Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to return to what was said earlier.
There's really a contradiction between what the interpreters presented and what we've just heard.
The Association's documents specifically state that the Zoom platform may have been chosen for good reasons, but that "its suitability for delivering quality interpretation could not have been one of them." The interpreters described the sound as "toxic" in terms of the ISO standards established by international experts. We were also told about all the injuries to which they were subjected.
There's also a small table showing that in terms of quality, Zoom comes in last on the list of various platforms.
What's your take on that?