That is a great question.
I will quickly answer by saying that what seems obvious often isn't to the people surveyed and to the respondents.
The first question was to find out whether the people did part or all of their primary schooling in French. Clearly, if section 23 is applied, we must also—although I'm not a lawyer—find out whether the people went to primary school in French for three months and whether that makes them eligible under section 23. So we must determine whether it is more than half, about half, or less than half and, whether the French-language schooling took place in Canada because, clearly, the question must be asked.
Another question was to find out in which type of program the people were enrolled. If it is a French immersion program, that does not meet the requirements of section 23. In addition, the idea was to find out whether it was a regular program of instruction in French. Another question was whether it was a French-language, bilingual or immersion school. That's the question that was asked. Another question was whether their children went to a French-language school. We asked because, sometimes, children are registered, but they don't attend a school. So a distinction needs to be made in that case. The question was whether the child was actually enrolled in a French-language school and whether the school was primary or secondary. The other question was whether the children attended an English-language school or a French-language school and whether they had brothers or sisters who had attended a primary or secondary school in Canada.
You see how many questions are needed to get the full picture. If everyone understood, we could ask the children whether their parents are rights holders. That would be simple and settled. You see the host of questions that may seem simple. However, it is not as simple as that for respondents to understand the distinction.