Official Languages committee  Exactly, and perhaps that is the issue. Public servants are currently using Google Translate a million times a year. Do we continue to use public tools, with the risks that may involve, or do we create an internal tool that does not have security risks and that, with training, can perform much better because it will know the terminology used in the federal public service?

Official Languages committee  The tool has its limitations, which depend on the person using it. If used properly, it protects the official languages to some degree. It helps to translate, to understand someone who is speaking to us in another language. We can use it for the purposes of understanding, but it won't strengthen the legislation; it's only a tool.

Official Languages committee  To do a translation, the person who sees what is produced by the machine has the know-how required to ensure that the tool performed properly and to make corrections if necessary. That's what Ms. Brunette called post-editing. If used the other way, you have to have the skills to do so.

Official Languages committee  Three organizations created the CRTL: the Translation Bureau, the NRCC and the Université du Québec en Outaouais. We are set up just across the river at UQO. Our role is to do research and develop technology in the language technologies sector. In 2014, we expanded our scope. For lack of funding, we are now focusing on business intelligence, on large archives of data and on entrepreneurship in the Outaouais region.

Official Languages committee  No. We work in the same building and we have used this software for three years, but we had no contact with the version that was deployed for the government. I should note that there are two parts, as Ms. Brunette explained. There's the software and there's the corpus or what the software learned.