My wife is completely bilingual. French is her first language. When I consider her French compared to that of some of our friends, which is sufficient to meet this test, there's a huge difference. I'm sure my friends here whose first language is French would find the same thing.
Conversational bilingualism is inadequate to hear a court proceeding. I spoke of Justice Lamer. Lamer was one of the few judges who was completely bilingual. Someone who's living is Charles Gonthier. He was also able to write competently and fluently in English and French. He could understand the nuances of the language in both languages. He was truly bilingual, and he was competent. It's not impossible for people to be gifted in languages and competent in law. All I'm saying is that when you take all the straw away and you come down to the one question of whether it is competency or the ability to get along without a translator, I'd say the test has to be competency. The marginal benefit of being familiar enough with the other language so as to carry on a conversation but being unable to write or read fluently in French or English—I don't see that as being much above the translation.