30,200
2010	42,300	43,200	39,600	31,600
2011	43,200	43,400	40,900	32,800
2012	43,400	45,300	42,500	35,100
2013	44,000	45,900	44,900	37,100
2014	46,100	46,100	45,300	39,200
2015	47,100	47,200	45,700	39,900
2016	46,600	47,700	46,000	40,800
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Although few immigrants contacted a work-related organization prior to their admission, those who did contact work-related organizations saw higher employment levels than those who contacted other types of organizations or those who did not contact any such organization. The results were similar for both men and women (charts 4.1 and 4.2).

Data table for Chart 4.1



Data table for Chart 4.1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 4.1. The information is grouped by Men (appearing as row headers), Contacted work-related organization, Contacted other type of organization and Did not contact any organization, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Men	Contacted work-related organization	Contacted other type of organization	Did not contact any organization
	dollars
2002	38,600	35,700	31,600
2003	43,300	38,800	35,400
2004	49,000	43,600	39,100
2005	58,600	45,800	42,700
2006	64,800	51,600	46,500
2007	73,900	57,500	50,300
2008	80,700	58,100	53,000
2009	77,500	57,600	53,100
2010	80,100	58,100	56,300
2011	85,800	59,300	57,800
2012	84,100	62,000	60,000
2013	83,100	62,700	62,300
2014	83,800	65,200	63,000
2015	85,400	66,400	64,500
2016	88,000	66,100	65,600
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Data table for Chart 4.2



Data table for Chart 4.2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 4.2. The information is grouped by Women (appearing as row headers), Contacted work-related organization, Contacted other type of organization and Did not contact any organization, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Women	Contacted work-related organization	Contacted other type of organization	Did not contact any organization
	dollars
2002	33,800	20,000	19,700
2003	37,400	22,900	22,600
2004	37,700	26,400	24,600
2005	35,200	29,200	27,300
2006	40,500	31,900	30,000
2007	49,500	35,000	32,800
2008	48,000	38,900	35,100
2009	47,500	37,600	37,500
2010	52,300	40,500	39,000
2011	55,700	41,900	40,000
2012	60,800	42,600	41,600
2013	62,000	44,000	43,500
2014	58,800	45,000	44,500
2015	55,900	45,200	45,300
2016	64,600	44,000	45,800
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Immigrants from groups identified as visible minorities persistently had lower employment income levels than those who were not part of a designated visible minority group

This section examines the association between two ethnocultural characteristics collected in LSIC—visible minority group and religious affiliation—and the long-term employment incomes of immigrants.

In 2002, at the beginning of the period, the incomes of immigrants who were part of designated visible minority groups were significantly lower than the incomes of those who were not part of a designated visible minority group (charts 5.1 and 5.2). Among men, for instance, immigrants not designated as visible minorities earned $42,900 in employment income, compared with $30,000 or less among immigrants who were Latin American ($29,000), Black ($27,100), West Asian ($26,400), Chinese ($25,800), Arab ($25,300), or Korean or Japanese ($22,300).

Data table for Chart 5.1



Data table for Chart 5.1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 5.1. The information is grouped by Visible minority group (appearing as row headers), 2002 and 2016, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Visible minority group	2002	2016
	dollars
Not in a visible minority group	42,900	76,500
Filipino	33,500	59,600
Latin American	29,000	72,000
Chinese	25,800	69,000
Black	27,100	52,700
South and Southeast Asian	34,700	70,000
Arab	25,300	54,900
West Asian	26,400	48,300
Korean and Japanese	22,300	43,000
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Data table for Chart 5.2



Data table for Chart 5.2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 5.2. The information is grouped by Visible minority group (appearing as row headers), 2002 and 2016, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Visible minority group	2002	2016
	dollars
Not in a visible minority group	23,400	49,900
Filipino	25,600	53,000
Latin American	19,800	47,200
Chinese	18,500	49,600
Black	19,300	44,300
South and Southeast Asian	18,000	39,500
Arab	16,100	36,800
West Asian	15,900	37,800
Korean and Japanese	12,900	27,600
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Although employment income levels increased in all visible minority groups over the period, the differences between visible minority groups were still significant 15 years later (in 2016). Among men, immigrants who were not part of a designated visible minority group earned $76,500 on average, more than any other group. Among visible minority groups, those who earned the least were those who reported being Korean or Japanese, at $43,000 on average, while those who reported being Latino American earned the most, at $72,000. Similar differences could be found for women as well. These results suggest that, although the incomes of groups designated as visible minorities do improve, differences in income levels persist over time.

Income levels also varied across religious affiliation categories. Income levels rose for all groups between 2002 and 2016, in line with previous findings in the literature. As they stay in the country longer, immigrants add to their language, culture and job market knowledge, and expand their social networks. This has a positive impact on their employment income.

Differences across religious groups, however, remained consistent throughout the whole period covered, especially for men. In 2002 (and in 2003), Muslim men and men with no religious affiliation were almost tied for the lowest reported income, but Muslim men had the lowest income in all subsequent years.^{Note 16} By 2016, Muslim men earned $53,800 on average (Chart 6.1), compared with an average employment income of at least $63,000 for men in all other religious affiliation categories. Among women, Muslims and those who practised an Eastern religion consistently reported the lowest employment incomes, both in 2002 and in 2016 (Chart 6.2). Of note, in 2016, men who were affiliated to an Eastern religion had the highest level of employment income compared with other categories of religious affiliation.

