Indexing Vitality vs. Indexing Integration: The
Feasibility of Measuring Outcomes for OLMCs
Jack Jedwab, President, Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration / Association for Canadian Studies
CIMI
The CIMI takes a comprehensive approach, using up-to-date datasets,
examining factors within the key dimensions of integration (i.e.
economic, social, health, and civic and political). The selection of
indicators is guided by both conceptual and methodological
considerations based on a literature review and recommendations by
our Expert Advisory Committee. Geographically, the rating system
applies to provinces and census metropolitan areas.
The CIMI looks at various integration-related outcomes, while also taking
into account socio-demographic factors in order to allow for a
consistent comparison between the immigrant and the Canadian-born
population. The CIMI uses descriptive data to demonstrate differences
or gaps between immigrants and non-immigrants per indicator, which
offers snapshots of integration trends for geographic areas in Canada
at a specific point in time.
What is community vitality?
Community vitality can be understood as a state, i.e. a set of
circumstances that can be analyzed at a specific point in time. The
analysis goes on to look at the capital or resources acquired and
accessible from a variety of perspectives: demographic and
demolinguistic, political, legal, economic, cultural and
environmental.
From yet another perspective, community vitality is also a
development process consisting of activities that determine its
relative strength over time. The idea of development inevitably
makes the concept of vitality much more complex.
Official Languages Support Programs (OLSPs) - Cooperation
with the Community Sector - Frame of Reference for the
Vitality of Official-Language Minority Communities (OLMCs)
Individuals who have a sense of belonging to the language community, who have
language aspirations and relevant behaviours.
A community with collective leadership and a capacity for mobilizing its members as well
as community organizations.
An environment that offers the possibility of receiving an education in your own language;
provides recreational and cultural activities in your own language; includes the presence
of institutions and an active offer of services; offers the possibility of participating in the
economic and social expansion of the community; and encourages the visibility of the
language.
Relationships with the majority that foster support for linguistic duality and cooperation
between the two language groups, recognition and respect of language rights, and
influence and authority within majority institutions.
Demographic and demolinguistic renewal through natural population growth,
immigration. and language practices that ensure language retention and transmission.
Finally, the ability of communities to adapt to a more diverse linguistic environment.
A CIMI for immigrants in official
language minority communities?
In general, the concept underlying the assessment of official
language minority communities (OLMCs) refers to the notion of
vitality. Identifying and assessing the vitality of OLMCs is a difficult
task.
Any assessment of vitality must properly define the concept of
“community.” It is impossible to achieve a comprehensive
understanding of the reality of Anglophone and Francophone
minorities based on the concept of a geographically defined
community; in other words, the cities, towns, villages or
neighbourhoods where they have a significant presence. Some
regional, provincial/territorial and sector groups are better defined
using the concept of a community of interest.
Dimensions of Vitality vs. Dimensions
of CIMI
Demographic dimension
Social dimension
Political & legal dimension
Cultural dimension
Economic dimension
Vitality¹
¹ “A Sharper View: Evaluating the Vitality of Official
Language Minority Communities” (Johnson and
Doucet, Office of the Commissioner of Official
Languages, 2006)
Economic dimension
Social dimension
Civic and democratic participation
Health dimension(access to services)
CIMI
Indicators
With properly defined notions of community and vitality, is it possible
to develop indicators that measure these concepts without
distorting the underlying aim of promoting them? How are
indicators useful to the community development process?
What quality criteria could be used to guide such an exercise? To
be useful, indicators must reflect the real meaning of assessment,
i.e. making a value judgment on something. This implies that the
overall values that govern such judgment are known, as well as the
objectives defined in pursuit of vitality.
Demographic dimension
Vitality CIMI
Demographic capital is a cornerstone of vitality,
since the very existence of a linguistic community is
tied to the number of people present. However,
we must also look beyond the figures, because
density (which refers to numerical concentration in
various parts of a given territory) and proportional
numerical strength in relation to the majority affect
the relative weight of demographic capital. Other
demographic factors are also at work, including
fertility, mortality, the age pyramid, migratory flows
(emigration and immigration), endogamy and
exogamy, linguistic continuity, the
intergenerational transmission of language, and
the level of individual bilingualism in an
environment.
The only relevant indicators will address mobility and interprovincial migration as issues affecting integration and vitality.
Should language transfer be included in an index for measuring
integration and vitality? If so, how would it be accounted for in the
conceptual justification? As shown below, immigrant Francophones have
lower rates of language transfer than non-immigrant Francophones in
Toronto.
Mother tongue: French
Toronto
2016
35–44 years old
Total -
Immigration
status and
period of
immigration
Non-
immigrantsImmigrants 2001 to 2010 2011 to 2016
Total - Language spoken
most often at home10120 6285 3455 1630 840
English 5155 3990 1080 495 130
French 3805 1805 1755 875 540
Non-official language 225 15 190 55 75
English and French 720 450 260 140 25
Social dimension
Vitality indicators CIMI indicators
Social capital is a concept used by the Privy Council Office (PCO) to assess the vitality of OLMCs. The PCO gives the following definition of social capital: “Networks and social ties based on a set of standards and values of reciprocity (e.g. trust, feeling of belonging and obligation, community pride) that play a role of integration and mobilization in community development.”
