We thought about it. We wanted to be sort of more in line with the Official Languages Act and the legislation dealing with federal court judges, which do not have specific criteria either. Their wording is similar. They say that it is important to understand the interpreter and to be able to communicate clearly in both languages. The potential problem with criteria is that they can evolve. A C-B-C level from 20 years ago is probably no longer the same as the one we have today. So we did not want to set criteria like that in the legislation; we said that we would leave it the way it is.
Furthermore, we must not forget that, for each of those positions—as I mentioned a number of times—the appointment is made by the House or the Senate. So those people will appear before the committee. If those people who are supposed to be bilingual come to meet with us, I think we will have an opportunity as parliamentarians to ask them questions and therefore assess their level of bilingualism.