Sure.
I'm looking at the Official Languages Act right now. Section 16 states:
Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that
(a) if English is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter;
It goes on, and then paragraph (b) is on French.
So this already exists in the Official Languages Act. The example you're putting forward is a bit weird. I'm sorry, but very often in the English language, I will say “What is this word in English” or “What do you think”. When we're talking about legislation, the difference between “the”, “if”, “and”, and “or” is huge. The difference between “and” and “or” is huge if you are a lawyer in a court.
What you're presenting, the essence of what you're putting forward, is not interpretation in terms of understanding the language. The essence of what you're putting forward is the legal interpretation of a word.
What this covers is basically, as the commissioner agreed with when I put the example forward, that if, for one example or another, the Auditor General is in Quebec, for example, and is doing a study or work out in the field, and both anglophones and francophones are speaking to him, he or she has to have the ability to understand, not just to speak the language, but to comprehend what is being said. That is what this is covering.
I'm not really understanding where.... It's like apples and oranges that you're putting out there. I don't know if you can explain that a bit more.