Census in Brief
Commuters using sustainable transportation in census metropolitan areas
Census in BriefRelease date: November 29, 2017
Highlights
- Among the three largest census metropolitan areas (CMAs)—Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver—commuters from Toronto were most likely to use sustainable transportation (42.5%), mainly as a result of slightly higher public transit use compared with Montréal and Vancouver.
- Among other large CMAs, Ottawa–Gatineau had the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation (40.0%), while Edmonton had the lowest (27.1%).
- Within southern Ontario’s Greater Golden Horseshoe, Hamilton had the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation (27.8%), while St. Catharines–Niagara had the lowest (20.8%).
- Among the smaller CMAs, commuters were most likely to use sustainable transportation in Kingston. Kingston had the highest proportion of commuters using active transportation and public transit in its group of CMAs.
Introduction
People use sustainable modes of transportation for various reasons, including cost, availability, the environment and convenience. Regardless of the reasons, using sustainable transportation has a number of documented benefits, such as less pollution, reduced traffic congestion, fewer accidents, better health (particularly as a result of walking or cycling) and reduced stress.Note 1Note 2Note 3
Sustainable transportation is not defined consistently. However, generally speaking, it refers to modes of transportation that have a smaller net impact on the environment or transportation infrastructure than cars and heavy trucks, or a near‑zero net impact. Although sustainable transportation traditionally includes public transit and active transportation (i.e., walking and cycling), this article also includes carpooling. Carpooling (i.e., two or more people sharing a ride to work) is part of a broader definition of sustainable transportation. Despite the use of a private vehicle, it represents fewer cars on the road and a smaller per capita environmental impact than driving alone.
Most Canadians live and work in cities and surrounding areas with a population of 100,000 or more, known as census metropolitan areas (CMAs). In 2016, 73.5% of all commuters in Canada, or 11.7 million, were living in a CMA. This is an increase from the 70.5% of commuters, or 8.6 million, who lived in a CMA in 1996. In other words, urban Canada is increasingly becoming the place where Canadians are living and working. In turn, these areas are becoming busier, with more people and businesses, leading to greater traffic congestion and likely requiring more time to get to work on roadways. Since certain modes of sustainable transportation, most notably public transit, are most common in urban environments, this article will focus on the use of sustainable transportation for commuting in Canada’s CMAs.
However, CMAs are not equal in size or infrastructure. To establish better comparability, six groupings are used in this article:
- The largest CMAs are the three CMAs with the largest population (that is, Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver). They also have at least three types of public transit infrastructure (including bus and at least two of subway/elevated rail, street car/commuter train, and ferry).
- Large CMAs are the five next-largest CMAs, all with at least one type of public transit infrastructure.
- Greater Golden Horseshoe CMAs are eight CMAs in southern Ontario with public transit infrastructure and a moderate to strong commuting relationship with other nearby CMAs.
- Mid‑sized CMAs are six CMAs with a population between 225,000 and 500,000 and that are not part of the three groups listed above.
- Small CMAs with commuting relationships with neighbours are four smaller CMAs that have moderate commuting relationships with nearby communities.
- Other small CMAs are the remaining nine smallest CMAs.
Nearly one in three commuters uses sustainable transportation
In 2016, 5 million people, or nearly one‑third (31.4%) of employed Canadians, used a mode of sustainable transportation as their main mode of commuting. Public transit was used by 12.4% of commuters, 12.1% carpooled, while active transportation (walking or cycling to work) accounted for the remaining 6.9%.
A higher proportion of people commuted using sustainable transportation in CMAs than in census agglomerations (CAs) or in non‑CMA/CA areas, mostly as a result of public transit usage and availability in CMAs.
The increases in the number of people living and working in CMAs and in the population density of CMAs are affecting how people get to work.
Data table for Chart 1
| 1996 | 2016 | |
|---|---|---|
| percent | ||
| Cycling | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Walking | 5.8 | 5.3 |
| Public transit | 13.9 | 16.3 |
| Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1996 and 2016. | ||
From 1996 to 2016, the number of people living in CMAsNote 4 who commuted to work increased from 8.6 million to 11.7 million, a 35.9% increase. However, different modes of commuting grew at substantially different paces. Over the same 20‑year period, the number of workers in CMAs taking public transit increased by 58.7%, and the number of people cycling to work increased by 87.9%, both far in excess of the overall growth in the number of commuters. By contrast, growth in the number of workers using a car or walking to work was slower (31.5% and 23.4%, respectively).
