An interviewer will call you on:

Your completed diary will be picked up on:

At:

Thank you!

We greatly appreciate your participation.

Collected under the authority of the Statistics Act.
Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter S19.

Confidential when completed

If you spent money today, you have two options to record each expense:

  • Provide the receipt in the pocket and explain abbreviations or short forms on the receipt.

OR

  • Transcribe the expense in the diary. Do not forget to record expenses for which you do not have a receipt.

If you did NOT spend any money today...

Write the date and the words "no spending" in the "Goods and services including food from stores" section (see example on page 1).

Respondent's first name

Diary Start Date
DD MM

Diary End Date
DD MM

Goods and services including food from stores

Item #
Date of expense
dd/mm

Example: 21/06

Description of item

Write one item per line. Please print. See page 6 in the Diary Guide for help with this section.

Reminder: Please enter snacks, beverages and meals purchased from restaurants or fast-food outlets in the section that begins on page 7.

Cost

Do not include taxes. $ ¢

For example:

21/06 NO SPENDING
22/06 GAS 36.00

Snacks, beverages and meals purchased from restaurants or fast-food outlets

Item #
Date of expense
dd/mm

Example: 22/06

Restaurant code

A = Table Service
B = Fast Food
C = Cafeteria
D = Other

See page 9 in the Diary Guide for full descriptions.

Check (✓) the meal type

Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner
Snack or Beverage

Number of meals paid

Include meals paid for people who do not live with you.

Total cost

Include all taxes, tips and alcoholic beverages. $ ¢

Alcoholic beverages - If alcoholic beverages are included in the total cost, please provide an estimated cost. $ ¢

For example:

22/06 A (✓) 02 45.78 12.50
22/06 D (✓) 00 5.25

For office use only

Please do not write on this page.

Your interviewer will ask you the following questions when he/she returns to pick up this Diary of daily expenses.

1. Did you write "no spending" in the diary for the days with no spending for all members of your household?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Sometimes
  4. Had expenses every day

2. Respondent comments: @DI

3. Some expenses such as gas and other related vehicle costs, lottery tickets, cigarettes and newspapers, meals and beverages bought outside your home, alcoholic beverages, leisure activities, postal services or goods and services purchased via Internet are easily forgotten. Did you, or any member of your household, forget to record any of these expenses or any other expense in the diary?

  1. Yes - go to #4
  2. No - go to #5.

4. Please list the items that have been missed. Interviewer: Enter the description used by the respondent.

Description
Cost

5. During the 14 days when you were recording your expenses in the diary, were any members of your household away from home for overnight or longer?

  1. Yes - go to #6
  2. No - Thank you for participating in this survey.

6. Did you remember to include in the diary, expenses made while away from home such as gas, grocery, restaurant meals, snacks and beverages, alcoholic beverages purchased from stores, admittance fees to tourist attractions and souvenirs?

  1. Yes – Thank you for participating in this survey.
  2. No – go to #7

7. Please list all the items. Do not include expenses that will be reimbursed. Interviewer: Enter the description used by the respondent.

Description
Cost

Comments

An important message to all Respondents

Programme d’économie d’énergie dans l’industrie canadienne logo


On behalf of the Executive Board of the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (CIPEC), I wish to thank all of you who responded to last year’s Industrial Consumption of Energy (ICE) survey.

Your participation in the ICE survey enables us to track industry’s energy efficiency progress and, in turn, its contribution to the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change.  The ICE data are used to build the business case for energy management— including funding and program renewals, to monitor sector progress and to celebrate industry’s energy achievements in the CIPEC Annual Report, available on-line at cipec.ca under About CIPEC.

To encourage and support industry’s energy efficiency efforts, Natural Resources Canada offers Canadian industry tools and services through CIPEC, such as Dollars to $ense energy management workshops through the Canadian Institute for Energy Training (CIET), benchmarking reports, best practice guides and cost-shared assistance. CIPEC believes that Canadian organizations can improve their energy performance by using integrated energy management systems, such as ISO 50001— Canada’s national energy management standard. Currently, 17 organizations in Canada are certified to ISO 50001. ENERGY STAR for Industry is also coming to Canada in spring 2017.

Energy Management Systems can be quickly implemented with immediate results, and, often with the support of utility incentives, can readily identify energy savings opportunities that can achieve a payback period of less than two years. If Canadian organizations were able to achieve an annual energy efficiency improvement of 5%, then based on average Canada wide fuel mix, emissions factors and energy costs—businesses could expect an annual cost savings of $1 to $1.375 billion. This reduction in industrial energy use would also be equivalent to GHG emission reductions resultant from taking 1.6 to 2.4 million cars off Canadian roads.

CIPEC encourages effective energy management and continual improvement in industrial energy efficiency, as it improves the corporate financial bottom line while helping Canada meet its climate change objectives. Please contact us for more information on how CIPEC can support your organization in meeting and exceeding your energy efficiency goals.

Sincerely,

Andy Mahut
Manager, Energy Practices, U.S. Steel Canada Inc.
Chair, CIPEC Executive Board

CIPEC
580 Booth Street
12th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E4
Tel.: (343) 292-8798
Fax: (613) 992-3161
cipec-peeic@nrcan.gc.ca
cipec.ca

Spatial Consumer Price Index

The concept

A spatial consumer price index is a number which measures the cost of an identical market basket of consumer goods and services at a location (comparison location) relative to another location (reference location) at a given point of time. Spatial price indexes are based on matched prices of identical or similar products between a comparison and reference locations. Comparing like-for-like products ensures that price differentials between the locations are due to pure price differences and not owing to the attributes of a product such as brand name, size or quantity. Hence, the following relationship describes how spatial price index is calculated.

Spatial price index for location A = Cost of basket at location A / Cost of same basket at location B (base location) * 100;

By price index convention, the value of the spatial price index of the reference (base) location is set at 100.0 whereas the spatial price index of each of the comparison locations is expressed as percentage of this value. For example, a spatial price index of 110 for a comparison location would mean that the average cost of a given basket of consumer goods and services is 110 percent of its cost at the reference (base) location. Or, the average cost of the consumption basket at the comparison location is 10 per cent higher than that of the reference (base) location. Alternatively, we could say that the purchasing power of money at location A is, because of the higher prices, 91 per cent of what it could buy at location B.

Strictly speaking, a spatial price index is not a "true" cost of living index. The latter measures the cost differential between a reference location against a comparison one for maintaining the same standard of living. The concept of a standard of living connotes well-being or utility which is not within the purview of spatial consumer price index.

For this report, spatial price indexes are calculated for 34 selected communities of Alberta with Edmonton constituting the reference location (base location).

The methodology

Price indexes are constructed through phases of lower level and higher level price aggregation. Lower level aggregation is done, at the level of uniquely defined goods and services such as varieties of milk, whose prices are sampled from retail outlets. After computing the individual price relatives of these product varieties, they are aggregated using the geometric mean formula to arrive at an unweighted price index for the elementary aggregate of the product, milk.

Higher level price indexes are produced through aggregation of lower level price indexes by weighting them with the relevant consumption expenditures of the average consumer. Here, the rule of aggregation is weighted summation of lower level price indexes

Expenditure weights used for constructing the spatial price indexes are derived from the spending patterns of the average household in Edmonton, as reported by the Survey of Household Spending (SHS) of 2014. The data are normalized to take into account the size and product composition of the selected products for the analysis.

