2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.

2006 Census

MRIA

May 24, 2007

Anil Arora

2

Pressures to change for 2006

• Privacy issues (local enumerator)• CCRA automation efforts and impact on

capture of Census data• Internet option (GOL and public

expectations)• Recruiting large decentralized workforce• Timeliness improvements• Environment

3

Lessons learned

• Recruitment

• Procurement

• Clustering of responses on Census Day

• Deadline

• Co-ordination of communications initiatives with collection activities

• Confidentiality and security

4

Response Distribution by Mode of Response

Mode of ResponseResponse

%

Mail 63.1

Internet 18.5

Field NRFU 16.2

CATI 2.2

5

Internet Penetration

Internet Home Penetration Rates(Household Internet Use Survey)

0%

10%20%

30%40%

50%

60%70%

80%

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

6

Internet Returns

Daily Internet Response

0

50,000100,000

150,000

200,000250,000

300,000

2-May 16-May 30-May 13-Jun 27-Jun 11-Jul 25-Jul 8-Aug 22-Aug

7

Internet Response byProvince/Territory

Internet Response Rates

18.5

16.014.8

17.016.0 15.6

20.1

15.0 15.0

21.420.1 20.5

13.6

0.00

5

10

15

20

25

% o

f re

sp

on

ses

8

Household size

ResonseChannel Single 2 to 4 5 or more

CHL / Field 22.5% 16.1% 20.1%Internet 13.5% 19.5% 26.0%Mail Back 63.1% 63.5% 50.8%Unknown 0.8% 0.9% 3.2%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

9

Internet Response by Type of Questionnaire

Type of Questionnaire Internet

Short 2A 79.6

Long 2B 20.4

10

Initial Quality

Rejection Rate by Mode of Response and Type of Questionnaire

Mode of Response

Short 2A

(%)

Long 2B

(%)

Mail 5.6 39.1

Internet 2.5 5.7

11

Response Comparison (%)

Mode of Response

Push Sample

(20,000)

Control Sample

(20,000)

Total Census

(≈ 11.9M)

Mail 3.7 61.1 63.1

Internet 61.8 23.8 18.3

Field NRFU 26.8 13.0 16.3

CATI 7.7 2.1 2.3

12

3 follow-up surveys

Conducted in the summer and fall of 2006

• to evaluate the Internet collection method

• to help improve this option for future censuses.

• understand the Internet response process without a paper questionnaire,

• evaluate the satisfaction of those who used the online version

13

Results

• Reaction to the letter positive (70%)

• Most respondents had high speed (90%)

• 21% had some difficulties

• 82% used Internet every day

Of those respondents who did not use internet

• 10% were not aware of the option

• 14% lack of skill/not interested/no computer

Population and Dwelling Counts

March 13, 2007

15

Higher population growth than in previous intercensal period

13.4%

4.0%

5.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

1956 to1961

1961 to1966

1966 to1971

1971 to1976

1976 to1981

1981 to1986

1986 to1991

1991 to1996

1996 to2001

2001 to2006

16

Fastest growing population among G8 countries - 2001 to 2006

-2.4%

0.0%

0.4%

1.9%

3.1%

3.1%

5.0%

5.4%

-3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%

Russia

Germany

Japan

United Kingdom

France

Italy

United States

Canada

Russia

17

Canada’s population has nearly doubled in 50 years

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Mil

lio

ns 31,612,897

16,080,791

18

Higher population growth in most provinces and territories

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T. Nvt.

1996 to 2001

2001 to 2006

Canada 2001 to 2006

19

Ontario

• Population growth in Ontario represents half the population increase in Canada

• Other than Alberta, Ontario is the only province with a population growth (6.6%) higher than the national average (5.4%)

• Similar population growth compared to the previous intercensal periods

20

Urbanization continues

Proportion of Canadians living in urban areas, 1901 to 2006

37

4549

54 54

6267

74 76 76 78 80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006

%

21

Majority of Canada’s population growth took place in CMAs

• The 33 census metropolitan areas (CMAs) now house more than two-thirds (68%) of Canadians

• Population growth in CMAs is higher than the national average (6.9% versus 5.4%)

• Six CMAs of one million or more inhabitants: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa - Gatineau, Calgary and Edmonton

22

Six of the 15 fastest growing CMAs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Barrie

Calga

ry

Oshaw

a

Edmont

on

Kelow

na

Toron

to

K itche

ner

Guelph

Abbots

ford

Monc

ton

Vancou

ver

Sherb

rook

e

Ottaw

a - G

atineau

Victo

ria

Brant

ford

Mont

réal

Peter

borou

gh

Lond

on

Win

dsor

St. J oh

n's

Hamilt

on

Québec

Halifax

K ingst

on

Saska

toon

St. Cat

harin

es - N

iaga

ra

Trois

-Riv

ière

s

Win

nipe

g

Greate

r / G

rand

Sud

bury

Regin

a

Thund

er Bay

Saint

Joh

n

Sague

nay

Population growth between 2001 and 2006

Canada

23

Urban spread in Canada

• Population of metropolitan areas continue to spread • Within CMAs, central municipalities grow more slowly (4.2%) than

peripheral municipalities (11.1%)

24

Mid-size urban centres (census agglomerations)

• 111 mid-size urban centres (CAs) in Canada• Home to 4.1 million Canadians• Lower population growth rate than the national

average (4.0% versus 5.4%)• Seven out of the top eight fastest growing CAs

are located in Alberta• The five fastest declining CAs are located in

northern British Columbia

25

Small towns and rural Canada

• Home to 6 million Canadians• Slower population growth than the national

average (1.0% versus 5.4%)• Higher population growth for rural regions located

close to a metropolitan area (4.7%)• Population of remote rural areas is nearly stable

(-0.1%)

26

2006 Census releases

• July 17, 2007: Age and sex• September 12, 2007: Marital status, families, households,

housing• December 4, 2007: Languages, mobility, migration,

immigration, citizenship• January 15, 2008: Aboriginal peoples• March 4, 2008: Labour, place of work, commuting to work,

education, language • April 2, 2008: Ethnic origin, visible minorities • May 1, 2008: Income, earnings, shelter costs