Data table for Chart 2
| Percent | |
|---|---|
| Cycling | 87.9 |
| Public transit | 58.7 |
| CMA commuter population | 35.9 |
| Car, truck or van | 31.5 |
| Walking | 23.4 |
| Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1996 and 2016. | |
Among the largest CMAs, Toronto has the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation
Canada’s most populous CMAs—Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver—all have a number of options for sustainable transportation. All three have diverse public transit systems that include buses, subways or elevated rail (the Montréal Metro, Toronto Subway/RT and Vancouver SkyTrain), and commuter trains (Montréal’s commuter trains, Toronto’s GO Train and Vancouver’s West Coast Express). These three CMAs also have ferries. Pedestrian and bicycle paths and designated bicycle lanes are common in these CMAs, particularly in Vancouver. In addition, all three have high‑occupancy vehicle lanes (i.e., carpool lanes).
The Toronto CMA is the most populous in Canada, has the third‑largest land area of all CMAs and includes 24 municipalities, nine of which have populations over 100,000. There are over 1,000 people per square kilometre in this CMA, the highest population density of all CMAs.
In 2016, 42.5% of commuters living in the Toronto CMA commonly used a form of sustainable transportation as their main mode of commuting, mostly because of the high proportion of people taking public transit to work (see Table 1). This was the highest rate of sustainable commuting among the three largest CMAs.
Vancouver has the smallest population and land area of these three CMAs. There are 855 people per square kilometre in the Vancouver CMA, which is the third‑highest population density among Canada’s CMAs.
While the overall proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation in Vancouver (40.6%) was lower than in Toronto, there were differences in their main modes of commuting. Vancouver had the highest proportion among these three CMAs of commuters using active transportation (walking or cycling). Vancouver residents were as likely to carpool as commuters from Toronto.
The Montréal CMA is made up of 93 municipalities, with most of the population in Montréal, Laval, Longueuil and Terrebonne; two‑thirds of the other municipalities had fewer than 20,000 people living in each. It is the second most densely populated CMA in Canada, with 890 people per square kilometre.
In 2016, Montréal had the lowest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation among the three largest CMAs (38.1%), trailing Toronto in the use of public transit and both Vancouver and Toronto in carpooling. However, Montréal residents were slightly more likely to cycle to work compared with Toronto residents.
Among large CMAs, Ottawa–Gatineau has the highest proportion of public transit and active transportation commuting
Of the five next largest CMAs (Québec, Ottawa–Gatineau, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton), all have bus transit systems. There is light rail in Calgary (the CTrain), Edmonton (the LRT) and Ottawa–Gatineau (the O‑Train), and Ottawa–Gatineau and Calgary also have high‑occupancy vehicle lanes. In addition, these five large CMAs have bicycle paths and designated bicycle lanes.
Among these CMAs, Ottawa–Gatineau had the highest share of commuters using sustainable transportation as their main mode of commuting (40.0%), with a higher proportion in the Ontario part (41.5%) than the Quebec part (35.5%).
There were notable differences in the specific modes of sustainable transportation used by commuters across these CMAs. Carpooling was most used by workers in Winnipeg (14.8%) and least used by workers in Québec (10.6%). The proportion of people walking or cycling to work was highest in Ottawa–Gatineau (8.7%) and lowest in Edmonton (4.7%). Using public transit to commute was most common in Ottawa–Gatineau (18.3%) and least common in Québec (11.1%) and Edmonton (11.3%).
Among this group of large CMAs, Edmonton had the lowest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation in 2016, at 27.1%. The CMA of Edmonton has the largest land area of all CMAs, at 9,400 km2, and 29.4% of its population lived outside the City of Edmonton.
There is an extensive public transit network within the City of Edmonton itself, as well as some public transit links with its closest neighbours, St. Albert and Strathcona County. The options for commuting using public transit within and between the other 32, mainly rural, municipalities are limited. These characteristics explain at least in part why public transit and walking and cycling to work are lowest in Edmonton among this group of CMAs.
