Mr. Fraser, you said it was clearer.
My second question concerns clause 2 and the concept of "understanding". It states: ...be able to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in both official languages..
Whether people can express themselves clearly in both official languages will depend on a determination of whether they are bilingual or not. However, are you not concerned about the idea of understanding without the aid of an interpreter? An individual might be able to express himself or herself clearly but not understand. However, a person has to understand in order to discharge his or her responsibilities. The idea is not just to be able to say things; you also have to be able to understand them.
The federal Judges Act already provides that judges must be able to do their work without the aid of an interpreter. That is the case at the Federal Court of Appeal. The government thinks that, if they write "without the aid of an interpreter", those people may not even use headphones during meetings. That is not the purpose of the bill. The bill's underlying idea is that someone who is hired should not need the aid of an interpreter. He or she should be capable of understanding and speaking both languages. Otherwise, the bill means nothing.