Finally, Mr. Speaker, a reply to Mr. Arvaluk's question asked on December 11th. Mr. Arvaluk asked about the use of simultaneous translation in court proceedings.
In court proceedings, where the court does not understand or speak the language of the accused, it is the accused's right to have the assistance of an interpreter. If the accused is the only one in the courtroom who requires an interpreter, she or he is usually provided with simultaneous interpretation, often by an interpreter whispering to him or her. The Official Languages Act was amended in 1990 to allow for simultaneous interpretation for the audience as well, so now portable interpreting equipment is used in many court sittings so the public and other parties can listen to the proceedings in their own language.
As for the interpretation of testimony of witnesses and of any information aimed at jurors, this must be done using consecutive interpretation since the interpreter must have control of the flow of information. The interpreter must be able to stop the speaker to ask for clarification of legal terms, ask for repetition of things that are not heard properly, and must have time to completely and accurately interpret. In simultaneous translation some details may be missed and the order of words may come out of proper sequence since the word order is so different between aboriginal languages and English. All of these considerations make simultaneous interpretation unsuitable for testimony and information aimed at the jury where accuracy and very careful interpretation is critical. It is my understanding that consecutive interpretation is almost always used in courts in Canada for these same reasons.
It is the decision of the judge whether or not interpretation will be provided, and the type of interpretation which will be provided, but they are aware of the issues and I think are in agreement with the emphasis on accuracy rather than on speeding up the trial where accuracy could be sacrificed. Simultaneous interpretation of testimony has only been tried in a few places in the South where there are interpreters who have a long history of experience in legal interpreting and in very specific areas of the law. The Department of Justice has this year funded the first specialized legal interpreter position. Perhaps in the future, when there are interpreters who specialize in law for a long period of time, simultaneous interpretation of testimony will be tried in the Northwest Territories. Qujannamiik.