I have two things to say about that. First of all, with all due respect to the previous witness, I do not believe that a unilingual person is best suited to evaluate the quality of the interpretation.
When I watch a film in French with English subtitles, I say to myself that I would not have translated a given sentence that way. However, when I watch a film in German with subtitles, I cannot say whether the film has proper subtitles or not.
I know that one of the witnesses this week had concerns about his own submission before the Supreme Court. The witness made similar comments one year ago, when we appeared before a committee. I wondered whether he was exaggerating.
I am often very impressed by the work of the interpreters. Theirs is an extremely difficult job. I greatly admire the work done by interpreters. I know a few of them and find that they do a masterful job. Nevertheless, I remember watching one of my appearances before a committee on CPAC and telling my wife that that was not exactly what I had said.
When you express nuances, it is quite possible that the interpretation might not convey the exact meaning of what you are trying to say. That might happen to a lawyer who pleads his case before the Supreme Court.
We have not received any complaint regarding the interpretation service, but we did receive two complaints regarding certain deficiencies within other federal tribunals, because of a shortage of bilingual justices. I spoke of that problem with the Minister of Justice.