The price indexes are based on samples of price quotes collected from retail outlets in person and on the internet.

Evaluation of the Census of Population Program
(2009/2010 to 2014/2015)

Executive summary and Management response and action plan

September 2016

Acknowledgements

The Evaluation Project Team would like to thank the individuals who contributed to this project, particularly members of the Departmental Evaluation Committee, as well as all interviewees who provided insight and comments crucial to this evaluation.

This report was approved by the Chief Statistician of Canada.

In accordance with the accountability requirements in the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation (2009) and its directive, this report is available to the public and posted on the agency's website in both official languages.

Statistics Canada also shared this report with its program-delivery partners and key stakeholders, including the National Statistics Council.

Prepared by the Evaluation and Performance Measurement Division, Audit and Evaluation Branch. Nanci Comtois led the Evaluation Project Team, which included Valeria Pandelieva and Sonia Demers.

List of acronyms and abbreviations

CePop
Census of Population
CH
Canadian Heritage
CMHC
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
CSD
Census subdivision
CV
Coefficient of variation
EPMD
Evaluation and Performance Measurement Division
ESDC
Employment and Social Development Canada
GNR
Global non-response rate
INAC
Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
IRCC
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
ISQ
Institut de la statistique du Québec
NHS
National Household Survey
OAG
Office of the Auditor General
PUMF
Public use microdata file
RDC
Research data centre
RTRA
Real Time Remote Access
SSC
Shared Services Canada
TB
Treasury Board
TBS
Treasury Board Secretariat

Executive summary

The Evaluation and Performance Measurement Division (EPMD) of the Audit and Evaluation Branch of Statistics Canada conducted an independent assessment of the Census of Population (CePop) Program, including the National Household Survey (NHS). The results provided objective information and recommendations to support program improvement and inform future decisions by Statistics Canada and Parliament with respect to the government's management of resources and programs.

The evaluation was designed and conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Evaluation (2009) and associated directives and standards, and fulfills an accountability commitment set out in Statistics Canada's Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan (2012/2013 to 2014/2015). The evaluation's objective is to provide credible and neutral information on the ongoing relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the program.

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the CePop Program, including the NHS. It was presented to the Departmental Evaluation Committee and approved by the Chief Statistician of Canada.

The Census of Population Program

The CePop Program plans, develops and implements all collection, data processing and dissemination of the periodic decennial and quinquennial censuses of population, Canada's national inventory of key socioeconomic phenomena. The census provides a statistical portrait of Canada and its people. This program is the only reliable source of detailed data for small groups (such as lone-parent families, ethnic groups, industrial and occupational categories, and immigrants) and for areas as small as a city neighbourhood or as large as the country itself.

Prior to 2011 the approach for the CePop program included both a mandatory short-form questionnaire and a mandatory long-form questionnaire. The National Household Survey (NHS) was introduced in 2011 to replace the long-form questionnaire. The survey was administered on a voluntary basis to 30% of households, alongside the 2011 short-form census questionnaire. The NHS was designed to collect the same type of information that was collected by the previous long-form census. In 2011, approximately 2.7 million dwellings responded to the NHS.

Evaluation scope and methodology

The evaluation focused on the CePop and NHS performance from 2009/2010 to 2014/2015. Data for this evaluation were collected from five sources of evidence, including a literature review; a document review; a review of financial and administrative data; interviews with 84 representatives of the public sector, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and academia; and a bibliometric and webometric study. The evaluation strategy relied on qualitative and quantitative evidence. Data from these sources were analyzed and triangulated to develop the findings and generate recommendations based on the conclusions made.

The evaluation looked at the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the 2011 CePop Program cycle and the impact of the methodological changes between the 2006 and 2011 cycles. Similarly, the evaluation study examined the program's capacity to achieve its results, given the centralization of internal business processes. This was done by reviewing available information on the planning of the 2016 cycle and information associated with the implementation of best practices and lessons learned from the previous cycles.

It is important to note that the recommendations in this evaluation have been adjusted to reflect the recent contextual change related to the CePop Program, namely the fact that, in November 2015, during the reporting phase of the evaluation, the Government of Canada decided to restore the mandatory long-form census.

Findings

The evaluation findings corroborate Statistics Canada's position on the quality of the statistical information of the 2011 CePop Program. They also confirm findings from other independent sources, such as the 2014 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Relevance of the program

The census is the only national source of basic information on each person and each household that is collected at a given time, at regular intervals, and with complete geographic coverage. Such information is essential to supporting the national administration, governance and public policy. The census is crucially important for the integrity of the national statistics system, as it provides a baseline for validating the information collected by Statistics Canada, as well as by other public and private institutions.

Performance of the program—achievement of expected outcomes

In comparison with the 2006 cycle (considered as a baseline), the quality of the census is better in 2011. However, the implementation of the 2011 approach resulted in additional costs, compared with what was planned, and had unfavourable effects on the quality of the statistical information from the NHS.

The quality of the statistical information from the 2011 Census cycle meets the program objectives. However, while the NHS is of high quality for a voluntary social survey, there are concerns about specific dimensions, such as coherence and accuracy, for populations of small domains. The change in methodology has had an impact on the trust of users in the official statistics produced by the CePop Program, even though this impact may not always be justified and may be seen as a result of biased perceptions. The following highlights provide more detail:

  • The accuracy of the 2011 Census data is excellent and slightly better than in 2006. The accuracy of the 2011 NHS data is much better than anticipated in 2010 but lower than that of the 2006 long-form census. There is considerable uncertainty among external users about whether any differences between the 2011 NHS and the previous long-form census are the result of real changes in the population or methodological changes.
  • The 2011 Census and the NHS data and products were released in a timely manner, with the availability of resources and within the time requirements for processing, quality control and assurance.
  • The accessibility of the CePop Program products has improved significantly over time. Since 2012, all standard products generated by the program, including those for the 2011 Census and the NHS, have been released and are accessible to the general public in several different electronic formats, at no cost. The accessibility of data for small geographic areas has been affected by the higher suppression level established for the 2011 NHS statistics and by the fact that the cost of custom services and tabulations (in this context only) is a barrier for some users facing budget restrictions.
  • The 2011 Census of Population data are coherent. The program made considerable efforts to assess and reduce the impact of the voluntary nature of the NHS on the comparability of the estimates. However, the change in methodology has made it challenging for users to compare the NHS data with earlier data.
  • There are no issues with the interpretability of the 2011 Census data. However, it was acknowledged that for proper interpretation and use of the 2011 NHS data, users must know more about methodology than had previously been the case. Evidence suggests that the program has provided additional guidance to its data users in the form of expanded information.
     
