I think that's attributable to the fact that we're looking at more rural components, so the number of folks doesn't really change significantly when you add the two together, which I get. But would that not also suggest that, when we're trying to take a picture of Canada through data, we don't get a very clear picture if we have a large percentage and, if you add the two together, 40% of subdivisions in rural Canada is pretty significant, not being usable?
I recognize, Mr. Ferguson, you may not want to answer that specifically, but is that not the case?
I see Mr. Smith shaking his head to say “no”, and I'll allow him to answer if he wishes.
But clearly if you don't have data, how do you make a decision? Data's meant to help folks make decisions. That's why you supply it for us. If we don't have data, how do we make informed decisions, regardless of who we are and what we're using it for?