OVERALL: main thing is to report information to the best of your knowledge and belief, and if that means there are some aspects of the information you perceive as a potential cause for questions or concern, be sure to wait to apply with a bigger margin of presence over the minimum.
Minor discrepancies are rarely a problem unless IRCC has cause to otherwise be concerned about the applicant's credibility . . . and SO LONG AS there is no doubt the applicant met the physical presence requirement. Big margin generally covers the latter (again, unless there is cause to be concerned about the applicant's credibility beyond the small discrepancies).
There is a procedure for appending information to the travel history records. I have not done it nor revisited the process lately, so I am not prepared to describe the procedure. As I recall it was readily accessible through the CBSA website. Probably not worth doing (see below).
This does not "correct" the record, but notes the information, adds
your version one might say.
One day discrepancies, in particular, should be of little importance. Multiple discrepancies, or other indications of conflicting information, can of course have an impact on an individual's credibility.
Side note 1: many think of credibility in terms of misrepresentation, but it is essentially about the extent to which a person can be relied upon to be an accurate reporter of information, of facts, and thus significant mistakes, no matter how innocent, can suggest the person is not entirely a reliable reporter; and that's not good since IRCC relies heavily on the information the applicant provides, and if that cannot be trusted to be a reliable report, that can compromise the strength of the case.
Side note 2: Even though a mistake does not favour the applicant, its importance is that it illustrates the unreliability of the applicant's reporting; so such mistakes can hurt as much as one that favours the applicant (example: there is at least one case where evidence the applicant was IN Canada, based on her children's school records, during periods of time the applicant's account of travel history put her outside Canada, the discrepancies were sufficient enough to deny her application based on her compromised credibility, even though on its face that particular mistake appears to mean she was in Canada more not less).
Probably not worth the effort just to add a note to CBSA's records that you dispute their record as to those dates. The exception might be the missing date of entry. Those can be more problematic, and how much so depends on how long it is until there is a clear record of presence in Canada.
As
@akbardxb noted, such errors or discrepancies are no longer at all common. The one day variances are, again, insignificant, but a missing entry date can leave a gap in the extent to which your account is verifiable.
Since there is no transactional significance in the CBSA travel history as such, so far as I know there is no process for "correcting" the record. No need for one. It is only information. So you can append your version but I don't think there is any way to adjudicate a definitive resolution.
Any transactional significance is limited to calculation of presence in Canada for particular purposes; in the context here that is in regards to either compliance with the PR Residency Obligation or meeting the presence requirement for citizenship. And sure, if IRCC questions certain days in Canada, that can be the subject of further inquiry and, if necessary, the applicant can be asked for or otherwise provide additional evidence to prove the applicant's accounting of days in Canada.
NO ONE really wants to go there. That is the RQ process. It is at the least inconvenient and causes delays. Last thing an applicant wants is to have to "
prove" days present in Canada. Much, much better to wait to apply with a strong enough case IRCC has no inclination to ask questions let alone doubt whether the applicant met the presence requirement. (I waited a full extra year to apply; I do not often do as I preach, but in respect to this I did.)
And, if that is where things go, credit card statements generally do NOT carry much evidentiary weight. An employer's objective records of your presence, during that period, at a jobsite or workplace in Canada is better evidence.
If you traveled outside Canada often, even the omission as to a date of entry should not be much of a problem. Safest approach is (1) again, report according to YOUR best knowledge and belief, and (2) wait to apply to cover any potential discount of time due to the discrepancy.
Thus, for example, if the missing entry date is February 13, 2020, and your next trip abroad was less than a month later, so there is a clear record you subsequently entered Canada again March 17, 2020, or so, just wait at least 32 more days to apply (in addition to a good margin any prudent applicant should have . . . so say at least 60 to 70 days total). That would cover that period of time, so even if a total stranger bureaucrat notes the discrepancy with the CBSA travel history, your overall presence easily meets the requirement, so if there is no other reason to suspect significant errors in your accounting, very good odds that does not trigger RQ.
Most applicants do not bother to obtain a copy of their travel records from other sources. So if such discrepancies occur, many apply without knowing there is such a discrepancy in their records. And usually all goes well . . . assuming they meet the qualifications and there is no reason to doubt that.
Final note: some suggest frequent travel can trigger RQ related questions. Actually, frequent travel can help make the case stronger, because the dates of entry into Canada are readily verified by IRCC (with possible exceptions like the omission in your situation) and that shows the applicant actually IN Canada. In contrast, if an applicant goes full years without leaving Canada, IRCC will need to rely on other evidence, like address and employment history, to corroborate the applicant's ACTUAL presence in Canada all those days between the known date of entry and next reported date of exit.
Both 1. and 2. were via land border from Seattle to Vancouver.