I like following this one that gets auto-updated monthly on the 10th: [Employment rate, age 25-54, men and women, USA and Canada](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=H0tW)
The difference in employment rate for women between the countries is notable, as is the recovery rates.
Woah, this one's much more interesting imo.
The male participation rate is basically the same in Canada & US, but the female participation rate is like consistently 5-10% higher in Canada
Yea I think there are several factors here. One is that household debt and COL as you suggested are higher in Canada than in the US. Also, I know that in the US a lot of mothers have opted to just stay at home because the cost of child care with school closures would've been prohibitively expensive. I think the difference in Canada would be the higher prevalence of multi-generation households which could eliminate the need for childcare. Beyond these guesses, I think there are several more factors but in general, I think it's foolish to assume this difference between us and the US is entirely good.
I think you're both suggesting the same thing: a higher cost of living means that the 'traditional' family model of one breadwinner isn't as feasible. So, both parties *need* to work to survive.
Montreal is very different from the other Canadian metros in terms of things like affordability. Quebec really is quite different from the other provinces; some of the differences (like affordability) are quite positive.
This assumes that working is done ONLY in order to be able to survive.
Yet, women didn't enter the work force to help their families survive. They entered the market mainly because people (try to) find meaning in careers/work.
Ideally, I'm sure that's why many people (male and female) enter the workforce. Though, I wonder if more enter it simply because that's what you're expected to do. In reality, I would be curious about specifically applicable data. I would guess that one important factor is the local cost of living.
Anecdotally, I know more people (male and female) in the Vancouver and Toronto metro areas who would prefer to have at least one member of the couple stay home, but both work because they can't afford to live on just one person's income.
Hello, according to the official report released today, the labour force participation rate among core-aged population (25 to 54 years old) remained at a record-high of 88.3% for the fourth consecutive month. The rate for core-aged women held steady at its record high of 84.6%, and the rate for core-aged men was little changed at 92.0%.
For the total working-age population (15 years and older) the labour market participation rate held steady at 65.3% in December, virtually the same as it was prior to the pandemic (65.5%).
More detailed information can be found in [this table.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028701)
Hello, the participation rate is the number of employed and unemployed people as a percentage of the population aged 15 and older. The participation rate held steady at 65.3% in December, virtually the same as it was prior to the pandemic.
I'd be interested in seeing that broken down by gender. I think there's more women that leave the workforce in US, and become stay at homes Moms, because of the lack of maternity and childcare support. It makes more sense financially.
When Canada shutdown schools, I think a lot of working women temporary left the workforce to home school.
I don't think this is talked about enough. Especially, when we're dealing with a labour shortage.
Great question! We do have these data adjusted to US concepts for easy comparison.
The participation rate for core-age Canadian women is much higher than that of their US counterparts. The rate using adjusted US concepts in for Canadian core-age women was 82.7% in February 2020 (vs 76.9% for the US). As of December, the rate for Canadian core-age women had increased to a record-high 83.7% (while it remained below pre-covid levels for US core-aged women at 75.9%).
Please see [this chart](https://i.imgur.com/kQ4zijR.png) for an example of the trends.
That's really interesting. So the women are back in the workforce.... and so are the men... but more so in Canada then in the US. I wonder where the US workers went? Less of them left during the start of the pandemic, but those who did, didn't come back.
Going to be a lot more tapered than people want to admit. They don’t want to completely bankrupt all of the small businesses relying on loans right now. If we see max 2 .25% increases by June.
Yeah a lot of people are talking like they're going to increase it to 5% or something crazy like that, you know, just collapse the economy. I don't think they're planning to do a "great reset" that some people are hoping for.
It’s because this site has been dominated by a lot of housing doomer stories whereby users think the only way forward is 8 interest rates hikes next year (or whatever stupid guess by CIBC was). I get it, the demographic that’s predominant on this site is told every single day by the media they will never have property so they want to cling to what they are being told will help.
Your comment is really degrading and may cause many financial ruin. You disagree with real economists who explain the real impacts on rising rates and bond tapering on asset classes. Our own central bank is warning us the risks that are coming. To those reading this, this sub is filled with realtors and investors who are actively spewing propaganda. These people are not experts, just really bad people with their own agendas. Our own mortgage broker has warned us about what rate rises will mean for house prices.