    Nonetheless, for users (especially users of data for small geographic areas and subpopulations, or who have less analytical capacity), it is not always clear which data are reliable and how they may be interpreted. Users also noted the importance of releasing timely technical reports and all necessary metadata.
  • The CePopProgram statistical information is responsive to the needs of users overall. In terms of content, no significant information gaps are identified. The NHS is more responsive to information needs at the national and provincial levels, and less responsive to needs related to low geographical levels, rare characteristics and comparability over time for some areas, compared with the 2006 cycle. Therefore, the program's ability to respond to needs varies by type of user. The change in approach also led to disadvantages or costs for users (e.g., in the amount of effort required to understand the changes, to use the data, to conduct validation, or to use replacement data). However, there is no clear evidence that the external users and stakeholders who were consulted implemented new surveys because of unfulfilled needs.
  • The CePop Program data are used extensively by all levels of government to fulfill their mandates and responsibilities, by academic researchers, by non-governmental organizations, by the private sector and by Canadians. At Statistics Canada, the census data are used in other surveys for sampling and benchmarking. The evaluation found that the 2011 methodological change had some implications in terms of how the data are being used, and for what purposes.

Performance of the program—efficiency and economy

The late decision to change the approach in the 2011 cycle had a significant impact and led to challenges at several levels for internal and external actors: financial challenges, operational challenges, challenges in achieving desired outcomes (quality), and, finally, challenges to the credibility of the statistical information available. Overall, the late decisions about the approach by the Government of Canada (in 2010 and 2015) had a negative impact on the efficiency of the program.

Despite the exceptional circumstances resulting from the timing of the decision, it is recognized that good management practices led to the successful implementation of the program during the entire 2011 cycle and the first years of the 2016 cycle. Overall, the program is administered efficiently, and its management has demonstrated a commitment to reducing the cost of the program while ensuring its long-term sustainability. The planned costs of the 2011 cycle were reasonable in comparison with previous cycles for producing the planned outputs and achieving the expected outcomes. However, the decision to change the methodology translated into a cost increase for the 2011 cycle. For the implementation of the 2016 cycle, there are significant challenges related to the current partnership with Shared Services Canada (SSC), which may have an impact on the efficiency of the Census Program.

The CePop Program has demonstrated a commitment to exploring alternative means of achieving the intended program results. Potential opportunities may be considered for future cycles, as the Canadian CePop is expected to evolve. The anticipated changes are not isolated Canadian phenomena: most statistical agencies in developed countries are currently exploring and implementing innovative approaches and methodologies (e.g., increasing the use of administrative and other available data). The successful transition to more efficient censuses that produce better-quality data with a reduced cost and burden to respondents requires considerable long-term planning and effort.

Conclusions and recommendations

The quality of the statistical information from the 2011 Census cycle meets the program objectives. However, while the NHS is of high quality for a voluntary social survey, there are concerns about specific dimensions, such as accessibility (data for small areas and subpopulations), coherence and accuracy.

Based on the analysis of the implementation of the 2016 cycle and the recent change of direction—from voluntary to mandatory—it is expected that the quality of the statistical information for the NHS component should improve in the current cycle.

Recommendation #1 – Relevance and performance (accessibility, accuracy and coherence)

It is recommended that the CePop Program detail the measures taken to improve the quality of the statistical information for the dimensions of accessibility (data for small areas and subpopulations), accuracy and coherence to meet user needs in the 2016 cycle.

The change in methodology has had an impact on the trust of users in the official statistics produced by the CePop Program, even though this impact may not always be justified and may be seen as a result of biased perceptions. Consequently, the credibility of the statistical information among users had an impact on the level of use.

Recommendation #2 – Performance (trust and use)

It is recommended that the CePop Program ensure that an effective and proactive communication system is implemented to inform Canadians, particularly direct users of program data, of the orientation of the program and the exact nature (quality) of the data that are produced and that will be produced, to maintain the credibility of the program and its products over time.

Evidence suggests that the program has provided additional guidance to its data users in the form of expanded information. Nonetheless, for users (especially users of data for small geographic areas and subpopulations, or who have less analytical capacity), it is not always clear which data are reliable and how they may be interpreted. Users also noted the importance of releasing timely technical reports and all necessary metadata.

Recommendation #3 – Performance (interpretability)

It is recommended that the CePop Program ensure the availability of timely information and the necessary support to inform and guide the different types of data users, and satisfy multiple needs, given the different approaches in different census cycles.

Management response and action plan

Recommendation #1 – Relevance and performance (accessibility, accuracy and coherence)

It is recommended that the CePop Program detail the measures taken to improve the quality of the statistical information for the dimensions of accessibility (data for small areas and subpopulations), accuracy and coherence to meet user needs in the 2016 cycle.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Management response

The Census Program is proceeding with measures that will improve the quality of statistical information for the dimensions of accessibility, accuracy and coherence for the 2016 cycle, as compared with the 2011 cycle. We anticipate that the government's decision to return to a mandatory long-form census in 2016 will address limitations posed by the voluntary nature of the 2011 NHS. The mandatory approach should provide a better response rate to the long form for the vast majority of small areas, resulting in more data being released for small communities. The long-form questionnaire and associated collection processes have been adapted to support the mandatory approach to collection. The sampling fraction for the 2016 cycle will be one in four, compared with one in five for the 2011 cycle. We expect that this will yield a larger effective sample than in 2011, resulting in statistically reliable estimates at varying levels of geography. In addition, income data will be obtained directly from income tax records for all census respondents, instead of by sampling, as has been done previously, resulting in reduced bias and variance. Census results will also be released in a shorter time frame. All results will be available within 18 months of Census Day, 10 months faster than in 2011. The initial results for income will be available to users 12 months earlier than in 2011.

Table 1 - Recommendation 1
Timeline Deliverable(s) Responsible party
February 2016 Questionnaire and collection processes adapted for mandatory approach (start of early enumeration) Director General, Census Program
May 2016 2016 Census collection Director General, Census Program
September 2017 Release of income data collected by linkage to administrative records Director General, Census Program

Recommendation #2 – Performance (trust and use)

It is recommended that the CePop Program detail the measures taken to improve the quality of the statistical information for the dimensions of accessibility (data for small areas and subpopulations), accuracy and coherence to meet user needs in the 2016 cycle.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Management response

The Census Program will ensure that an effective and proactive communication approach is implemented to inform Canadians, particularly direct users of program data, of the orientation of the program and the exact nature (quality) of the data that are produced and that will be produced. The Census Program will assess new data-quality indicators to better inform users of the nature of the data and their appropriateness for use. The Census Program will also produce a guide to the data-quality indicators to help users properly interpret their meaning, and to facilitate comparisons with previous cycles. This guide will be available with the first release of the indicators. In 2018/2019, Statistics Canada will consult data users to ensure that dissemination outputs meet their needs. In addition, Statistics Canada will present the results of the 2016 cycle and associated analysis and methods in conferences, in meetings and on request.

Table 2 - Recommendation 2
Timeline Deliverable(s) Responsible party
Winter and spring 2016 New data-quality indicators Director General, Census Program
With releases in 2017 Guide to data-quality indicators Director General, Census Program
Fall 2019 Consultation report Director General, Census Program
Ongoing Presentation of findings in conferences, in meetings and on request Director General, Census Program

Recommendation #3 – Performance (interpretability)

It is recommended that the CePop Program ensure the availability of timely information and the necessary support to inform and guide the different types of data users and satisfy multiple needs, given the different approaches in different census cycles.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Management response

The Census Program will ensure the availability of timely information and the necessary support to inform and guide the different types of data users, and satisfy multiple needs, given the different approaches and changes between census cycles. The Census Program has a long tradition of informing users about the concepts, variables and classifications it uses, as well as about its methodology, via short- and long-form users' guides, topic reference guides and technical reports (e.g., on coverage, on sampling and weighting, and on Aboriginal peoples). This will continue in 2016.

In addition to assessing the feasibility of introducing new data-quality indicators, the program will disseminate all major releases for the 2016 cycle within 18 months of Census Day, an improvement of 10 months compared with the 2011 cycle. Statistics Canada will also introduce a new level of geography for long-form data, the aggregate dissemination area, to offer a reliable alternative for small-area analysis.

Table 3 - Recommendation 3
Timeline Deliverable(s) Responsible party
Winter and spring 2016 Feasibility assessment of new data-quality indicators Director General, Census Program
November 2017 Dissemination of all major releases within 18 months Director General, Census Program
With first release of long-form data, beginning in August 2017 Dissemination of long-form data for new aggregate dissemination areas Director General, Census Program

Evaluation of the Census of Agriculture Program
(2009/2010 to 2013/2014)

Executive summary and Management response and action plan

April 2016

Acknowledgements

The Evaluation Project Team would like to thank those individuals who contributed to this project, particularly members of the Departmental Evaluation Committee as well as all interviewees who provided insights and comments crucial to this evaluation.

This report was approved by the Chief Statistician.

In accordance with the accountability requirements in the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation (2009) and Directive on the Evaluation Function, this report is available to the public and posted on the departmental website in both official languages.

Statistics Canada has also shared this report with its program delivery partners and key stakeholders, including the National Statistics Council.

Prepared by the Evaluation and Performance Measurement Division, Audit and Evaluation Branch. Khaddouj Souaid led the Evaluation Project Team, which included Sonia Ben Amor, Justin Wabgou, Mihaela Tapuc, Sonia Demers and Tony Haddad.

List of acronyms and abbreviations

AAFC
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
ASP
Agriculture Statistics Program
BR
Business Register 
CEAG
Census of Agriculture
CePOP
Census of Population
CFIA
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
CRMS
Client Relationship Management System 
FR
Farm Register
EPMD
Evaluation and Performance Measurement Division
NAICS
North American Industry Classification System
NHS
National Household Survey
PMRA
Pest Management Regulatory Agency
RBAEP
Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan
QAF
Quality Assurance Framework
RDAS
Remote Data Access System
SSC
Shared Services Canada
TB
Treasury Board
TBS
Treasury Board Secretariat
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Executive Summary

The Evaluation and Performance Measurement Division (EPMD) of the Audit and Evaluation Branch of Statistics Canada conducted an independent assessment of the Census of Agriculture (CEAG) Program. The results provided objective information and recommendations to support program improvement and inform future decisions by Statistics Canada and Parliament with respect to the government's management of resources and programs.

The evaluation was designed and conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Evaluation (2009) and associated directives and standards, and fulfills an accountability commitment set out in Statistics Canada's Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan (2012/2013 to 2014/2015). The evaluation's objective is to provide credible and neutral information on the ongoing relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the program.

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the CEAG. It was presented to the Departmental Evaluation Committee and approved by the Chief Statistician.

The Census of Agriculture Program

The Census of Agriculture is conducted every five years. It collects information on the state of all agricultural operations in Canada to provide Canadians with a comprehensive profile of the agriculture industry and its people. The objectives of the CEAG Program are: (1) to maintain an accurate and complete list of farms and types of farms; (2) to provide comprehensive agriculture data for detailed geographic areas; (3) to provide measurement of rare/emerging commodities; and (4) to provide critical input for the purpose of managing federal and provincial governments' expenditures in support of the agriculture sector. The budget for the 2011 cycle of the CEAG Program was $46.6 million over six years (2008/2009 to 2013/2014).

Evaluation scope and methodology

The evaluation's five-year reference period was from 2009/2010 to 2013/2014; this included the conduct of the 2011 CEAG and the planning phase of the 2016 cycle. The evaluation also examined the performance of cost-recovered customized products and services related to the CEAG. Data collection for this evaluation was completed between February and October 2015. Six lines of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative methods, were used, including document and literature reviews, an administrative data review, key informant interviewsFootnote 1 with 60 internal and external stakeholders and data users, efficiency and economy analysis, and bibliometric and webometric studies. Data from these sources were analyzed and triangulated to develop the findings and generate recommendations based on the conclusions made.

Findings

Relevance of the program

The evaluation demonstrates a continued need for the CEAG to fulfil and support legislative and regulatory requirements under federal/provincial/municipal acts and regulations. An examination of the program relevance conducted in 2012Footnote 2 found that a quinquennial CEAG was necessary in order to meet the wide range of information needs of its various stakeholders and data users. The program is a unique, nationally uniform data source with complete enumeration of all Canadian farms, and meets the policy, program and research needs of various public and private data users. In some instances, the data for small geographic areas are the only source of critical information used for environmental reporting, crisis management, land planning and regulation, and food safety.

The program is aligned with the priorities of the federal government in support of its investments in the agriculture industry and its partnerships with the provinces and territories. Conducting a census of agriculture is consistent with the federal government's roles and responsibilities, as stipulated in the Statistics Act. The program supports Statistics Canada's mandate "to ensure that Canadians have access to a trusted source of statistics on Canada to meet their highest priority needs"Footnote 3 and contributes to its strategic objectives.

The evaluation found no evidence of viable alternatives for the collection of data of the same scope, level of detail, and quality to replace the CEAG data.

Performance of the program—achievement of expected outcomes

The 2011 CEAG program was successful in achieving its intended outcomes by providing accessible high-quality statistics and related custom-data products. It met the information needs of its various stakeholders, and its statistical information was widely used, for multiple purposes, such as academic and policy analyses and program design and evaluation. In 2014, the budget allocation for the CEAG was reduced by 9.2% and its scope limited to focus on core activities. The federal government's decision consequently reduced the CEAG outputs. It is anticipated that the discontinuation of analytical products and CEAG–CePOP-linked data for the 2016 cycle will reduce accessibility and use of CEAG data in the future. In the context of continued demand for these products, many stakeholders expressed concerns that the information gaps could lead to the use of less reliable data resources.

The evaluation examined the quality of the CEAG statistics by assessing their timeliness, accuracy, interpretability, coherence and accessibility. Evidence indicates that the 2011 CEAG core products were released according to pre-announced schedules. However, there were delays, ranging from 7 to 17 months, in the release of the analytical publications. These were due mainly to resource constraints. The 2011 CEAG had a 95.9% response rate and demonstrated improvements to Internet uptake (which increased from 5.0% in 2006 to 10.9% in 2011), and decreases in estimated net undercoverage (from 3.4% in 2006 to 1.8% in 2011). The CEAG statistics are also generally coherent with other datasets and validated by other sources (e.g., commodity and farm income and prices programs).

The CEAG continued to respond to existing and emerging data needs while maintaining content stability for data consistency and comparability over time. CEAG data were provided by theme and properly coded; up-to-date definitions and supplementary information were available for appropriate data interpretations. The 2011 CEAG provided public access to five types of statistical products free of charge, in addition to delivering over 500 high-quality cost-recovered custom-data requests, such as customized tabulations for small-area data. Accessibility appears to have been limited by significant delays in the delivery of these requests, as was reported by data users. It is notable that, in 2011/2012, the process of developing the Corporate Open Licence Agreement was taking place in the context of unrestricted access to, and free dissemination of, government data, which was introduced government-wide by the TBS. This, along with resource constraints, resulted in an overall backlog of custom-data requests.

The introduction of the Canadian Socioeconomic Information Management database (CANSIM) in 2012 was a significant improvement with respect to accessibility, as consistently reported by stakeholders. Analysis of data monitoring of online accessFootnote 4 to CEAG's products shows high levels of activity (4.5 million downloads and 3.5 million page views of products over three years from 2011/2012 to 2014/2015), particularly in the release years. The program has effective governance structures, longstanding partnerships with internal and external stakeholders, and comprehensive consultation processes to solicit and attain feedback from a cross-section of experts and data users (federal–provincial governments, agriculture industry, academia, and the general public). Some unmet or insufficiently met information needs were identified in some areas, such as environmental practices, organic production, and technology use. While these needs are clearly important for the program to adapt to a rapidly evolving sector, it is noted that the specific and detailed information relating to these issues may likely be within the realm of more targeted surveys (e.g., agriculture or environment) and not within the scope of the Census.

The use of the CEAG statistical information to inform public debate, research, and decision making is evidenced by the extent to which it is referenced in policy, research, and program development and evaluation documents reviewed. Evidence indicates that the CEAG products were widely cited in peer-reviewed scientific publications, on the World Wide Web, and in newspaper articles.Footnote 5

Performance of the program—efficiency and economy

Overall, the CEAG program has operated efficiently and economically by achieving incremental cost savings over successive cycles. Efforts at optimization of resource utilization, including reviews and investigation studies, were made between 2011/2012 and 2013/2014 to identify and implement ways of delivering the program more cost-effectively. The CEAG is conducted concurrently with the Census of Population. The two programs share key processes and infrastructure (to ensure accurate coverage and reduce duplication); this generates significant cost savings. Financial records indicate that the CEAG's approved funds were consistently lower than the projected cost estimates in three consecutive CEAG cycles (2006, 2011 and 2016). This resulted in the application of further cost-savings to deliver the program within allocated budgets. While the budget in constant dollarsFootnote 6 for the 2011 CEAG ($47 million) was similar to that for the 2006 cycle ($46.8 million), the program produced the same number of outputs, as well as an additional analytical publication, while yielding an overall improvement in data quality.

Building on major changes in methodology, processing, and use of technology in the 2006 cycle, the 2011 CEAG included strategic investments of $2.7 million that aimed to achieve further efficiency. They consisted of the CEAG Farm Register and the Census of Population Address Compatibility initiative (to decrease mail-out rates and reduce reliance on human resources) as well as the Multi-Model Response Development Initiative (providing respondents with an option to complete the questionnaire by telephone). These improvements resulted in a higher Internet response rate in 2011. Statistics Canada has set a target Internet response rate of 30% for the 2016 cycle, especially given the reduction in the questionnaire size.Footnote 7 The CEAG Program is aligned with transformations in the context of Statistics Canada's Corporate Business Architecture to ensure efficient ways of conducting statistical programs.

It is noted that the program is currently implementing the 2016 CEAG cycle as per the resources level and scope approved by the government in 2014, with a budget of $42.6 million, a 9.2% decrease from the 2011 cycle. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation evidence suggests that further resource decreases would limit the CEAG Program's capacity to produce the same level and quality of statistical information and maintain its overall quality.

Conclusions and recommendations

The evaluation reveals a demonstrable need for the CEAG Program to meet the existing information needs and adapt to emerging data requirements of a rapidly changing industry. The 2011 cycle achieved its intended outcomes efficiently and economically, by providing access to high-quality data and responding to most information needs of data users.

Some unmet or insufficiently met information needs were identified, particularly relating to environmental practices, organic production, technology use and direct marketing. These needs are known to Statistics Canada; the feasibility of meeting some of them was examined and, where appropriate, action was taken. The evaluation concludes that the use of other surveys to bridge the gap is a more appropriate and efficient approach. Leveraging resources to jointly conduct consultations for the CEAG and other agriculture surveys may lead to a more efficient use of resources. Some areas for improvement could enhance access to, and use of, the CEAG data, including the production and dissemination of analytical products for the 2016 CEAG and timely delivery of custom-data products and services.

While the evaluation found evidence of emerging information needs and trends, it also found that the CEAG may not be the most appropriate and efficient tool to address these needs. The evaluation noted as well that the CEAGs stakeholders and data users are also the primary users of the surveys of the Agriculture Statistics Program (ASP), which collect more detailed information on specific agriculture topics. It is important that a close coordination of activities between the two programs be in place, particularly planning and stakeholder consultation, to identify the most appropriate and efficient use of resources for each program.

Recommendation #1 – Performance (efficiency)

It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Economic Statistics consider the feasibility of coordinating stakeholder consultation activities of the Census of Agriculture Program with those of the Agriculture Statistics Program. Efficiencies may be found in reducing the duplication of efforts and identifying the most appropriate and effective use of the resources of each program to best meet the information needs of stakeholders and data users, given that the latter are almost identical for the two programs.

The CEAG's analytical products are highly accessed and widely used by a variety of data users. In 2014, the government decided to focus the CEAG on core activities, consequently reducing its budget and scope. The program is currently implementing the 2016 CEAG cycle as approved. It is anticipated that the discontinuation of analytical products and the CePOP-CEAG linked data may cause significant limitations to future accessibility and use of the CEAG data as measured against previous cycles.

Recommendation #2 – Performance (accessibility and use)

Given the important value consulted users attached to analytical products, it is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Economic Statistics explore options for external sources of funding to support continued production of analytical products for the CEAG in order to maintain accessibility and use of the CEAG data.

While the evaluation evidence indicates that the program delivers high-quality custom-data products and effective client-centered services, it also identified the need for improvements in timeliness in the delivery of these products and services (as reported by data users) and in tracking and documenting performance related to these products and services.

Recommendation #3 – Performance (timeliness)

  1. It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Economic Statistics ensure that a review of lessons learned internally and externally be carried out to develop strategies/options for consideration in relation to the provision of timely cost-recovery custom-data products and services, and that improvements be made to the tracking and documenting of performance with respect to these services.
  2. It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Census, Operations and Communications ensure that improvements be made to Statistics Canada's Client Relationship Management System (CRMS) to enable documentation of performance related to timeliness in the delivery of custom-data products and services with respect to all statistical programs.

Management response and action plan

Recommendation #1 – Performance (efficiency)

It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Economic Statistics consider the feasibility of coordinating stakeholder consultation activities of the Census of Agriculture Program with those of the Agriculture Statistics Program. Efficiencies may be found in reducing the duplication of efforts and identifying the most appropriate and effective use of resources of each program to best meet the information needs of almost the same stakeholders and data users of both programs.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Management does not agree with the recommendation.

Management response

The objective of the Census of Agriculture consultations is to specifically determine questionnaire content. The funding obtained for this activity is generally targeted. Given the overlap in stakeholders between the Census of Agriculture and the remaining Agriculture Statistics Program, it makes sense to ensure that any subject matter identified by users as being useful, but not to be included in the census, is passed on to the non-census agriculture program.

Table 1 - Recommendation 1
Timeline Deliverable(s) Responsible party
September 31, 2019 Census of Agriculture Content Consultations – Data gaps identified in the consultation will be passed on to the non-census agriculture program. Director General – Census of Agriculture

Recommendation #2 – Performance (accessibility and use)

Recognizing the important value consulted users attached to analytical products, it is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Economic Statistics explore options for external sources of funding to support continued production of analytical products for the CEAG in order to maintain accessibility and use of the CEAG data.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Management response

The analytical products for the 2016 Census of Agriculture were specifically removed from the program when final funding was approved to align the program of work with the final budget allocation. In future censuses, if sufficient funding can be obtained, the program will reintroduce the suite of analytical products. In light of this recommendation, efforts will be made during the approval process for the next Census cycle to better sensitize decision makers to the importance users attached to the analytical products. For the 2016 Census, the program will consider and possibly seize opportunities to partially fill the gap should external resources become available in the conduct of this cycle.

Table 2 - Recommendation 2
Timeline Deliverable(s) Responsible party
March 31, 2018 Report outlining the options developed and examined to support analytical products from the CEAG. Director General – Census of Agriculture

Recommendation #3 – Performance (timeliness)

a) It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Economic Statistics ensure that a review of lessons learned internally and externally be carried out to develop strategies / options for consideration in relation to the provision of timely cost-recovery custom data products and services, and that improvements be made to tracking and documenting performance related to these services.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Management response

The issues relating to the cost-recovery program after the 2011 CEAG were largely related to Workforce Adjustment Directive and the disruption it caused during the data dissemination period. The Agriculture Division will ensure that the capacity to carry out cost-recovery work is maintained through the dissemination cycle for the 2016 census.

The main tool to track and document this type of performance is the CRMS. Modifications may be required to this tool in order to supply the additional metrics that have been requested to better monitor service delivery.

Table 3 - Recommendation 3
Timeline Deliverable(s) Responsible party
April 30, 2017 Previous data users will be contacted to ensure that their data needs are identified before release in order to prioritize and complete as much preparation as possible before release. Director General – Census of Agriculture
March 31, 2018 The Agriculture Division will track information on timing of orders as well as committed and actual delivery dates. Director General – Census of Agriculture

b) It is recommended that the Assistant Chief Statistician of Census, Operations and Communications ensure that improvements be made to Statistics Canada's Client Relationship Management System (CRMS) to enable documentation of performance related to timeliness in the delivery of custom data products and services for all statistical programs.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Management agrees with the recommendation.

Management response

Changes will be programmed in the CRMS to document planned and actual delivery dates for custom products and services for all statistical programs.

Table 4 - Recommendation 3
Timeline Deliverable(s) Responsible party
September 30, 2016
  • Two new fields will be programmed in the CRMS.
  • Changes will be communicated to CRMS users, and training will be provided as required.
 Director General – Communications

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Qualitative in-depth interviews with people knowledgeable about the program and its products.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Statistics Canada. 2012. Agriculture Statistics Program Review. Agriculture Division.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Statistics Canada. 2015. 2015/2016 Report on Plans and Priorities, p. 14.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Statistics Canada web metric data also show 443,941 page views of analytical articles over three years (2012/2013 to 2014/2015).

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Bibliometric and Webometric Analysis for the Evaluation of the Census of Agriculture, October 2015.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

The calculation in constant dollars was based on 2012/2013 as reference for the 2006, 2011 and 2016 Census of Agriculture cycles.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

The questionnaire used for the 2011 Census of Agriculture was shortened for the 2016 cycle: 9 new questions were added, and 31 questions were removed.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

General Information

This information is collected under the authority of the Statistics Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter S-19. COMPLETION OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT UNDER THIS ACT.

Survey purpose

This survey collects data to provide estimates of production and value of maple products in Canada. The data are used by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, other government departments and provincial governments as well as producer's organizations. This information assists in the administration of agricultural policies, production and price analysis as well as economic research. Your information may also be used by Statistics Canada for other statistical and research purposes.

Confidentiality

Your answers are confidential.

The Statistics Act protects the confidentiality of information collected by Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada is prohibited by law from releasing any information it collects which could identify any person, business, or organization, unless consent has been given by the respondent or as permitted by the Statistics Act. Statistics Canada will use the information from this survey for statistical purposes.

Fax or e-mail transmission disclosure

Statistics Canada advises you that there could be a risk of disclosure during the transmission of information by facsimile or e-mail. However, upon receipt, Statistics Canada will provide the guaranteed level of protection afforded all information collected under the authority of the Statistics Act.

Data-sharing agreements

To reduce respondent burden, Statistics Canada has entered into data-sharing agreements with provincial and territorial statistical agencies and other government organizations, which have agreed to keep the data confidential and use them only for statistical purposes.
Information on data-sharing agreements can be found on the last page of this questionnaire.

Record linkages

To enhance the data from this survey, Statistics Canada may combine it with information from other surveys or from administrative sources.

Your participation is important

Your participation is vital to ensuring that the information collected in this survey is accurate and comprehensive.

Please return the completed questionnaire to Statistics Canada within 30 days of receipt by mail using the return envelope.
You can also fax it to us at 1-888-883-7999.
Lost the return envelope or need help? Call us at 1-800-565-1685 or mail to: Statistics Canada, Operations and Integration Division, Central Reception – SC-0505 150 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0T6

Main respondent

  • Given name and initial(s)
  • Family name
  • Telephone number
  • Fax number
  • Other telephone number
  • Number and street name
  • Post office (name of city, town or village where mail is received)
  • Province
  • Postal code
  • E-mail address (if applicable)

Alternate respondent

  • Given name and initial(s)
  • Family name
  • Telephone number
  • Fax number
  • Other telephone number
  • Number and street name
  • Post office (name of city, town or village where mail is received)
  • Province
  • Postal code

Alternate respondent

  • Given name and initial(s)
  • Family name
  • Telephone number
  • Fax number
  • Other telephone number
  • Number and street name
  • Post office (name of city, town or village where mail is received)
  • Province
  • Postal code

Conversion table of Imperial and Metric units

1 imperial gallon = 4.54 litres of syrup = 13.25 pounds or 6.11 kilograms
4 litres of syrup = 11.66 pounds or 5.29 kilograms
1 litre of syrup = 2.92 pounds or 1.32 kilogram
540 millilitres of syrup = 1.57 pounds or 0.71 kilogram
325 millilitres of syrup = 0.95 pounds or 0.43 kilogram
250 millilitres of syrup = 0.73 pounds or 0.33 kilogram
1 kilogram = 2.20 pounds
750 grams = 1.65 pound
500 grams = 1.10 pound
375 grams = 0.83 pound
250 grams = 0.55 pound
125 grams = 0.28 pound

1. If you are not currently tapping, check one of the following boxes:
a) We did no tappings in 20XX, but it is possible that we may tap in 20XX.
b) We have permanently ceased to tap our maple bush.

Maple taps

1. Number of trees tapped in 20XX
2. Number of tappings in 20XX

Production of maple syrup

Report maple syrup which you intend to process into sugar and butter, later in the season, in the appropriate sections below. (Please indicate in Imperial or Metric)

1.Sold or to be sold to processors

a) lb.
b) kg

2. All other syrup sold or to be sold (Do not include sales to processors)

a) gal
b) litres

3. Consumed or to be consumed at home

a) gal
b) litres

Production of maple sugar

1. Sold or to be sold

a) lb.
b) kg

2. Consumed or to be consumed at home

a) lb.
b) kg

Production of maple butter

1. Sold or to be sold

a) lb.
b) kg

2. Consumed or to be consumed at home

a) lb.
b) kg

Average sales price obtained

1. Syrup sold to processors

a) $ per lb.
b) $ per kg

2. All other syrup sold

a) $ per gal
b) $ per litre

3. Sugar sold

a) $ per lb.
b) $ per kg

4. Butter sold

a) $ per lb.
b) $ per kg

Data sharing-agreements

To reduce respondent burden, Statistics Canada has entered into data-sharing agreements with provincial and territorial statistical agencies and other government organizations, which have agreed to keep the data confidential and use them only for statistical purposes. Statistics Canada will only share data from this survey with those organizations that have demonstrated a requirement to use the data.

Section 11 of the Statistics Act provides for the sharing of information with provincial and territorial statistical agencies that meet certain conditions. These agencies must have the legislative authority to collect the same information, on a mandatory basis, and the legislation must provide substantially the same provisions for confidentiality and penalties for disclosure of confidential information as the Statistics Act. Because these agencies have the legal authority to compel businesses to provide the same information, consent is not requested and businesses may not object to the sharing of the data.

For this survey, there are Section 11 agreements with the provincial statistical agencies of New Brunswick and Ontario.

The shared data will be limited to information pertaining to business establishments located within the jurisdiction of the respective province or territory.

Section 12 of the Statistics Act provides for the sharing of information with federal, provincial or territorial government organizations. Under Section 12, you may refuse to share your information with any of these organizations by writing a letter of objection to the Chief Statistician and returning it with the completed questionnaire. Please specify the organizations with which you do not want to share your data.

For this survey, there is Section 12 agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

For agreements with provincial and territorial government organizations, the shared data will be limited to information pertaining to business establishments located within the jurisdiction of the respective province or territory.

Comments

Please enter any comments about weather conditions or other factors impacting production during the 20XX season.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

Concordance: NGS University-level Historical Groupings to University Student Information System (USIS)

Concordance: NGS University-level Historical Groupings to University Student Information System (USIS)
NGS University-level Historical Groupings University Student Information System (USIS)
Code Grouping Code Sub-grouping Code USIS Title
1 Commerce, Management and Public Administration 11 Commerce, Management and Public Administration 4.12.00 Commerce,Management,Business Admin.
4.14.01 Public Administration
4.14.03 Hotel and Food Administration
4.14.99 Other Specialized Administration Studies
4.47.00 Secretarial Studies
2 Social Sciences, Psychology and Law 21 Law and Jurisprudence 4.33.00 Law and Jurisprudence
22 Criminal Justice and Criminology 4.13.00 Criminology
23 Disciplines in the Social Sciences 4.03.00 Anthropology
4.06.00 Archaeology
4.08.00 Canadian Studies
4.09.10 Mediaeval Studies
4.09.20 Asian Studies
4.09.40 Slavic Studies
4.09.99 Other Area Studies
4.15.00 Demography
4.27.00 Economics
4.30.00 Geography
4.43.00 Political Science
4.52.00 Sociology
24 Communication Studies and Journalism 3.10.00 Journalism
3.17.00 Other Mass Communication Studies
25 Social Work, Social Welfare, Social Services and Related 4.49.00 Social Work and Social Welfare
4.57.00 Other Social Services
5.18.99 Other Household Science and Related
26 Psychology and Cognitive and Behavioural Sciences 1.38.03 Education Psychology
4.46.00 Psychology
3 Studies in Humanities and the Arts 31 History Studies 3.09.00 History
32 Linguistics, Languages and Literature 3.03.00 Classics,classical and Dead Languages
3.05.00 English Language and/or Literature
3.06.00 French Language and/or Literature
3.11.01 Comparative Literature
3.11.02 Medieval Languages 
3.11.03 Asian Languages and Literatures
3.11.04 Slavic Languages and Literatures
3.11.99 Other Languages and Literatures
3.14.00 Linguistics
3.27.00 Translation and Interpretation
33 Philosophy, Logic and Ethics Studies 3.21.00 Philosophy
34 Religion and Theology 3.24.00 Religious Studies
3.25.00 Theological Studies
35 Library and Records Sciences 3.12.00 Library Science
3.13.00 Other Records Science
36 Fine, Visual and Performing Arts 2.03.00 Fine Arts
2.05.00 Music
2.08.00 Other Performing Arts
2.14.01 Industrial Design
2.14.99 Other Applied Arts
4 Educational Studies 41 Teacher Training 1.18.00 Elementary/Secondary Teacher Training
1.23.00 Higher Education,Post-Sec.Teacher Trng
1.36.00 Kindergarten,Pre-School Teacher Training
1.39.00 Physical Education
42 Other Studies in Education 1.38.01 School Librarianship
1.38.02 Education Administration
1.38.05 Guidance and Counselling
1.38.06 Curriculum Specialization
1.38.07 Measurements and Evaluation
1.38.08 Education Foundations
1.38.99 Other Non-Teaching Fields
5 Health Professions and Recreation 51 Medical Professions 5.21.00 Veterinary Medicine
5.23.00 Veterinary Medicine Specialties
7.03.00 Dentistry
7.04.00 Dental Specialties
7.05.00 Medicine
7.08.00 Medical Specialties
7.12.00 Surgical Specialties
7.18.00 Optometry
52 Nursing Studies 7.15.00 Nursing
53 Health Administration, Epidemiology and Public Health 4.14.02 Health Administration
7.24.00 Epidemiology and Public Health
54 Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences 7.21.00 Pharmacy
55 Other Health Professions 7.10.99 Other paraclinical sciences
7.27.02 Aural and Oral Rehabilitation
7.27.04 Occupational Therapy
7.27.06 Physical Therapy
7.27.99 Other Rehabilitation
7.36.00 Medical Technology
7.99.00 Other Health Professions and Occupations
56 Physical Education, Recreation and Leisure 1.40.00 Kinesiology,Human Kinetics & Kinanth.
1.41.00 Recreation
6 Biological, Biomedical and Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources 61 Biology and Biomedical Sciences 5.06.00 Biochemistry
5.09.10 Genetics
5.09.12 Microbiology
5.09.99 Other Biology
5.12.00 Biophysics
5.15.00 Botany
5.18.08 Food Science and Nutrition
5.22.00 Veterinary Sciences
5.24.00 Zoology
5.25.00 Toxicology
7.06.04 Anatomy
7.06.06 Biochemistry (basic medical sciences)
7.06.08 Biophysics (basic medical sciences)
7.06.10 Embryology
7.06.12 Endocrinology
7.06.14 Genetics (basic medical sciences)
7.06.16 Histology
7.06.22 Neurophysiology
7.06.26 Pharmacology
7.06.28 Physiology
7.06.99 Other Basic (Medical) Sciences
7.10.06 Immunology
7.10.10 Microbiology (basic medical sciences)
7.10.14 Pathology
62 Agricultural Sciences 5.03.10 Animal Science
5.03.22 Plant Science
5.03.26 Soil Science
5.03.99 Other Agriculture
63 Natural Resources 4.40.10 Resource Mgmt.,Environmental Studies
5.16.00 Fisheries and Wildlife Management
6.20.00 Forestry
7 Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Computer Sciences 71 Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Related Sciences 8.15.00 Chemistry
8.18.00 Geology and Related
8.24.04 Climatology
8.24.99 Other Meteorology
8.27.00 Oceanography and Water Studies
8.30.01 Astronomy
8.30.02 Aerospace Sciences
8.30.99 Other Physics
72 Mathematical Studies 8.12.00 Mathematics
73 Computer Sciences and Information Technology 8.06.00 Computer Sciences
8 Architecture and Engineering  81 Professional Engineering and Engineering Technologies 6.05.00 Aeronautical & Aerospace Engineering
6.06.00 Chemical Engineering
6.07.00 Civil Engineering
6.08.00 Design,Systems Engineering
6.09.00 Electrical Engineering
6.10.00 Industrial Engineering
6.11.00 Mining Engineering
6.12.00 Mechanical Engineering
6.13.00 Metallurgical Engineering
6.14.00 Other Engineering
6.15.00 Engineering Science
6.16.00 Engineering General
8.21.00 Metallurgy, Materials Science
82 Architecture and Land/Urban Planning and Development 4.40.08 Reg.Rural,Urban,City Planning Comm. Dev.
6.03.00 Architecture
6.22.00 Landscape Architecture
9 Other 91 General and Interdisciplinary Programs 0.00.00 General Arts and Science
0.00.01 Interdisciplinary Studies
0.00.02 General Arts
0.00.08 General Science
4.55.00 Military Studies

NGS University-level Historical Groupings - USIS - Introduction to the concordance

The National Graduate Survey (NGS) University-level Historical Groupings to University Student Information System (USIS) concordance presented here provides information on how the groupings and sub-groupings of the concordance can be used for summarizing and analysing more detailed field of study classes from the USIS classification.

Taken together with the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Canada 2000 Variant of CIP 2000 - NGS University-level Historical Groupings users will be able to compare NGS field of study data that are coded using either the USIS classification or CIP 2000. The NGS used the USIS classification to code NGS data from 1982 to 1995, and used CIP 2000 to code NGS data from 2000 to 2010.

The concordance and variant are designed to compare NGS data for the following years: 1982, 1986, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Please note that while field of study data for the 2010 cohort were coded to both CIP 2011 (for the first time) and CIP 2000, the concordance and variant apply to data coded to CIP 2000 only.

The concordance and variant can only be used for university-level fields of study. The college and trades level fields of study in the Community College Student Information System (CCSIS) and Trade/Vocational Enrolment Survey (TVOC) surveys were coded using the CCSIS field of study classification, which is not comparable to the USIS classification or CIP 2000.

The concordance consists of nine NGS university-level historical groupings, from 1 to 9. The NGS groupings are further broken out into thirty one NGS sub-groupings that are a convenient and useful basis for summarizing and analysing more detailed classes from the USIS classification or CIP 2000.

Other recruitment and development programs

Data production/Operations (EC RDP):

Become a member of the team serving Canada with high-quality statistical information that matters. This is an opportunity to acquire experience and develop knowledge in survey processes, systems and methods. You will be member of a challenging development program which includes a variety of training and development activities. Statistics Canada is an employer who believes in the advantages of a diverse and inclusive workplace. We offer interesting career opportunities and rewarding challenges for every employee to reach their full potential.

The EC RDP is approximately a two year program where qualified candidates are appointed to an EC-01 level and based on successful performance may be promoted to the EC-02 level if they meet the requirements of the developmental program. The program combines a series of work assignments in various areas of the Agency as well as specialized training.

Entry into the Data Production and Dissemination and the Operations streams require a successful completion of two years of a post-secondary program with acceptable specialization in social science, statistics, library/archival work or a law-related field. Recruits in these two streams start at the EC-01 level and graduate at the EC-02 level.

The data production and Dissemination and the Operations Economist starts at the step 1 of the pay scale.

FI Recruitment and Development Program (FI RDP):

The Financial Officer Recruitment and Development (FORD) Program recruits eligible university graduates for full-time, entry-level positions in a wide range of departments and agencies throughout the federal government. The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) and specifically the Office of the Comptroller General manages the program on behalf of government organizations, but it is important to note, that Statistics Canada recruits most of their financial officer from this program.

The FI Recruitment and Development Program (FI RDP) at Statistics Canada is a learning and development program that combines practical on-the-job experience, gained through developmental work assignments and formal training. Recruits generally remain in the program for a minimum of three years.As a qualified financial officer, you’ll be part of a professional team and be able to work in a variety of areas such as budgeting, financial systems, accounting operations, financial policy and costing. As a financial specialist, you will play an important role in strengthening the financial management function through improving financial operations, practices and reporting. This in turn will lead to better decision making and will support organizations in achieving their objectives efficiently and effectively.

Financial officer (FORD) trainees start at step 1 of the FI-01 category pay scale.

For information regarding the education requirements for this position please refer to the FI qualifications standards established by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat:

PE Recruitment and Development Program (PE RDP):

At Statistics Canada, we are committed to recruiting, developing and retaining a knowledge-based workforce in the human resources field. Our goal is to work as business partners with our clients, delivering core services and programs that are consistent, strategic, integrated, and responsive to clients’ priorities, while considering our staff’s career development and advancement. To accomplish this, the agency invests in its people through skills training, mentoring and coaching, and exposure to all human resources disciplines.

The objectives of the PE Recruitment and Development Program (PERDP) are to:

  • ensure that the Human Resources Branch has a sustainable workforce that is robust, knowledgeable, competent, and equipped to deliver quality services in a professional and cost-effective manner;
  • help Human Resources Advisor recruits to gain proficiency in an HR discipline with the aid of a supervisor and the insight of a mentor;
  • assist recruits in achieving their career aspirations and in gaining the confidence and skills they need to provide optimum service in a selected HR discipline;
  • provide structure for employees at the PE-01, PE-02 and PE-03 levels in the HR Branch by defining the required combination of experience, knowledge and competencies.

For information in regards to the education requirements for this position please refer to the PE qualifications standards established by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Human Resources Advisor trainees pay scale will start at step 1 of PE-01 pay scale.

Internal Auditor Recruitment and Development (IARD RDP):

The Internal Auditor Recruitment and Development (IARD) stream provides you with the necessary experience and on-the-job training that you require as you pursue a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) designation.

As an IARD trainee, you will benefit from:

  • The Internal Audit Orientation Workshop offered by the Canada School of Public Service and other training identified by your employer
  • Professional development sessions related to your position
  • A development plan that includes competency-based work objectives and support from more senior staff designed to help you succeed in the IARD Program
  • Promotion to the AS-03 level upon successful demonstration of the required competencies

As a qualified internal auditor, you will be part of a professional, independent and objective appraisal function that works across a variety of program areas and locations, giving you a unique perspective on the organizations where you will be working. Internal auditors contribute to improving risk management, control and governance processes. This in turn helps support organizations in achieving their objectives efficiently and effectively.

Internal audit (IARD) trainees start at step 1 of the AS-02 category pay scale.

Subscribe to
Date modified: