I think we are talking about two different things.
For the National Household Survey, which did cost some $650 million, we went systematically to visit all of the reserves in Canada that allowed us to do so, because not all of them do. In some cases there were forest fires or flooding that prevented us from going onto the reserves.
On the reserves where we were granted access, for the National Household Survey, we collected data not on a population sample, but on 100% of the population. Those are good data that also include figures on the working population and the May 2011 unemployment rate.
As for the Labour Force Survey, it was carried out on 56,000 households throughout the country. So this represents only a small fraction of all households. That survey does not include all the reserves. If we went to the reserves for that survey, the data would not include all of the reserve households, but only some of them. Consequently, we would never publish data on those reserves. The same thing applies when we go to Calgary, for instance. For the Labour Force Survey, we do not go to every household in town, buy only to some of them to represent all of the households.
So, even if we went to reserves for the Labour Force Survey, we would not have data on every reserve. The impact of that data on the national, provincial or economic regions unemployment rate would be minor and almost imperceptible.
Be that as it may, I quite agree with you. If we could produce monthly data on reserves, that would be extremely useful and desirable, but we would have to allocate $650 million to that every year, which is not realistic.