Greater Golden Horseshoe CMAs: Hamilton has the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation
In southern Ontario, a number of neighbouring CMAs have moderate or strong commuting links. These CMAs—Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa, St. Catharines–Niagara, Barrie, Peterborough, Brantford, Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo and Guelph—are part of an area referred to as the “Greater Golden Horseshoe.”
As examples of this area’s commuting connectivity, 42.5% of Oshawa commuters with a usual workplace worked in the Toronto CMA, as did 28.7% of Barrie commuters, 21.7% of Hamilton commuters and 12.4% of Guelph commuters (Chart 3). Some of these CMAs have public transit routes connecting them to others, notably GO Transit commuter buses and commuter rail.
In the Greater Golden Horseshoe CMAs as a whole, excluding Toronto, 25.0% of commuters used sustainable transportation as their main mode of commuting in 2016. Carpooling was the most common, followed distantly by public transit and active transportation (i.e., walking or cycling).
Hamilton’s population density, at nearly 545 people per square kilometre, was the fourth highest in Canada, so commuters need options for getting around Hamilton and getting to Toronto for work. Among the CMAs in this part of southern Ontario, Hamilton had the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation (27.8%), and the highest use of public transit (9.8%).
Among these CMAs, St. Catharines–Niagara (20.8%) and Brantford (21.2%) both had the lowest proportions of commuters using sustainable transportation, as well as the lowest proportions of public transit commuting (2.7% and 3.1% respectively). The proportions of commuters using public transit to get to work have changed little in these CMAs since 1996. St. Catharines–Niagara had the shortest average car commute time of all CMAs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, at 21.4 minutes. This could explain in part why many commuters in this CMA drove instead of using more sustainable modes of transportation. Brantford did not have a public transit connection to Hamilton, its nearest commuting neighbour, until September 2016 (after the census).
Among the Greater Golden Horseshoe CMAs, walking or cycling to work was most common in Peterborough (8.3%), and carpooling was highest among Barrie commuters (14.5%).
Data table for Chart 3
| Percent | |
|---|---|
| St. Catharines–Niagara to elsewhere | 2 |
| St. Catharines–Niagara to Toronto | 4 |
| St. Catharines–Niagara to Hamilton | 7 |
| Within St. Catharines–Niagara | 87 |
| Brantford to Toronto | 5 |
| Brantford to elsewhere | 8 |
| Brantford to Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo | 9 |
| Brantford to Hamilton | 11 |
| Within Brantford | 67 |
| Barrie to elsewhere | 10 |
| Barrie to Toronto | 29 |
| Within Barrie | 61 |
| Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo to elsewhere | 6 |
| Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo to Toronto | 5 |
| Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo to Guelph | 6 |
| Within Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo | 83 |
| Oshawa to elsewhere | 4 |
| Oshawa to Toronto | 42 |
| Within Oshawa | 54 |
| Peterborough to Toronto | 3 |
| Peterborough to Oshawa | 4 |
| Peterborough to elsewhere | 9 |
| Within Peterborough | 84 |
| Guelph to elsewhere | 6 |
| Guelph to Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo | 11 |
| Guelph to Toronto | 12 |
| Within Guelph | 71 |
| Hamilton to elsewhere | 6 |
| Hamilton to Toronto | 22 |
| Within Hamilton | 72 |
| Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016. | |
Among mid‑sized CMAs, Victoria led the way for walking and cycling to work, and Halifax had the highest proportion of carpool commuting
The six CMAs in the mid‑sized group (Halifax, London, Windsor, Regina, Saskatoon and Victoria) all have bus transit systems and between 100,000 and 225,000 commuters living there.
Victoria had the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation in 2016 (38.8%), led by its high proportion of active transportation users (16.9% overall—10.3% walked to work and 6.6% cycled). It also had the second‑highest proportion of commuters using public transit (10.9%). This CMA has an extensive network of bicycle paths and is the most geographically compact CMA in the group, at 696 km2 (the others range from 1,022 km2 for Windsor to 5,496 km2 for Halifax). Furthermore, Victoria’s proportions of commuters walking and cycling to work were the highest of all CMAs.
