![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Toronto is Canada's major immigrant-receiving city and contains a wide diversity of ethnic groups. Although Canadians are generally receptive to immigration there is evidence that some recent immigrant groups, especially those concentrated in Toronto's inner suburbs, are not faring well economically. In this research we question whether spatial concentration necessarily equates with a lack of integration. Specifically, we review Toronto's changing ethnic geography, comparatively evaluate the functional integration of selected ethnic groups who entered Toronto primarily in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s with those who came later, and provide a more subjective perspective on integration, drawing from the experiences of recently arrived Bangladeshi immigrants. The findings call into question traditional perspectives on ethnic concentration, especially the spatial assimilation model, and highlight the importance of considering subjective integration, particularly satisfaction with life in the new country, as a way of alleviating the barriers of weak functional integration. We conclude from the Toronto case study that spatial concentration does not necessarily equate with a lack of integration although, for disadvantaged recent immigrants who tend to be concentrated in inner-suburban enclaves, there may be cause for worry. The latter is of increasing concern to city officials and community agencies.
Acknowledgements
The data for and are based on Statistics Canada Custom Product #EO1025, financial support for the purchase of which was provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada CURA grant awarded to the Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto and St Christopher House as lead partners. The Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement—Ontario also facilitated purchase of the data. Richard Maaranen, Centre for Urban and Community Studies prepared the maps. Detailed comments from two anonymous reviewers were particularly helpful in revising the paper.
Notes
1. Unless otherwise stated, Toronto refers to the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (Toronto CMA).
2. The inner suburbs in Toronto are those areas developed primarily from the end of World War Two to the end of the 1970s. On Figures 1, 2 and 3 they include the City of Toronto, excluding the area identified as Old Toronto. The latter is usually referred to as the central city or the former City of Toronto, an area that was first developed before World War Two.
3. These polls were undertaken by the Pew Global Attitudes Project (PGAP) in 2002 and IPSOS Polls in 2004.
4. The discussion in this section draws in part from Murdie and Teixeira (2003, 2006).
5. Since ‘Bangladeshi immigrant population, 2006’ is not available by census tract, ‘Bengali mother tongue, 2006’ was used to map the Bangladeshi population. Mother tongue is the language first learned and still understood. ‘Bengali mother-tongue population’ also includes an unknown number of Indian Bengalis but the number is probably quite small.
6. Visible minority status refers to the visible minority (non-White) group that a respondent belongs to (e.g. Black, South Asian, Chinese). This census variable was originally developed to satisfy employment equity concerns. Ethnic origin refers to the ethnic or cultural origin of the respondent's ancestors (e.g. Italian, Portuguese, Jamaican). Both are controversial and problematic, visible minority because of possible racial implications and ethnic origin because many respondents to the census increasingly identify themselves as Canadian or as multiple-origin. The latter reflects the reality of Canada's multiethnic mosaic.
7. This section draws in part from Ghosh (2006). The qualitative data are based on interviews with key informants in the Bangladeshi community and a semi-structured questionnaire administered to 30 Bangladeshi households. Of these, 11 lived in the Victoria Park area.
8. Conceptually, the Index of Segregation indicates the percentage of a particular group who would have to move in order to yield an even spatial distribution of that group. A value of 100 indicates complete segregation and a value of 0, no segregation.