Evidence of meeting #100 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was language.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I would propose that we would do that in the new House, as the infrastructure would be there. I don't know when the move is scheduled, but as soon as you would, it would be—
11:45 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:45 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I mean that it would be a lot easier to implement when we have the third booth and the infrastructure to do it, but it could be done in this House.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Yes, and fulfill Mr. Saganash's dream.
Thank you.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, thank you to our witnesses.
We were talking a bit about the hundred or so interpreters you have on file, for lack of a better word. I'm curious about this. Perhaps there would be some way we can do this without releasing personal information, but would we be able to get a profile of those hundred interpreters, without names or whatever, but what languages they speak, their profiles, and perhaps as well where they're located geographically? It would help us in our deliberations.
11:45 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Absolutely. We would be happy to provide that without names, but with the location, the capacity of the interpreters, and the languages. There are about 20 languages. We will provide that from the information we have. We don't have a major database for that, but we can provide the information.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
That would be greatly appreciated.
Stemming from that as well, you mentioned that many of these interpreters have other jobs. Would you be able to tell the committee what some of those other positions are? Are they in health care? Are they in the justice system? Where would they normally be if they're not interpreting for us?
11:45 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
That's a question that I don't think we would be able to answer, to be honest. Also, a lot of these interpreters are not necessarily full-time interpreters. There is no profession of interpreter in indigenous languages like there is in official languages, but they also could be community interpreters, or they could do other work that is not related to interpreting.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I'll follow up a bit on what we talked about in that first round in terms of relay in translation and how there is often that loss in translation. I'm curious to hear if you have any comments on whether it would present a challenge for the Official Languages Act if something is being interpreted from an indigenous language into English and then relayed into French. Would that loss, which we have been told is 20%, give or take, offend the Official Languages Act in terms of having to use a relay translation in those situations?
11:45 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you for the question. I will try to answer. I may ask my colleague Mr. Ball to continue the answer.
Interpretation is different from translation. It's not word for word. We're not speaking word for word what has been said by the person. Let's say the person says, “one point eight billion, two hundred and sixty-two million, and five hundred and sixty-two”. A good interpreter will probably say “around two billion dollars”.
If they start repeating every single number, they'll lose the context and they'll lose the speaker. That's a big difference. This would be a bad translation: “approximately two billion dollars”. You would have to write down the entire number. But in the interpretation, to give the sense of the message, you would say “two billion dollars”. It's not exactly the same in terms of the Official Languages Act.
The person who is receiving the message would get a sense of the message, of what has been said. I would say that they won't get all the flowers around the message, and maybe they'll lose a few of the colourful statements, but they'll have the intent of the message.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
That follows when it's recorded in Hansard. Does the translation bureau do the translation for that as well, in which it would be the exact—
11:50 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
That would be the exact number, yes.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
The translation bureau does that entirely for the production of Hansard.
11:50 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Yes.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I want to go back and talk a little about the code of conduct and things like that. I was curious about some of the rules the translation bureau has in terms of working conditions. I know we often see the rotation of interpreters within the House. Are there set rules for how long an interpreter works consecutively before a break, or the length of a workday?
11:50 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I will ask Mr. Ball to answer the question.
11:50 a.m.
Acting Vice-President, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Yes, there are. There are internationally accepted standards, and the bureau abides by them. What you see here in Parliament is typical. The team strength is based on the length of the event, so typically for your meetings, if they're two hours, we may send two interpreters. You're right, the interpreters will spell off in rotation. Interpreting is a cognitively demanding task. We would not expect an interpreter to do her or his best work non-stop for hours on end.
The interpreters also are there to work for their clients, so there are times when we.... These are principles and standards that we respect in theory. If a meeting goes over by 20 minutes we don't usually send in another team. That's a little context for you.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Acting Vice-President, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Yes.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you.
We're here for process. I want to know if you think what I'm saying here is reasonable. Every member has their spoken indigenous languages documented on arrival in this place. Everyone is given a reasonable notice period for speaking so that someone like MP Saganash can have that right. If we recommend that honourably submitted text be read, how would you handle that, given the conflict between our rules and your ethical rules?
If we make that a rule, how will you take that? If we put it in our Standing Orders that if a member provides the text to the interpretation booth, that it will be read, and that puts you in an ethical conflict, how will you take it?
11:50 a.m.
Acting Vice-President, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I believe the rules state now that the members are to read their statements themselves. If the bureau were to be asked to read statements, it would be made clear that this was a statement provided to be read into the record. I don't think we would make an interpreter speak through the voice of the interpreter. We would make the distinction clear. I don't see an issue with that.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's a good point. If a member speaks a language other than English or French and gives the English or French text to the interpreter, and our rules state that you will be obligated to read it, can you do that or is the ethical conflict such that you couldn't do it?
