In an unusual move, Statistics Canada sought to defend its methodology for estimating the number of temporary residents in Canada, the accuracy of which was recently questioned by experts.
Posted at 5:56 p.m.
“Our methods are robust and transparent,” an agency specialist said at a briefing intended to describe the approach Statistics Canada uses in producing census data on the subject to be released Sept. 27.
Criticism of the Non-Permanent Residents (NPR) estimates first came from Benjamin Tal, CIBC’s deputy chief economist for global markets, who released a report on August 30 estimating that there could be a million more RNPs in the country as government data indicates. The main reason for this discrepancy would be that temporary residents are assumed to have left the country no later than 30 days after their visa expires.
In 2021, the number of non-permanent residents in Canada was estimated at one million. Mr. Tal believes the number is closer to two million or even more.
Another study by the CD Howe Institute examines employment estimates and finds a significant difference, also at one million people, between the number of temporary residents who are part of the labor force. According to Statistics Canada’s Labor Force Survey (LFS) and the number of temporary residents counted by Immigration Canada.
Estimating non-permanent residents is important for several reasons, including assessing housing needs, determining the amount of federal transfers to each province based on population, or even calculating GDP per capita.
Statistics Canada declined to address the arguments of these studies, saying it was up to their authors to defend them. After insisting on the accuracy of its findings, the agency instead showed how it has overcome the difficulties associated with estimating temporary residents.
She also stated that she has reviewed her methodology to meet Immigration Canada’s processing times.
“Although Statistics Canada has procedures in place to count the entire population and the agency conducts tracking activities, non-permanent residents can be difficult to reach and sometimes do not have the opportunity to complete their census questionnaire,” Statistics Canada acknowledged, adding the studies ” allow us to estimate the number of people who were not counted in the census but who should have been counted, as well as the number of people who were counted more than once.”
The federal agency also pointed out elements that indirectly confirm the accuracy of its data.
First by analyzing consumer spending. Data on food expenditure in volume provides an indirect method of measuring the development of a population, since all people living in Canada must eat, regardless of their legal status. However, after a spike during the pandemic, this spending began to decline, bringing it back to pre-pandemic levels, a trajectory that would be impossible if there were a significant, unmeasured increase in the transient resident population.
Further confirmation comes from comparing the results of two major monthly labor market surveys conducted by Statistics Canada: the Labor Force Survey (LFS) and the Survey of Employment, Payrolls and Hours of Work (EERH). These two studies are based on different approaches, the first based on a survey, the second on the analysis of administrative data. But in both cases the results develop in a similar way. According to the organization, if there were problems with the underestimation of non-permanent residents, the two indicators would tend to diverge.