One of the reasons we are wanting the upfront proof of language is because of cost. We've heard both sides of the spectrum. We've heard from folks who have lived all their lives in Canada, and for some reason didn't apply for citizenship until they were much older. English is their only language, and yet they have to pay for a test that says they have language requirements. We were particularly concerned around the 14-year-olds to 18-year-olds who are in school. You would think they were going to school in English and French, but if their parents were to apply for citizenship for them, they would have to pay to take a test to prove language ability. We don't believe it adds anything to someone being able to demonstrate their knowledge of Canada and our values as a society.
As I said, and your mother is a good example, we hear this over and over again from folks on the ground, who have elder folks, and especially older women, who've come to Canada, and who are often the last ones to be able to access services because they're busy taking care of their children, they're working two or three jobs to be able to pay their rent, and yet they have picked up on what it means to be a Canadian. What we're suggesting is that instead of having to show upfront proof, a citizenship judge could have a conversation with them to test their knowledge. In cases—and I keep coming back to refugee women and particularly older refugee women—where they may well be aware of what's happening in Canada, and very much aware of our system, there should be interpretation where required in a conversation with a citizenship judge.