Data table for Chart 6.1



Data table for Chart 6.1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 6.1. The information is grouped by Men (appearing as row headers), 2002 and 2016, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Men	2002	2016
	dollars
None	26,600	68,100
Catholic	36,300	63,200
Protestant	38,000	69,300
Orthodox	34,700	68,100
Muslim	28,300	53,800
Eastern religion	34,700	74,800
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Data table for Chart 6.2



Data table for Chart 6.2
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for Chart 6.2. The information is grouped by Women (appearing as row headers), 2002 and 2016, calculated using dollars units of measure (appearing as column headers).

Women	2002	2016
	dollars
None	19,000	49,500
Catholic	22,800	49,100
Protestant	22,000	44,600
Orthodox	22,900	51,700
Muslim	15,800	37,300
Eastern religion	17,600	39,000
Source: Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2001; Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2016.

Even after other factors are controlled for, the association between social capital and employment income remains significant

The results above are descriptive and do not control for other characteristics that also have an influence on employment income, such as education, knowledge of an official language, region of origin, or immigration category. To account for these factors, a regression analysis was used, the results of which are shown in Table 3. A positive coefficient suggests that those who belong to a specific category had higher incomes than those who were in the reference category during the period. By contrast, a negative coefficient suggests that those who were in the corresponding category had lower employment incomes than those who were in the reference category.

Start of table 3



End of table

With respect to social capital variables, several results are worth noting. First, having relatives in Canada prior to admission was not significantly associated with employment income when other variables were taken into account, both for men and women. This is somewhat expected, as previous literature has suggested that the most rewarding social ties are “weak” ties (i.e., ties connecting people who are different from each other and that typically provide access to a wider variety of resources).^{Note 17}

Second, among women, those who had friends in Canada prior to admission had higher incomes than those who did not. This relationship was not statistically significant for men. In fact, among men, friends made after their admission seemed to make more of a difference on income levels. Specifically, those who had no post-admission friends or whose post-admission friends were mostly from their own ethnic group had significantly lower incomes than those whose friends were mostly from a different ethnic group. These results are consistent with the descriptive results presented above.

Third, as was the case in the descriptive results, those who contacted a work-related organization prior to their admission had higher employment incomes than those who did not contact any organization in Canada, although that relationship was significant only for men. Contacting another type of organization, by contrast, did not have a significant impact on the employment incomes of men or women.

With regard to the two ethnocultural characteristics examined in the model, although nearly all coefficients for visible minority groups were negative—which indicates that visible minority groups, for the most part, had lower incomes than non-visible minorities—not all relationships were significant. Interestingly, being part of a designated visible minority group seemed to have more of an impact on employment income for men than for women. Among men, those who identified as Latin American, Chinese, Black, Korean or Japanese had significantly lower incomes than those who were not part of a designated visible minority group. Among women, those who identified as Arab, or as Korean or Japanese had significantly lower employment incomes than those who were not identified as part of a designated visible minority group.

Lastly, after other factors were accounted for, there was little relationship between religious affiliation and employment income. This runs contrary to the descriptive results, which found significant income differences between religious affiliation categories, and suggests that the relationship found in the descriptive results was caused by other factors, including belonging to a visible minority group. There was one exception to this rule—results show that employment incomes of Muslim men and women were significantly lower than the reference category (Catholics).^{Note 18}

Conclusion

This study traced the income trajectory of a particular group of immigrants to Canada who were admitted in 2001 and surveyed through the LSIC. LSIC data were linked with IMDB data, which allowed for the examination of changes in immigrants’ employment income during the first 15 years of their lives in Canada. To the extent that data allowed, contributing factors to the observed income trends and changes in the nature of their contribution over time were examined. The focus was on two variable categories: those related to social capital and those related to the ethnocultural characteristics of the admitted immigrants.

The results from this study showed that not every form of social capital is positively correlated with employment income. For example, the presence of relatives does not seem to have much of an impact, but having friends does, especially post-immigration friends for men and pre-immigration friends for women. Combined, these results are consistent with the “strength of the weak ties” theory as a source of knowledge and connection with environments unfamiliar to immigrants. However, it is important to note that the benefits of social capital should not be limited to how much they influence income; there is an array of other benefits (social, psychological, cultural, etc.) that may be affected more visibly by these types of social capital. In addition, results associated with social capital may be associated with non-measured characteristics that can influence employment income, such as people skills.

Lastly, the results point to some ethnocultural biases in the Canadian labour market, reflected in the income penalties experienced by immigrants of certain ethno-religious backgrounds over a long period. Female immigrants with an Arab and Muslim background, in particular, are lagging behind others in terms of income, even after other factors related to their immigration admission categories, human capital, or demographic characteristics are controlled for. More research will be needed to understand why these groups experience long-term difficulties in the labour market. Also, a similar study for other cohort of immigrants could indicate if these results are specific to the 2001 cohort or applicable to immigrants in general.

Rose Evra is an analyst with the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division at Statistics Canada, and Abdolmohammad Kazemipur is a professor of sociology and Chair of Ethnic Studies at the University of Calgary.