In terms of square kilometres, the Halifax CMA is the fifth largest of all CMAs. Despite its size, when compared with the other mid‑sized CMAs (in population terms), Halifax had the second‑highest rate of commuters using sustainable transportation. It had the highest proportion of carpoolers (15.6%) and commuters using public transit (11.8%) and the second‑highest proportion of commuters using active transportation (9.2%).
Among mid‑sized CMAs, Windsor had the lowest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation, with the lowest proportion in all three modes: public transit (3.4%), active transportation (4.3%) and carpooling (10.8%). Windsor had the second‑shortest average commuting duration of all CMAs in this group (18.9 minutes) and the seventh‑shortest average car commute of all CMAs (18.5 minutes), which may partly explain why many residents drove alone.
Small CMAs with commuting relationships with neighbouring communities: Abbotsford–Mission has the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation
CMAs in this group have notable commuting relationships with other CMAs or nearby rural communities. While few residents of most CMAs worked outside the CMA (5.0% or less), residents of the CMAs in this group were more likely to work outside their boundaries (12.0% or more). In most of these CMAs, public transit systems are not linked to outside communities, making at least this mode of sustainable transportation less viable.
In Sherbrooke, about one in eight commuters worked in rural areas outside Sherbrooke or in Montréal. Among Trois‑Rivières commuters, nearly one in five worked elsewhere: in rural locations outside Trois‑Rivières, in Shawinigan or in Montréal. One in six Belleville commuters worked in rural areas outside Belleville, in Kingston or in Toronto.
Abbotsford–Mission had the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation in this group (22.7%), mostly because it had the highest proportion of carpoolers (16.5%). However, it had one of the lowest proportions of public transit commuters (2.5%) and the lowest proportion of commuters using active transportation (3.7%). At least part of Abbotsford–Mission’s high carpooling rate and low use of other sustainable modes of commuting can be explained by this CMA’s strong commuting relationship with its neighbours Vancouver and Chilliwack. The usual place of work of 31.6% of commuters from Abbotsford–Mission was in the Vancouver area; another 3.9% had a usual place of work in the Chilliwack region.
Trois‑Rivières had the lowest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation, at 16.4%, as well as the lowest proportion of public transit commuting (2.3%) and carpooling (8.8%). Trois‑Rivières also had the shortest average commuting duration among this group of CMAs (18.8 minutes), which may explain in part why many residents drove alone.
Other small CMAs: Kingston has the highest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation
Among the smallest CMAs, Kingston had the highest proportion of people using sustainable transportation as their main mode of commuting (30.4%), with the highest proportion of commuters using active transportation and public transit. In this group, carpooling was most common in the eastern Canada CMAs of St. John’s (17.8%) and Saint John (17.9%).
Saguenay, on the other hand, had the lowest proportion of commuters using sustainable transportation in this group, at 15.7%. It had the lowest proportions of commuters using public transit (2.2%), active transportation (4.3%), and carpooling (9.3%).
The three CMAs in this group with the lowest proportions of commuters using sustainable transportation (Thunder Bay, Lethbridge and Saguenay) had three of the four shortest car commutes of all CMAs, ranging from 16.1 to 17.2 minutes. This may explain in part why many residents drove alone instead of using more sustainable modes of commuting. In other words, a short commuting duration may be an incentive to use a car rather than a mode of transportation associated with a comparatively longer commuting duration, such as public transit.