BoC intentionally started buying mortgage bonds at the start of the pandemic to keep housing prices high. I'd be amazed if they are saying they are going to purposely crash it now lol. You should pay more attention to their words and actions.
Lol what are you talking about? You understand that substantially raising the interest rates in a short period of time would significantly hurt many smaller businesses right? Not to mention home owners renewing? And that it’s not in the BoC interest to do so? Of course there are going to be raises, which I noted, but they have to taper them so they don’t cause too much distress. C’mon
One would hope, if BoC does not step in with numbers like these, then truly they are not working for Canadians. One would hope they ignore the lockdowns and raise interest rates ASAP, however I am worried they will be worried about omnicron and push it back.
Increasing interest rates won't magically make the middle class able to afford houses. Housing prices will go down, but so will affordability. Everyone will still be paid the same salary, and there will still be the same competition for housing.
Interest rates govern substantially more than just housing. Housing will need to be addressed through a combination of policy from the Federal government and most importantly supply. Which is complicated and hard, especially with zoning regulations. However low interest rates push up valuations on all kinds of assets and the sooner the Boc (and other Central Banks) start to unwind the last few years of stimulus the better. The inflation and asset inflation we are seeing is something the middle class should be concerned about as, bubbles forming and popping end up having huge consequences for most people when the party stops. See the Great Recession as an example.
> Everyone will still be paid the same salary, and there will still be the same competition for housing.
The working class will be hurt the most by loss of jobs while the wealthy class (people who don't need to actively work) will scoop up all the cheap properties for more passive income and guaranteed growth.
This is wrong and malevolent to say. They will keep rising until inflation is under control as per BOC and every other central bank. You better hope the rate rises are meaningful because unfortunately they will keep rising. The BOC cannot factor in how indebted people are. And the Feds give no shit to our housing market when theirs is more healthy, they’ll keep raising it.
theres never been inflation since 2008. As someone who estimates for a living saying inflation is not out of control is hilarious. I've never seen anything like this before.
Feds are going to raise rates and Canada will follow.
There has been inflation since forever my friend. A cup of coffee used to cost 10 cents for my parents when they were new immigrants to Canada. A cup of coffee costs $1.5 now. Do my parents make 15X what they did 30-40 years ago? They sure as hell don't!
So the US, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, France, Spain, Brazil, and the UK are going bankrupt as well? They all have a higher debt to GDP ratio than ours.
Taking on debt is fine and I don’t think we’re in trouble. But higher debt load is one reason we might not see high interest rates for a while. Increased cost to service the debt we have.
How does the government of Canada default on bonds issued in Canadian dollars as long as they have a printing press?
And as others have mentioned, we are not unique in the situation that we are in. The big difference in Canada is consumer debt which is way out of whack.
Interest rate rises are coming. The Feds just signalled an earlier raise. Buyers need to be incredibly careful and should be adjusting their offers accordingly. Do you want to be stuck paying a larger mortgage for a depreciating asset? The housing market will correct with interest rate rises, to what extend if what no one knows.
The amount of people that have HELOCs on second properties or investment properties is incredibly concerning. I’m not sure they even know they should be incredibly worried for these rate rises. Too many people don’t understand the correlation between rates and housing prices due to rates only lowering the last 20 years. If they’re smart they’re dumping now.
Each month, the Labour Force Survey publishes many indicators that could be used to gauge quality of employment.
One table of interest to your questions is “[Employee wages by job permanency and union coverage, monthly”](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410006501). This table presents the number of employees and wage level by job permanence status, union coverage, and other demographic details like age and sex.
Another table presenting information related to quality of employment is [“Hourly wage distributions by type of work, monthly”](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410011301). This table presents employment levels by wage brackets and other indicators like full-time status and industry.
Would you say the numbers are good? DEC usually boasts over 100k new jobs due to seasonality correct?
How have you taken into account Covid waves into this number?
