I can answer that question. We can say that it is, in fact, a huge problem.
I do not know if Mr. Rémillard already mentioned this, but in 2010, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc. created the Centre canadien de français juridique to provide better training for support staff and provincial court judges. The centre includes a component for interpreters.
We find that in practice, the interpretation is not reliable. It is not because the interpreters are unable to speak French, but because they do not have specialized legal training in French.
If the nuances of the lawyers' arguments are not interpreted properly before a court of law, that can adversely affect my client's case. So I have to step in from time to time to correct the interpretation by the interpreter. I do not do it out of lack of respect for the interpreter, but instead to clearly explain the case to the judge. Since I am bilingual, from time to time, I can explain to the judge that my comments were not interpreted accurately. That even happens at the Alberta Court of Appeal.
I can give you an example of something that happened last spring, when we were appearing before the Alberta Court of Appeal. There were two interpreters on our team. In presenting our arguments, we referred to "l'onglet 2" of our brief. That translates into English as "tab 2". The interpreter understood "anglais 2" and translated it as "English 2". Those are the kinds of fundamental things that can adversely affect a case. In this case, since there were several lawyers, we were able to share the work and ensure that the judges hearing the case received accurate interpretation of all of the arguments presented.
Interpreter training could therefore be an important part of the Centre canadien de français juridique.
I think I will give the floor to Mr. Rémillard to allow him to add some comments of his own.