I'll just repeat what I said before. I'm very concerned if people think that any of the data—through that logic that you've put—that comes from the long-form census is missing 75% of the responses or that it is not of good quality, because you as legislators make decisions on a whole host of programs based on the quality of the data that we get from the long form.
I cannot explain it strongly enough. We know the total population, and it is a systematic sampling technique that is used the world over where, in our case, every fourth household, with a random start and with a mandatory requirement, fills out a whole host of questions that are on the long form. When we get those responses, we have weighting techniques to make sure that the one house that says “yes” or “no” represents all four in that region. That is how we come up with the full population.
So, it's not that 75% are missed. It's that if you get selected, in a very statistically sound manner, to fill out the questionnaire, you are representing that whole area. That is a method by which we can ask questions of one person, and that response essentially represents others.
I don't want to make light of this, but we don't drain the entire transmission oil to find out whether it's good or not. We take a sample of it and say, “Yes, it's of good quality”, and then either it's time to change it or it's not.
The sampling technique is something that is germane to statistics. Asking a question, with that response essentially serving as a donor to the rest of the population, is what we do all the time.