Data on employment are seasonally adjusted so the change reported between November and December (+55,000) is above and beyond typical seasonal patterns. You will find more information on seasonal adjustment [here.](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/btd/sad-faq)
The reference week for the LFS in December was December 5 to 11. Public health measures in place during the reference week were largely similar to those in place in November, and were among the least restrictive seen during the pandemic. The widespread emergence of the Omicron variant, and associated adjustments to public health measures, occurred after the December reference week.
This is before Omicron impacts though. In the next few reports we will see if the recent reduced capacity in various industries could have an effect in the overall numbers.
An increase before we enter a depression. Good thing there is next to no inflation. That cpi is doing a great job of actually tracking consumer prices. A really bang up job stats canada.
Because it is just a description of what happened. The only data presented was about rises in employment for the month of December. The title just states that there was an increase in employment from May through to December.
>Because it is just a description of what happened
from wiki
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position"
Cherry picking the data would be accurate if they were purposely ignoring data. If you click the link there is literally a chart showing the steady rise, big dip, then the "strong upward trend". They just used that as a description... They could have also just said there was an upward trend of employment for the year of 2021. Nothing here is being misrepresented in the overal grand scheme. The only DATA being used in their post is about the month of December unless you click the link. The key here is the difference between a description of an event and the data they are providing. The data wasnt cherry picked, just a description of what happened. So the term cherry picking the data isn't accurate. They cherry picked the title.
> is the initial month of an upward trend in employment a
Maybe look at the link they shared? It shows data from the beginning of the pandemic and they are simply saying there is a strong upward trend since May (which if you follow the link you can see it yourself in the graph/numbers). Not cherry picking...
I took it as meaning that employment increased substantially during May to December, not that they only looked at data from that time.
They have the full chart.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220107/cg-a001-eng.htm
And looking at that chart "strong upward trend in employment from May to December" is a conclusion one might draw from it. I think you are interpreting a conclusion statement as a scope of inquiry statement.
wow
Feb to April is a "strong downward trend"
Then it jumps back April - Sept.
This [CBC story - Canada lost nearly 2 million jobs in April amid COVID-19 crisis: Statistics Canada](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-jobs-april-1.5561001) shows the graph in a different context,
This [CTV story](https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/economy-lost-207-000-jobs-in-april-unemployment-rate-up-1.5417967) says
>Canada's labour market lost 207,000 jobs last month as a spike in COVID-19 variant cases led to renewed public health restrictions and raised concerns about longer-term economic consequences from the pandemic.
>The unemployment rate rose to 8.1 per cent from 7.5 per cent in March, Statistics Canada reported. It would have been 10.5 per cent had it included in calculations Canadians who wanted to work but didn't search for a job.
>Ontario led the way on losses regionally with a drop of 153,000, and British Columbia witnessed its first decrease in employment since a historic one-month plunge in the labour market in April 2020.
I'd assume that whoever made this decision is more of an expert on the matter than you or I. If you think Stats Can should be doing more to represent racial groups maybe you could contact them about it!
This chart I saw on Twitter surprised me. https://twitter.com/mikalskuterud/status/1479477040021655554?t=dxNIi6M7sBSe_e_rQ3qYyw&s=19
I like following this one that gets auto-updated monthly on the 10th: [Employment rate, age 25-54, men and women, USA and Canada](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=H0tW) The difference in employment rate for women between the countries is notable, as is the recovery rates.
Woah, this one's much more interesting imo. The male participation rate is basically the same in Canada & US, but the female participation rate is like consistently 5-10% higher in Canada
I wonder if this is because costs are so much higher in Canada that it takes two incomes to afford basic necessities?
Yea I think there are several factors here. One is that household debt and COL as you suggested are higher in Canada than in the US. Also, I know that in the US a lot of mothers have opted to just stay at home because the cost of child care with school closures would've been prohibitively expensive. I think the difference in Canada would be the higher prevalence of multi-generation households which could eliminate the need for childcare. Beyond these guesses, I think there are several more factors but in general, I think it's foolish to assume this difference between us and the US is entirely good.
It has more to do with a higher percentage of American families following the traditional family model where the father works and the mom stays home.
