I'll just continue with Mr. Noreau, if I could.
Coming back to the example I gave, I'll read it one more time: Last week, how many hours did this person spend doing the following activities: ... (b) looking after one or more of this person's own children, or the children of others, without pay? Some examples include: bathing or playing with young children, driving children to sports activities or helping them with homework, talking with teens about their problems, etc. ...
It's a very nice sounding question. I think most people would probably just fill it out. But again, you get a respondent who, for whatever reason, says, “I just don't think I want to tell the government that; I just don't feel that I should do that.” The enumerator comes back again, because the person has refused, and in the manual it tells them to try twice. So they go back again and ask them, and the person respectfully says “no” again. Then out comes the total refusal form, which I read earlier.
I don't know if you heard me read it. Again, in contrast to the light and fluffy nature of the question, the total refusal form notes at the top that it is important that the information provided in the following sections may be used to support a legal prosecution and all details must be complete and accurate.
So the same enumerator who was trying to convince the person to perform their civil duty and answer the question and the person respectfully said “no” then fills out the section that asks for the description of the person who refused: age, gender, height, weight and other physical details such as facial hair, tattoos, glasses, birthmarks, distinctive clothing, etc.
Does that seem reasonable? To me, it seems kind of heavy-handed. Does that seem like a reasonable approach for someone who just doesn't want to tell the government how much time they spent talking to their teens about their problems?
I guess they have one more problem to talk about now.