| Total | Total sustainable transportation | Public transit | Carpooling | Total active transportation | Walking | Cycling | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| number | number | percent | percent | percent | percent | percent | percent | |
| Canada | 15,878,945 | 4,985,300 | 31.4 | 12.4 | 12.1 | 6.9 | 5.5 | 1.4 |
| Total census metropolitan areas (CMAs) | 11,666,845 | 4,051,345 | 34.7 | 16.3 | 11.6 | 6.9 | 5.3 | 1.6 |
| Total census agglomerations (CAs) | 1,867,490 | 420,125 | 22.5 | 2.5 | 13.3 | 6.7 | 5.7 | 1.0 |
| Non‑CMA/CA | 2,344,610 | 513,830 | 21.9 | 1.1 | 13.6 | 7.3 | 6.6 | 0.7 |
| Largest CMAs | ||||||||
| Toronto, Ont. | 2,747,050 | 1,168,135 | 42.5 | 24.3 | 11.6 | 6.7 | 5.2 | 1.4 |
| Vancouver, B.C. | 1,159,215 | 470,340 | 40.6 | 20.4 | 11.2 | 9.1 | 6.7 | 2.3 |
| Montréal, Que. | 1,883,815 | 717,475 | 38.1 | 22.3 | 8.6 | 7.2 | 5.2 | 2.0 |
| Large CMAs | ||||||||
| Ottawa–Gatineau, Ont./Que. | 627,570 | 251,025 | 40.0 | 18.3 | 13.0 | 8.7 | 6.3 | 2.4 |
| Ottawa–Gatineau (Ontario part) | 467,940 | 194,395 | 41.5 | 19.6 | 12.3 | 9.6 | 7.1 | 2.5 |
| Ottawa–Gatineau (Quebec part) | 159,630 | 56,635 | 35.5 | 14.5 | 15.1 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 2.1 |
| Winnipeg, Man. | 377,845 | 130,850 | 34.6 | 13.6 | 14.8 | 6.2 | 4.6 | 1.7 |
| Calgary, Alta. | 684,215 | 218,940 | 32.0 | 14.4 | 11.4 | 6.2 | 4.7 | 1.5 |
| Québec, Que. | 392,930 | 115,285 | 29.3 | 11.1 | 10.6 | 7.6 | 6.3 | 1.3 |
| Edmonton, Alta. | 653,740 | 177,280 | 27.1 | 11.3 | 11.2 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 1.0 |
| Greater Golden Horseshoe CMAs | ||||||||
| Hamilton, Ont. | 342,515 | 95,325 | 27.8 | 9.8 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 4.3 | 0.9 |
| Guelph, Ont. | 76,095 | 20,065 | 26.4 | 6.4 | 13.1 | 6.9 | 5.4 | 1.5 |
| Peterborough, Ont. | 51,375 | 13,225 | 25.7 | 3.9 | 13.6 | 8.3 | 6.7 | 1.6 |
| Oshawa, Ont. | 174,195 | 44,405 | 25.5 | 9.5 | 12.5 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 0.3 |
| Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo, Ont. | 253,445 | 61,260 | 24.2 | 6.0 | 12.6 | 5.5 | 4.4 | 1.1 |
| Barrie, Ont. | 95,540 | 21,845 | 22.9 | 4.3 | 14.5 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 0.4 |
| Brantford, Ont. | 61,555 | 13,025 | 21.2 | 3.1 | 13.4 | 4.6 | 3.8 | 0.8 |
| St. Catharines–Niagara, Ont. | 174,605 | 36,360 | 20.8 | 2.7 | 12.7 | 5.4 | 4.5 | 0.9 |
| Mid‑sized CMAs | ||||||||
| Victoria, B.C. | 170,830 | 66,360 | 38.8 | 10.9 | 11.0 | 16.9 | 10.3 | 6.6 |
| Halifax, N.S. | 194,805 | 71,225 | 36.6 | 11.8 | 15.6 | 9.2 | 8.2 | 1.0 |
| London, Ont. | 222,820 | 60,915 | 27.3 | 7.2 | 13.4 | 6.7 | 5.5 | 1.1 |
| Regina, Sask. | 119,575 | 29,180 | 24.4 | 5.1 | 14.3 | 5.1 | 4.0 | 1.1 |
| Saskatoon, Sask. | 145,810 | 34,435 | 23.6 | 4.3 | 13.1 | 6.1 | 4.2 | 2.0 |
| Windsor, Ont. | 136,940 | 25,285 | 18.5 | 3.4 | 10.8 | 4.3 | 3.3 | 1.0 |
| Small CMAs with commuting relationships with neighbours | ||||||||
| Abbotsford–Mission, B.C. | 80,900 | 18,385 | 22.7 | 2.5 | 16.5 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 0.6 |
| Belleville, Ont. | 44,880 | 9,635 | 21.5 | 2.3 | 12.9 | 6.2 | 5.2 | 1.0 |
| Sherbrooke, Que. | 93,465 | 19,705 | 21.1 | 4.2 | 10.6 | 6.3 | 5.6 | 0.7 |
| Trois‑Rivières, Que. | 66,490 | 10,880 | 16.4 | 2.3 | 8.8 | 5.3 | 4.5 | 0.8 |
| Other small CMAs | ||||||||
| Kingston, Ont. | 71,985 | 21,855 | 30.4 | 6.8 | 14.1 | 9.5 | 7.6 | 1.9 |
| Saint John, N.B. | 55,965 | 15,300 | 27.3 | 4.1 | 17.9 | 5.3 | 5.1 | 0.2 |
| Moncton, N.B. | 68,285 | 17,920 | 26.2 | 3.4 | 16.8 | 6.0 | 5.4 | 0.6 |