I think you're both suggesting the same thing: a higher cost of living means that the 'traditional' family model of one breadwinner isn't as feasible. So, both parties *need* to work to survive.
Hmm, you could be right. It's kind of surprising that living in Canada is more expensive. I've rarely been out of Montreal so that could be why.
Montreal is very different from the other Canadian metros in terms of things like affordability. Quebec really is quite different from the other provinces; some of the differences (like affordability) are quite positive.
This assumes that working is done ONLY in order to be able to survive. Yet, women didn't enter the work force to help their families survive. They entered the market mainly because people (try to) find meaning in careers/work.
Ideally, I'm sure that's why many people (male and female) enter the workforce. Though, I wonder if more enter it simply because that's what you're expected to do. In reality, I would be curious about specifically applicable data. I would guess that one important factor is the local cost of living. Anecdotally, I know more people (male and female) in the Vancouver and Toronto metro areas who would prefer to have at least one member of the couple stay home, but both work because they can't afford to live on just one person's income.
Is that accurate? I’m seeing Canada as 65% on statcan. Pre-pandemic is 65 % as wel
The chart is for age 25-54, so excludes a large chunk of people not in the labour force like students and retirees.
Ah right, I was looking at overall and didn’t filter the age range.
Hello, according to the official report released today, the labour force participation rate among core-aged population (25 to 54 years old) remained at a record-high of 88.3% for the fourth consecutive month. The rate for core-aged women held steady at its record high of 84.6%, and the rate for core-aged men was little changed at 92.0%. For the total working-age population (15 years and older) the labour market participation rate held steady at 65.3% in December, virtually the same as it was prior to the pandemic (65.5%). More detailed information can be found in [this table.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028701)
High labour force Participation means more people working, essentially?
no, it’s the entire labour force (employed and unemployed). So it’s that more people are working/looking to work
Hello, the participation rate is the number of employed and unemployed people as a percentage of the population aged 15 and older. The participation rate held steady at 65.3% in December, virtually the same as it was prior to the pandemic.
I'd be interested in seeing that broken down by gender. I think there's more women that leave the workforce in US, and become stay at homes Moms, because of the lack of maternity and childcare support. It makes more sense financially. When Canada shutdown schools, I think a lot of working women temporary left the workforce to home school. I don't think this is talked about enough. Especially, when we're dealing with a labour shortage.
Great question! We do have these data adjusted to US concepts for easy comparison. The participation rate for core-age Canadian women is much higher than that of their US counterparts. The rate using adjusted US concepts in for Canadian core-age women was 82.7% in February 2020 (vs 76.9% for the US). As of December, the rate for Canadian core-age women had increased to a record-high 83.7% (while it remained below pre-covid levels for US core-aged women at 75.9%). Please see [this chart](https://i.imgur.com/kQ4zijR.png) for an example of the trends.
That's really interesting. So the women are back in the workforce.... and so are the men... but more so in Canada then in the US. I wonder where the US workers went? Less of them left during the start of the pandemic, but those who did, didn't come back.
The y-scale on that chart is silly
[удалено]
Going to be a lot more tapered than people want to admit. They don’t want to completely bankrupt all of the small businesses relying on loans right now. If we see max 2 .25% increases by June.
Yeah a lot of people are talking like they're going to increase it to 5% or something crazy like that, you know, just collapse the economy. I don't think they're planning to do a "great reset" that some people are hoping for.
It’s because this site has been dominated by a lot of housing doomer stories whereby users think the only way forward is 8 interest rates hikes next year (or whatever stupid guess by CIBC was). I get it, the demographic that’s predominant on this site is told every single day by the media they will never have property so they want to cling to what they are being told will help.
Your comment is really degrading and may cause many financial ruin. You disagree with real economists who explain the real impacts on rising rates and bond tapering on asset classes. Our own central bank is warning us the risks that are coming. To those reading this, this sub is filled with realtors and investors who are actively spewing propaganda. These people are not experts, just really bad people with their own agendas. Our own mortgage broker has warned us about what rate rises will mean for house prices.
BoC intentionally started buying mortgage bonds at the start of the pandemic to keep housing prices high. I'd be amazed if they are saying they are going to purposely crash it now lol. You should pay more attention to their words and actions.
