I would just like to make one clarification.
Ms. Lapointe, in our discussion, we talked about doing the citizenship test on the knowledge of Canada in French. We had a discussion about whether or not this would be required.
If paragraphs 1(1)(d) and 1(1)(e) of the bill are considered together to be joint requirements, the argument could be the second: knowledge of benefits and responsibilities should be demonstrated in French.
It is also important to ask whether this part is stricter than paragraph 1(1)(d), which simply requires an adequate knowledge of French
As for taking the citizenship test in French, would the court consider whether the interpretation of this part could be mitigated, because it would be considered excessive, while the first part would be justified?
That would also be part of the discussion.
On the issue of appeals, the only thing I would add is that, in some cases, courts will defer—that's quite right—and courts also, in other cases, will ask the questions: Who is best placed to make the determination? Is the administrative tribunal a better place or has it better expertise than the reviewing court? If no, then sometimes the reviewer court may call for less deference.
However, that's a part of administrative law in terms of asking those questions: How much deference, if any, is owed to the initial decision-maker?