Recensement 2016: Diversité ethnoculturelle

[GDS 772]

For fun, I played around with the new ethnic origin numbers from Statscan for 2016 and 1996 to see how things have changed over the last 20 years. I took the multiple response totals as newer generations can identify under two ethnic origins for both. Keep in mind its not country of origin, its more affiliation.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/rt-td/imm-fra.cfm

Largest groups 2016

Largest groups 1996

Largest increase raw numbers

Largest increase %

Decreases

New entries/non-match from 1996 (5k+)

 

 

[Né entre les rapides 1,858]

il y a une heure, GDS a dit :

For fun, I played around with the new ethnic origin numbers from Statscan for 2016 and 1996 to see how things have changed over the last 20 years. I took the multiple response totals as newer generations can identify under two ethnic origins for both. Keep in mind its not country of origin, its more affiliation.

Truly, what a great job!  You may have done it for fun, but the results using your «methodology» (which I commend you for spelling it honestly) convey a significant message -- which is  that there appear to have been significant changes in self-identitfication.

For the purpose of this present discussion, I am leaving aside changes which result from immigration.  I focus on some groups of people  of which a significant percentage have (or seem to have) modified how they identify themselves.  Using your numbers, I remark:

1) In absolute numbers, the largest shift was from «French» to «Canadian».  It is so massive that I find it impossible not to be greatly surprised.

2) The shift from «English» to «Canadian» is comparable, percentage wise,  but the absolute numbers are so low as to suggest that  the great shift has occured a long time ago (before 1996).

3) The trend for «Irish» and to a lesser extent «Scottish» suggests a behavior different from «English»; I wonder if this could be the result of a renewed pride of being distinct from English, despite their sharing a common language (for the vast majority) with the latter.

4) «Métis» show a large percentage increase, while First Nations  (a.k.a. North American Indians or Status Indians) are blatantly absent from the list, despite being substantially more numerous than the former.  This is certainly the result of most of them not participating in the Census,  but I deplore  the resulting optics for anyone who might not be familiar with this reality.

As a final remark, may I suggest we all demonstrate extreme prudence in attempting to draw HARD conclusions from numbers which, by their very nature, are  FLIMSY.  

 

[peekay 482]

Very good but you didn't mention which region.

Also, what exactly is Québecois in this context? It really doesn't make any sense. 

[GDS 772]

Its for the Montreal CMA.

Quebecois is not defined, its anybody who felt that their ethnic origin is Quebecois and chose to put that on their census. It could be a 13th generation french-canadian as much as it could be a relatively new arriver that feels more of an attachment to Quebec that the country they came from. 

[ConcordiaSalus 191]

Le October 26, 2017 à 22:17, GDS a dit :

For fun, I played around with the new ethnic origin numbers from Statscan for 2016 and 1996 to see how things have changed over the last 20 years. I took the multiple response totals as newer generations can identify under two ethnic origins for both. Keep in mind its not country of origin, its more affiliation.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/rt-td/imm-fra.cfm

Largest groups 2016

Largest groups 1996

Largest increase raw numbers

Largest increase %

Decreases

New entries/non-match from 1996 (5k+)

 

 

Thanks so much for this work.

something doesn't quite add up with the Jewish population. Census says they are 23.7 K. 35.8K according to the 2011 census. However other references puts them at about 90K. 

http://cija.ca/resource/canadian-jewry/basic-demographics-of-the-canadian-jewish-community/

According to that number. Jewish population would have dipped then regained in numbers.

What's the deal?

[GDS 772]

Its not a question of religion in this section, its a question of ethnicity, they made it more explicit this time. There is some movement towards Isreali and the bulk probably put eastern european or former soviet block countries.

[begratto 901]

Il y a 9 heures, GDS a dit :

Its not a question of religion in this section, its a question of ethnicity, they made it more explicit this time. There is some movement towards Isreali and the bulk probably put eastern european or former soviet block countries.

Ou ils ont juste coché "canadien".

[monctezuma 1,000,071]

Il y a 22 heures, GDS a dit :

Its for the Montreal CMA.

Quebecois is not defined, its anybody who felt that their ethnic origin is Quebecois and chose to put that on their census. It could be a 13th generation french-canadian as much as it could be a relatively new arriver that feels more of an attachment to Quebec that the country they came from. 

Are numbers in million or there is something I do not understand ?

Out of 8M Québéois / 5M of which speaks French at home, I am surprised only 91 000 identified themselves as "Québécois"

Moreover, out of 35M Canadians, only 1.7M identified themselves as Canadian !?????

 

[nephersir7 3,551]

il y a 3 minutes, monctezuma a dit :

Moreover, out of 35M Canadians, only 1.7M identified themselves as Canadian !?????

1.7M, c'est le chiffre pour la RMR de Montréal Le chiffre pour le Canada c'est 11.1M

[Né entre les rapides 1,858]

Le 28/10/2017 à 12:50, nephersir7 a dit :

1.7M, c'est le chiffre pour la RMR de Montréal Le chiffre pour le Canada c'est 11.1M

Merci pour la correction MAJEURE!

Quelle méprise.  Certains commentaires précédents, et certainement les miens de vendredi à 00:13, sont nuls et non avenus.