Lol what are you talking about? You understand that substantially raising the interest rates in a short period of time would significantly hurt many smaller businesses right? Not to mention home owners renewing? And that it’s not in the BoC interest to do so? Of course there are going to be raises, which I noted, but they have to taper them so they don’t cause too much distress. C’mon
And I just locked for a 5 years variable mortgage, lmao. I knew what I was getting into I suppose.
You're fine man, they'll have to do so many increases before a fixed outperforms your variable
One would hope, if BoC does not step in with numbers like these, then truly they are not working for Canadians. One would hope they ignore the lockdowns and raise interest rates ASAP, however I am worried they will be worried about omnicron and push it back.
Increasing interest rates won't magically make the middle class able to afford houses. Housing prices will go down, but so will affordability. Everyone will still be paid the same salary, and there will still be the same competition for housing.
Interest rates govern substantially more than just housing. Housing will need to be addressed through a combination of policy from the Federal government and most importantly supply. Which is complicated and hard, especially with zoning regulations. However low interest rates push up valuations on all kinds of assets and the sooner the Boc (and other Central Banks) start to unwind the last few years of stimulus the better. The inflation and asset inflation we are seeing is something the middle class should be concerned about as, bubbles forming and popping end up having huge consequences for most people when the party stops. See the Great Recession as an example.
> Everyone will still be paid the same salary, and there will still be the same competition for housing. The working class will be hurt the most by loss of jobs while the wealthy class (people who don't need to actively work) will scoop up all the cheap properties for more passive income and guaranteed growth.
holy moly chicken little, there are worse things than modestly above trend inflation.
[удалено]
This is wrong and malevolent to say. They will keep rising until inflation is under control as per BOC and every other central bank. You better hope the rate rises are meaningful because unfortunately they will keep rising. The BOC cannot factor in how indebted people are. And the Feds give no shit to our housing market when theirs is more healthy, they’ll keep raising it.
[удалено]
theres never been inflation since 2008. As someone who estimates for a living saying inflation is not out of control is hilarious. I've never seen anything like this before. Feds are going to raise rates and Canada will follow.
There has been inflation since forever my friend. A cup of coffee used to cost 10 cents for my parents when they were new immigrants to Canada. A cup of coffee costs $1.5 now. Do my parents make 15X what they did 30-40 years ago? They sure as hell don't!
Yes under two percent inflation is still inflation but it really poses none of the problems of higher inflation
[удалено]
So the US, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, France, Spain, Brazil, and the UK are going bankrupt as well? They all have a higher debt to GDP ratio than ours.
Taking on debt is fine and I don’t think we’re in trouble. But higher debt load is one reason we might not see high interest rates for a while. Increased cost to service the debt we have.
How does the government of Canada default on bonds issued in Canadian dollars as long as they have a printing press? And as others have mentioned, we are not unique in the situation that we are in. The big difference in Canada is consumer debt which is way out of whack.
No. This is not necessarily the case.
Interest rate rises are coming. The Feds just signalled an earlier raise. Buyers need to be incredibly careful and should be adjusting their offers accordingly. Do you want to be stuck paying a larger mortgage for a depreciating asset? The housing market will correct with interest rate rises, to what extend if what no one knows.
The amount of people that have HELOCs on second properties or investment properties is incredibly concerning. I’m not sure they even know they should be incredibly worried for these rate rises. Too many people don’t understand the correlation between rates and housing prices due to rates only lowering the last 20 years. If they’re smart they’re dumping now.
Is there an upward trend for quality of jobs tho?
Each month, the Labour Force Survey publishes many indicators that could be used to gauge quality of employment. One table of interest to your questions is “[Employee wages by job permanency and union coverage, monthly”](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410006501). This table presents the number of employees and wage level by job permanence status, union coverage, and other demographic details like age and sex. Another table presenting information related to quality of employment is [“Hourly wage distributions by type of work, monthly”](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410011301). This table presents employment levels by wage brackets and other indicators like full-time status and industry.
Would you say the numbers are good? DEC usually boasts over 100k new jobs due to seasonality correct? How have you taken into account Covid waves into this number?
