P.G. Population Count Can Be Appealed

Monday, March 26, 2007 03:59 AM

The Regional Communications Manager of Stats Canada, says a process exists whereby a community that feels there is a problem with the 2006 census and dwelling counts can initiate discussions with and if necessary, a review by Statistics Canada.

Sherry Wallace says the review would check geographic boundaries, coverage of the area and a check of the data against alternative sources, such as assessment records. She says c ommunity officials who are concerned about the census take should contact her office.

In the latest census, Stats Canada lists the population of Prince George as 70,981 down from a high of 75,150 in 1996.

Dave O’Neil, Manager of Population Demographics for the province of BC says you have to factor the under count in order to get a true picture of what the Prince George population really is. "We use a 4.04% under count that reflects the number of people who actually did not get counted in the census." That figure adds on 2867 more people onto the census. O’Neil adds, "Keep in mind that you don’t get to count everyone and that is why they use an under count in the final tally."

How could Prince George have dropped from 1996 to now? O’Neil says " Well it could be that there are fewer people per household than there was in 1996" that would explain why there have been more houses built, but we have fewer people.

The fertility rate in Central and Northern BC is now 1.5 in other words says O’Neil "We are not even keeping pace with the people who live here."

The gold standard of counting he said is the Stats Canada data. "We in the province use electrical meter counts, and the population could change if fewer people were on that meter."

O’Neil says you could be plus or minus 5%. But if you use the province’s figures and the federal figures you will see that back to 1991, at plus or minus 5% they have been very similar.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 03:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Gofaster on March 26 2007 6:23 AM

Appeal is you like..
I refuse to go through that census process again.... twice!

Posted by: chloe on March 26 2007 8:03 AM

The numbers are not accurate for sure. I did not receive a package in the mail so I was told I needed to call a toll free number and they would send out a package, well I called twice and still have not received a package. I have yet to hear back from Stats Can regarding why I did not get a package to fill out or have a census worker come to my door. So you can add two more to the total

Posted by: owl on March 26 2007 10:46 AM

The numbers will get reasonably accurate as soon as the policy to put a transmitting microchip into each baby at birth and each immigrant as they enter the country is implemented.

;-)

I think most reasonable people realize that until then, the numbers are off by a percent or two or more. However, one must also realize that such works both ways, especially in regions which have migrant workers and a migrant student base, such as university students. While the protocol of how to count those individuals is quite clear, people will still make mistakes in reporting out on that.

Remember, the overcount or undercount is not something that changes from one census to the other. In other words, the laws of proability dictate that it is highly unlikely that all other census years were relatively accurate and that this time around there was a major shift in accuracy.

Thus, given the inaccruacy last time around, and even the time before that, and attaching a similar inaccuracy to it this time, the relative change is still a drop in population.

Posted by: Palopu on March 26 2007 4:26 PM

You got that right Owl. In addition one would have to assume that the other areas in the North Central British Columbia that showed a significant decrease were also wrong, which is highly unlikely. Once the 4% error factor is added in we come up with 73848 people which is probably pretty close given all considerations. Even if you add another 2000 for good luck you come up with 75848, which means its time to change the sign at 16 and 97 from 81000 to some other number.

Even the Mayor must come to terms with the population reduction, although he has been in denial for the last 5 or more years.

Posted by: Mcfly on March 27 2007 9:16 AM

Palopu,
once the area by the sign dries up some maybe colin can change the numbers....right now with the ground so wet he would likely get his camaro stuck....lol