Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2018

[Matthew Ball]

It could be read, but the interpreter wouldn't characterize it as his or her work. Do you understand the distinction? When the interpreter—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

How would they say that? Would they say into the mike, “This is not my work”, and that's it?

[Matthew Ball]

Yes, we'd make an announcement. That's done sometimes in certain specific contexts. Typically, in many of our assignments if a video is going to be played, we normally would make a note saying that the interpretation would resume after the video is finished.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I think that Mr. Saganash has some more questions for you. I'd like to give him my time, if I could.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

I'm unaware of the relations that you have with the 100 or so interpreters you have on your list. Over time, have you had any conversations relating to the fact that this is a very particular setting, that this is Parliament? Have you had any discussions with them about the difficulty of translating certain concepts?

I speak my language fluently, but there are some words that we use in a parliamentary setting, like filibustering, for example.... I know a lot of chiefs who filibuster all the time, but that's another setting. Certain concepts exist in our setting, the parliamentary setting, that don't exist in indigenous languages. Have you had any discussions to that effect with the interpreters you have right now?

You can answer in French, if you wish.

[Matthew Ball]

Generally, some of the interpreters we hire and who work on parliamentary committees have little or no parliamentary experience. This is often the case with indigenous languages. In these cases, we send a senior interpreter who supports them during the process. We provide them with background documentation to explain what parliamentary committees are, how meetings are run, the roles of members of Parliament, the chair, the opposition and the interpreter, and the fact that the interpreter speaks in the first person, as the witness who is speaking.

So that's what we are doing right now. As for the unique features of a language and notions of that kind, it is up to the interpreters to be familiar with them and to master them, and to make the transfer between languages and cultures.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I imagine that's part of your code of ethics.

[Matthew Ball]

Yes.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We will go on to Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I think it's actually Mr. Nater.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You're next on the list. Mr. Nater just went.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That's fine, but Mr. Nater has some questions to ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. That's fine.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

I want to talk a little about technology. I know that the translation bureau has been involved in projects in the past—for example, the Portage tool. What efforts are being made from the technology side of things in terms of developing a capacity on the technological side of things for indigenous languages?

[Stéphan Déry]

I could come back with additional details, but currently we're working with the National Research Council looking at incorporating English, French, and Inuktitut into machine translation. That's not machine interpretation. It's different.

We're looking at this. As you know, though, Portage is a tool to understand, not necessarily to translate. It's the same thing with any tools we will be looking at, especially for dialect, Inuktitut and others, and indigenous languages. As you heard from many of the witnesses, there's not even consensus on how it should be written, so it's difficult.

As I said, we're working with the National Research Council. We're trying to make progress on that, but I would say that the progress is slow coming.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The Star Trek universal translator machine isn't in the near future, then.

[Stéphan Déry]

In interpretation, definitely not.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Okay. That's great.

I want to touch a little bit more on the remote translation idea. You had some concerns about that in your opening comments. I've not been in the new chamber since last spring when it was an empty cement block, but I understand that the third translation booth isn't in the chamber itself. Is that your understanding?

One of the concerns we heard is that when someone is interpreting, it's better to see the person who's speaking. If the third translation booth is not physically in the chamber, does that present challenges for interpreters?

[Stéphan Déry]

I will have to verify that, because to my understanding, it is there, or it was when I visited the chamber.

As an interpreter, if you don't see the speaker, you can't really use the body language for your verbal intonation. Visual expression is, we say, worth a thousand words. It's important for them to see. It's harder when they are working remotely. It's feasible, but it's harder, especially when they don't see the interlocutor.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The technology is there, potentially, but the usefulness or ability or capacity to do that would be the challenge. It wouldn't necessarily be the technology.

[Stéphan Déry]

What we have seen with remote interpretation is that when we have somebody from Nunavut, let's say, trying to interpret something in Parliament here, the bandwidth is the biggest issue we have. There's a disconnect. Sometimes the lack of audio quality of the interpretation is extremely difficult for the participant.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Absolutely. Having briefly been in Iqaluit for a committee meeting and calling back here to talk with a school group, there was about a two-second delay over the line, so I certainly appreciate the challenges there.

That's good, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Does anyone else have any questions? We have one minute left.

Ms. Tassi.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

The only follow-up question I have is with respect to the suggestion you made about choosing a day—the Friday, for example. Is there an advantage to choosing a day, or is it okay to have it any day as long as you have the 48 hours? Is there some advantage to that?