I am quite surprised by the scope of the amendment. I knew from the comments you made that the interpreter issue was a problem for you. However, if we strike the words "speak and understand", it will not be precise enough. The quality of the ability to speak and understand was specified by those words. I would find it unacceptable to remove them completely.
As for striking the words "without the aid of an interpreter", Mr. Gourde, I believe you are depriving yourselves of a privilege, that of being able to meet with the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer of the Privacy Commissioner and to speak to them privately without an interpreter. That is a privilege. If I wanted to speak to the Chief Electoral Officer to clarify some matters with him, I would have to have access to him without needing an interpreter around me.
Under this amendment, we are depriving ourselves of that. This is an amendment that limits the rights of members and parliamentarians. I hope you are aware of that.