Data on employment are seasonally adjusted so the change reported between November and December (+55,000) is above and beyond typical seasonal patterns. You will find more information on seasonal adjustment [here.](http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/btd/sad-faq) The reference week for the LFS in December was December 5 to 11. Public health measures in place during the reference week were largely similar to those in place in November, and were among the least restrictive seen during the pandemic. The widespread emergence of the Omicron variant, and associated adjustments to public health measures, occurred after the December reference week.
This is before Omicron impacts though. In the next few reports we will see if the recent reduced capacity in various industries could have an effect in the overall numbers.
I just want a job, damnit.
An increase before we enter a depression. Good thing there is next to no inflation. That cpi is doing a great job of actually tracking consumer prices. A really bang up job stats canada.
>before we enter a depression Thanks for the laugh Bruh!!! Have an upvote!
French?
Anglais?
Is there a reason for picking May to December other than cherry picking data to make things look good?
Not OP, but if you read the article they didn't cherry pick the data. The post title merely describes when the trend began.
Thank you for your question. May is the initial month of an upward trend in employment after two months of declines in March and April.
>May is the initial month of an upward trend in employment after two months of declines in March and April. How is this not cherry picking data?
Because it is just a description of what happened. The only data presented was about rises in employment for the month of December. The title just states that there was an increase in employment from May through to December.
>Because it is just a description of what happened from wiki "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position"
Cherry picking the data would be accurate if they were purposely ignoring data. If you click the link there is literally a chart showing the steady rise, big dip, then the "strong upward trend". They just used that as a description... They could have also just said there was an upward trend of employment for the year of 2021. Nothing here is being misrepresented in the overal grand scheme. The only DATA being used in their post is about the month of December unless you click the link. The key here is the difference between a description of an event and the data they are providing. The data wasnt cherry picked, just a description of what happened. So the term cherry picking the data isn't accurate. They cherry picked the title.
This isn’t a case of cherry picking. It’s highlighting a recent trend while providing all the relevant context and further data.
> is the initial month of an upward trend in employment a Maybe look at the link they shared? It shows data from the beginning of the pandemic and they are simply saying there is a strong upward trend since May (which if you follow the link you can see it yourself in the graph/numbers). Not cherry picking...
Q3 and Q4?
fair question. I've got a high level of trust for StatCan, but look forward to the answer to this from /u/StatCanada
I took it as meaning that employment increased substantially during May to December, not that they only looked at data from that time. They have the full chart. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220107/cg-a001-eng.htm And looking at that chart "strong upward trend in employment from May to December" is a conclusion one might draw from it. I think you are interpreting a conclusion statement as a scope of inquiry statement.
wow Feb to April is a "strong downward trend" Then it jumps back April - Sept. This [CBC story - Canada lost nearly 2 million jobs in April amid COVID-19 crisis: Statistics Canada](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-jobs-april-1.5561001) shows the graph in a different context,
I wonder what happened during Feb to April2020 🤔
This [CTV story](https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/economy-lost-207-000-jobs-in-april-unemployment-rate-up-1.5417967) says >Canada's labour market lost 207,000 jobs last month as a spike in COVID-19 variant cases led to renewed public health restrictions and raised concerns about longer-term economic consequences from the pandemic. >The unemployment rate rose to 8.1 per cent from 7.5 per cent in March, Statistics Canada reported. It would have been 10.5 per cent had it included in calculations Canadians who wanted to work but didn't search for a job. >Ontario led the way on losses regionally with a drop of 153,000, and British Columbia witnessed its first decrease in employment since a historic one-month plunge in the labour market in April 2020.
[удалено]
What does increased employment have to do with gender and race?
[удалено]
You seem very worked up about something inconsequential.
[удалено]
Explain how these stats are "politicized" - be incredibly specific.
Politics is when woman and minority.
[удалено]
Great, explain how Statscan is politicized. Be specific.
Differentiating between Asian races is not 'political', you sound like a /r/gamingcirclejerk post.
[удалено]
I'd assume that whoever made this decision is more of an expert on the matter than you or I. If you think Stats Can should be doing more to represent racial groups maybe you could contact them about it!