Belonging
Friends
Perceived discrimination
Political and legal dimension/
Civic and democratic participation
Vitality indicators CIMI indicators
Aunger (2005) uses access to services in the minority language and perceptions of such services as vitality indicators. Today, services offered by different levels of government can all be provided through a “one-stop” service, thereby making them more accessible to minority communities.
Volunteering
Voting
Should institutional representation be an issue?
With respect to access to services, only the health component of the CIMI examines access to health care to identify differences between immigrants and non-immigrants.
Economic dimension
Vitality indicators CIMI indicators
A comparative study of OLMCs in different
regions of Canada (the West, the Atlantic
provinces and Quebec) found that minority
populations generally follow a region’s
dominant economic trends in terms of
employment, dependents, income levels,
levels of education and government transfers
(Aunger, 2005). For example, “Franco-
Ontarians have the highest incomes, with an
average of $32,300, followed by Western
Francophones and Quebec Anglophones, with
$29,700 and $28,900 respectively. Acadians
rank fourth, with an overage income of
$23,000.”
Employment/Unemployment
Low income
Average and median income
Subsidized housing
Economic indicators
Toronto
25–44 years old
Average total Income ($)
Undergraduate degree
Total - First
official
language
spoken
English FrenchEnglish and
French
Total - Immigration status
and period of immigration60682.0 60709.0 74162.0 47704.0
Non-immigrants 72975.0 72840.0 84890.0 55077.0
Immigrants 50654.0 50738.0 59660.0 46495.0
Before 1981 100419.0 100686.0 105254.0 53402.0
1981 to 1990 72809.0 72533.0 114091.0 66380.0
1991 to 2000 56348.0 56372.0 64449.0 52169.0
2001 to 2010 45815.0 45787.0 51243.0 47919.0
2001 to 2005 49543.0 49506.0 51241.0 54207.0
2006 to 2010 41929.0 41869.0 51244.0 42754.0
2011 to 2014 36503.0 36543.0 44870.0 36016.0
Economic indicators by mother
tongue
Mother tongue
Toronto
25-44
Undergraduate
degree
Total English French
Total - Average
total income ($)60682 71290 77357
Non-immigrants 72975 73642 84936
Immigrants 50654 61922 63225
2001 to 2005 49543 57738 51052
2006 to 2010 41929 53233 53492
2011 to 2014 36503 51695 48207
Mother tongue
Montreal
25-44
Undergraduate
degree
Total English French
Total - Average
total income ($) 55509 57483 63122
Non-immigrants 63757 58736 65334
Immigrants 41528 48561 50378
2001 to 2005 48548 58095 57098
2006 to 2010 39884 55019 47302
2011 to 2014 29933 35030 40838
Figures and
definitions
being indexed?
Is a certain critical mass (number of people in a
given area) required for indexing? The vitality of
OLMC immigrants by geographic area
First official language spoken: French Immigrants
Toronto 25330
Ottawa 20200
Vancouver 6965
Edmonton 5180
Calgary 5115
Winnipeg 2580
Hamilton 2040
Moncton 1645
Windsor 1085
London 1055
Oshawa 890
Victoria 830
Kitchener - Cambridge - Waterloo 740
Halifax 710
St. Catherines - Niagara 585
Regina 550
Greater Sudbury 485
Saskatoon 450
Edmundston 435
Kingston 435
Definition of belonging (mother tongue,
language spoken at home, first official
language spoken)
“A definition that would optimize the number of
Francophones would include the following individuals: (a)
all individuals for whom French is the first language learned
and still understood (regardless of whether they also report
other languages); and (b) all individuals for whom French is
not their mother tongue but who report French, or French
and English, as their first official language spoken.”
Which language identifier is best suited to measuring
OLMC integration? Using first official language
spoken gives three times more Anglophones in
Quebec than Francophones in the rest of Canada.
Mother
tongue
First official language
spoken
Immigrants French FrenchEnglish &
French
N.L. 240 280 150
P.E.I. 120 155 90
N.S. 855 1110 800
N.B. 3010 4110 950
Ontario 35790 56250 55385
Manitoba 1990 3045 1980
Saskatchewan 945 1330 1130
Alberta 7850 11820 11140
B.C. 8315 10255 11215
Total 59115 88 355 82840
Mother
tongue
First official language
spoken
Immigrants English EnglishEnglish &
French
Quebec 71760 270005 182335
Comparative analysis of integration:
OLMC immigrants vs. other immigrants, or
OLMC immigrants vs. non-immigrants
Should we develop overall indicators for OLMCs (geographically
defined, i.e. a municipality or a province) before establishing
indicators for OLMC immigrants (versus non-immigrants)?
Can identifiable differences between OLMC immigrants and non-
immigrants within a given geographic area serve as the basis for
conclusions on the success of integration?
Or should such identifiable differences between OLMC immigrants
and non-immigrants within a given geographic area be compared
to differences between immigrants and non-immigrants in general
across the same area?
Or should these differences be compared to those between OLMC
immigrants and non-immigrants overall (taking a Canada-wide
perspective)?
Conclusion