| St. John's, N.L. | 97,920 | 25,135 | 25.7 | 3.1 | 17.8 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 0.2 |
| Greater Sudbury, Ont. | 74,740 | 17,155 | 23.0 | 4.9 | 13.2 | 4.9 | 4.5 | 0.4 |
| Kelowna, B.C. | 87,160 | 19,890 | 22.8 | 3.9 | 11.7 | 7.2 | 4.6 | 2.7 |
| Thunder Bay, Ont. | 54,640 | 11,405 | 20.9 | 3.9 | 11.6 | 5.4 | 4.2 | 1.2 |
| Lethbridge, Alta. | 54,825 | 10,970 | 20.0 | 2.9 | 11.8 | 5.4 | 4.0 | 1.4 |
| Saguenay, Que. | 69,105 | 10,870 | 15.7 | 2.2 | 9.3 | 4.3 | 4.0 | 0.3 |
| Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 2016. | ||||||||
Data sources, methods and definitions
Data sources
The data in this analysis are from the 2016 Census of Population. Further information on the census can be found in the Guide to the Census of Population, 2016, Catalogue no. 98‑304‑X.
Additional information on census data quality and comparability for the journey to work can be found in the Journey to Work Reference Guide, Census of Population, 2016, Catalogue no. 98‑500‑X2016011.
Methods
These data reflect the main mode of commuting, which represents the mode of commuting that people used to travel the greatest distance in their commute. Therefore, sustainable transportation use among commuters may be understated in cases where more than one mode was used (e.g., driving to a commuter train station, but the drive was a longer distance than the train commute).
Random rounding and percentage distributions: To ensure the confidentiality of responses collected for the 2016 Census, a random rounding process is used to alter the values reported in individual cells. As a result, when these data are summed or grouped, the total value may not match the sum of the individual values since the total and subtotals are independently rounded. Similarly, percentage distributions, which are calculated on rounded data, may not necessarily add up to 100%.
Because of random rounding, counts and percentages may vary slightly between different census products such as the analytical documents, highlight tables and data tables.
Definitions
Please refer to the Dictionary, Census of Population, 2016, Catalogue no. 98‑301‑X for additional information on the census variables.
Additional information
Additional analysis on the journey to work can be found in The Daily of November 29, 2017.
Additional information on the journey to work can be found in the Data tables, Catalogue nos. 98‑400‑X2016319 to 98‑400‑X2016335; the Census Profile, Catalogue no. 98‑316‑X2016001; and the Focus on Geography Series, Catalogue no. 98‑404‑X2016001.
An infographic entitled Journey to work highlighting place of work data, average commuting time and use of public transit in Canada’s largest CMAs is also available.
For details on the concepts, definitions and variables used in the 2016 Census of Population, please consult the Dictionary, Census of Population, 2016, Catalogue no. 98‑301‑X.
In addition to response rates and other data quality information, the Guide to the Census of Population, 2016, Catalogue no. 98‑304‑X, provides an overview of the various phases of the census, including content determination, sampling design, collection, data processing, data quality assessment, confidentiality guidelines and dissemination.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by Jason Gilmore of Statistics Canada’s Labour Statistics Division, with the assistance of other staff members of that division, and the collaboration of staff members of the Census Subject Matter Secretariat, Census Operations Division, and Communications and Dissemination Branch.
- Date modified: