There are two elements to the response.
One is that for the purposes of the estimates of population, we have very rich information sources in Canada. We have very accurate information from vital statistics on births and deaths and on immigration to the country. We have extremely useful administrative files that allow us to capture interprovincial migration. The issue ultimately comes down to whether or not the data has been adjusted for net undercoverage and the normal size of that adjustment.
Given the precision of the measures that go into the population estimates, and given the fact that the population estimates were adjusted for the undercoverage in the previous census, that almost guarantees in Canada, and certainly has for multiple censuses now, that the estimates are going to be closer because they reflect an adjustment for undercoverage, rather than the unadjusted counts that we publish at the beginning of February. The difference of the people that we missed on the net basis in the census is on the order of 2% to 3%. That difference is sufficiently large that any possible error in the estimation process is exceeded by that error.
It's a very technical explanation, but that's the essence of it.