I appreciate that statistically that wouldn't have moved the number of three, which is three times higher than when we used to have the long form census. That is a pretty extreme magnitude, quite frankly. We're not talking doubling or a half, but we're talking about three times as many. So, it was 1% in 2006 according to you when we had a long form census. It's 3%, which is three times the magnitude. That's a pretty high number. But, clearly for small subdivisions, and I used to live in a small community, data was important to us even if we were a small community when we were trying to make decisions. So even for a reeve in a small place, they still need data.
However, let me draw us back to the comment that's made in paragraph 8.52 which is that when we had the old census, 94% in 2006 were returned, versus the new one at only 69%. Not only do we get less data, it seems, if I'm reading correctly from the new one, but we also get three times more unusable data, the 3% of the population. Is that a fair and accurate description of those paragraphs?