Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 11, the committee is meeting to discuss parliamentary duties in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before we start I want to inform members that pursuant to the order of reference, the committee is meeting for two reasons: first, for the purpose of undertaking a study and receiving evidence concerning matters related to the conduct of parliamentary duties in the context of COVID-19; and second, to prepare and present a report to the House of Commons by May 15 on that said study. The order of reference also stipulates that only motions needed to determine witnesses and motions related to the adoption of the report are in order.

Today's meeting is taking place by video conference and the proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So that you are aware, the webcast always shows the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

In order to facilitate the work of our interpreters and ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for you to follow.

Interpretation in this video conference will work very much like in a regular committee meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either “floor”, “English” or “French”. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak you can either click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, or you can hold down the space bar while you are speaking. When you release the bar, your mike will mute itself, just like a walkie-talkie.

This is a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Should members need to request the floor outside of their designated time for speaking or questions, they should activate their mike and state that they have a point of order. If a member wishes to intervene on a point of order that has been raised by another member, they should use the “raise hand” function. This will signal to the chair your interest to speak. In order to do so, you should click on “participants” at the bottom of your screen, and when the list pops up you'll see the “raise hand” function. Please click that.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, make sure your mike is on mute.

The use of headsets is strongly encouraged and I believe today we may have everyone with headsets, so thank you for ordering your headsets and having them. It's definitely going to facilitate this meeting much better.

Should any technical challenges arise, for example, in relation to interpretation or problems with your audio, please advise the chair immediately, and the technical team will work to resolve them. Please note that we may need to suspend during these times as we want to ensure that all members get to participate fully.

Before we get started, could everyone click on their screen in the top right-hand corner and ensure that they are on gallery view? With this view you should be able to see all other participants in a grid view and it will ensure that all video participants can see one another.

During this meeting we will follow the same rules that usually apply to opening statements and the questioning of witnesses during our regular meetings. Per the routine motions of the committee, each witness has up to 10 minutes for an opening statement, followed by the usual rounds of questions from members. Just as we usually would in a regular committee meeting, we will suspend in between panels in order for the first group of witnesses to depart and for the next panel to join the meeting.

I'd like to welcome to this meeting, on the first panel, the Canadian Association of Professional Employees and the International Association of Conference Interpreters. First, we will hear from the Association of Professional Employees. From there, we have Mr. Greg Phillips, president; Katia Thériault, director of communications; and Nicolas Bois, the president of Local 900. I believe, on their behalf, we will have Mr. Greg Phillips speak. From the Association of Conference Interpreters, we have Nicole Gagnon and Mr. Jim Thompson. They'll be up next after Mr. Greg Phillips.

Mr. Phillips, you have 10 minutes to make your opening statement.

[Jim Thompson, Communications Counsel, International Association of Conference Interpreters]

Yes.

Sorry to interrupt, but I do not have the option on my screen to choose a “floor” channel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Hold on a moment.

Mr. Thompson, we are going to look into it. We'll start with the statement from the first witness and the technical team will try to help you out while we're doing that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Let's start with Mr. Phillips, please.

[Greg Phillips, President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today about the strain and injuries that government interpreters have been sustaining during virtual parliamentary meetings, and how it's hurting their ability to effectively champion our two official languages.

My name is Greg Phillips. I am the national president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, also known as CAPE. Joining me today are a colleague and two CAPE representatives: Katia Thériault, director of communications; Nicolas Bois, president of CAPE Local 900 and translator at the Translation Bureau; and Bastien Tremblay-Cousineau, a parliamentary interpreter and also an occupational safety and health representative.

I would like to greet the interpreters responsible for this meeting's interpretation services. Language professionals play an essential role in the application of the Official Languages Act, and I want to thank them for the important work they do in promoting our nation's linguistic duality. I also want to thank them for their exceptional work since the COVID-19 crisis. The government has been in constant communications with Canadians about the pandemic, always relying on our language professionals to convey their updates in both official languages. Our interpreters have not missed a beat.

CAPE is the third-largest labour union representing federal public service employees. We represent nearly 18,000 economists, policy analysts, statisticians and researchers in the Library of Parliament, and analysts in the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Of most relevance today, we represent all 70 professional interpreters in the federal public service. We negotiate their collective agreements, and we defend their right to a safe and healthy workplace. We also take a stand when needed to fix their enduring labour-related problems.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a lot of changes in the way the federal government operates. One of the most obvious changes is the steep increase in virtual sittings of committees and Parliament. Virtual parliamentary hearings and sessions are not new to the government per se. Interpreters know how to operate in this environment and can deliver exceptional interpretation services when the interpretation standards and conditions are respected. However, teleconferencing and video conferencing have been known for some time to be challenging for our interpreters.

Well before COVID-19, we had raised the problem with the Translation Bureau, with whom we enjoy a good relationship. Indeed, occasional technical glitches or poor compliance with interpretation standards and conditions have in the past prevented our interpreters from performing their duties to the best of their ability. They have also caused injuries, including very serious cases of acoustic shock.

The current situation has created some urgency that has prompted an acceleration of our pursuit for remediation. CAPE is here to confirm the dramatic and exponential increase in injuries reported to us over a very short period of time. We can confirm that these incidents have been exacerbated by the exponential increase in the number of virtual meetings since the beginning of the confinement period. In fact, there have been more incidents reported between March 31 and May 1 of this year than for all of 2019 or, said differently, more than half of the injuries reported since the beginning of last year, 2019, to today have taken place in the last three weeks alone. Although not all incidents involve a serious injury or a visit to the doctor, the type and severity of symptoms felt by interpreters are very worrisome. This is not a normal situation.

CAPE’s labour relations officers, stewards and government occupational health and safety representatives at Public Services and Procurement Canada, PSPC, can confirm the unusual increase in injuries reported by interpreters and the uncharacteristic nature of the trend since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. The people on whom you depend need urgent action on this matter.

There is more to the situation. Interpreters are generally used to working multiple parliamentary assignments in one day, many days in a row. As the Translation Bureau told your committee last week, the typical day for a parliamentary interpreter consists of six hours of interpretation. Virtual meetings are handled differently because the cognitive load is much heavier, which leads to more strain and more injuries. This means shorter assignments, shorter shifts and more interpreters going on sick leave for days or being permanently redeployed to other non-virtual assignments at their request.

As a result, the pool of the available interpreters to pick from is shrinking.

We are getting close to our worst-case scenario, which is that too many interpreters end up needing rest and healing at the same time. We fear that interpreters are getting dangerously close to being unable to keep up with the demand and having to refuse assignments in too great numbers to find replacements. This would jeopardize the conduct of parliamentary activities. Nobody wants to get to the point where we no longer have enough available qualified interpreters to support parliamentary work. This would be a great disservice to all parliamentarians and to all Canadians.

Last week the Translation Bureau presented you with a general list of the types of physical injuries the interpreters have been sustaining during these virtual meetings. We can confirm that the injuries reported are impairing our members' hearing and concentration, which are the instruments they critically need to hold their jobs and do this profession.

If you recall, the main symptoms of those injuries include tinnitus, a residual and long-last beating sound, pounding and sharp bursts in the eardrum, headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, mental fog and an inability to concentrate. This is why longer breaks are needed and why interpreters go on sick leave.

CAPE is also here to confirm the causes behind those injuries and the extreme exhaustion, and the fact that with everyone's support they can be eliminated or mitigated. Those causes include poor audio and video quality because of bandwidth or connectivity issues, for example, using a Wi-Fi connection instead of a cable Internet connection, or not using a headset or microphone; the disruption of usual lines of communication and logistical channels, which makes it more difficult for interpreters to receive and manage documents and speaking notes; and more generally, a video conferencing system that does not meet international standards.

There are solutions readily available to solve this problem, and we implore you to consider adopting the following corrective measures.

Clearly communicate to clerks, MPs and witnesses the best practices for video conferencing and the material required for successful participation in a parliamentary video conferencing meeting. Make sure committee chairs are aware of the standards so that they can hold participants to them. Understand that simultaneous interpretation might not be possible in some circumstances and that other methods of interpretation, such as consecutive interpretation, might be necessary if conditions cannot be improved. Briefly go over the standards before each meeting. Make sure the video conferencing solutions used for parliamentary meetings are in compliance with ISO standards on remote interpreting. Ensure that everyone communicates with interpreters respectfully.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, in my closing argument, I want to reiterate the fact that interpreters are your main allies, albeit often invisible. They are an integral part of your parliamentary sessions. They ensure that the message you convey to your constituents and other Canadians is communicated in both official languages, accurately and in real time. Good sound is what interpreters rely on to do their work. When the working conditions lead to a deterioration of sound quality, the interpreters can't ensure as faithful, nuanced and complete a transmission of the meaning in the other language.

Without interpreters, non-bilingual MPs would not be able to fully participate in parliamentary meetings, and Canadians would not be able to follow our parliamentary proceedings in real time in the official language of their choice. It is my fervent hope that this committee will review how the virtual committee proceedings are conducted to ensure remediation.

Thank you to the interpreters on this assignment today and for doing your very best under very challenging conditions.

Thank you also to the committee members. We look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much.

Next we will hear, for 10 minutes or less, from Nicole Gagnon.

Thank you for providing your speaking notes as well. We have made them available to everyone in the committee. I hope they'll be able to follow along.

[Nicole Gagnon, Advocacy Lead, International Association of Conference Interpreters]

Thank you for the invitation, ladies and gentlemen.

If you recognize my voice, but you cannot place who I am, it's because you are accustomed to hearing me, not seeing me, when I am in the interpreting booth at your service.

The International Association of Conference Interpreters of Canada, or simply AIIC Canada, is the only national association representing conference interpreters in the country, both freelancers and Translation Bureau staff professionals. Our members are free to choose whether or not to join our association.

Let me first introduce my colleague, Jim Thompson, and to thank my colleagues in the booth today for their good services.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are a bilingual nation. Together, the two founding peoples along with our indigenous hosts have built our great country by sheer hard work. That was not always easy. But we persevered and succeeded against all odds. Our desire to be a bilingual country is written into the Official Languages Act and enshrined in the Constitution. Clearly...

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Could I intervene for a moment? I was thinking that the difficulty might correct itself.

We do have the speaking notes, and I want to let all the members know that an email was sent out with the speaking notes for Ms. Gagnon. You can take a look at those as well, as we're going through this.

Mr. Clerk, there is some difficulty in hearing the interpretation right now because the volume currently is approximately the same for the English and the French.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Yes, Madam Chair. Perhaps you may want to suspend for just a few minutes. We'll try to address the problem with the technicians here in the room. Hopefully, it should take only a handful of minutes, so just stand by, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

If everyone can just stand by for a couple of minutes, we'll suspend for maybe three to four minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

If everyone is back, maybe we can get started. The suspension is over. It looks like everyone is here. Everyone is turning on their cameras, so we will carry on with the meeting.

I call the meeting back into session. We'll continue to hear from Madam Gagnon.

Thank you.

[Nicole Gagnon]

So, as I was saying, our desire to be a bilingual country is written into the Official Languages Act and enshrined in the Constitution, which clearly obliges the federal government to provide access of equal quality to its proceedings in the country's two official languages. Neither the quality of the communication, nor the access to that communication in either official language can be overlooked in times of crisis.

We know from experience that our foundational partnership cannot be taken for granted. That is why AIIC Canada's number one issue is the quality of interpretation in both Houses of Parliament, the highest institutions of our democracy.

As you well know, many are concerned that the French language may be taking second place during the pandemic. Provincial premiers are being called out for failing to communicate with their French-speaking residents in their mother tongue. What can we say when the Prime Minister himself has stated that English-only labels and signage are acceptable in certain circumstances?

Independent senator René Cormier recently said, “nothing justifies the lack of respect for our two official languages.” We concur and submit that when it comes to access to the proceedings of the federal government, and in particular Parliament, nothing must compromise quality. In the rush to get a virtual Parliament, committees included, up and running, compromises had to be made, compromises that undermine the quality of interpretation during your proceedings.

The first compromise relates to technology. Witnesses from the Translation Bureau have stated that quality has not been compromised by technology during the past six weeks. They advised your committee last week that the bureau encourages interpreters to interrupt service when they cannot hear and, therefore, quality is not being undermined.

This blanket statement does not reflect what is really happening. Let me explain.

We endeavour to provide you with the seamless service you are used to. Even if encouraged, most interpreters are reluctant to interrupt service every time they are faced with bad sound quality. Instead, we will edit out some of what is being said because we haven't heard it properly. Some of the original message is lost; in many cases, more than what interpreters deem acceptable. We are trained to provide accurate and faithful interpretation of the speaker's words with all the nuances. After all, no parliamentarian wants to be misquoted. This is one of the ways in which quality is being compromised.

It is disrespectful to the institution of Parliament to show up in the chamber wearing jeans and a T-shirt. There are rules that prevent this. It is equally disrespectful to Canada's linguistic duality to show up for virtual assemblies without the equipment needed to be heard properly. There should be rules preventing this too. Everyone participating in a virtual committee meeting or other virtual assembly must wear a headset with a built-in microphone and they must be connected to the Internet by a hard Ethernet wire—not Wi-Fi . We ask your committee to recommend that this become a mandatory requirement for all virtual events.

The second compromise has to do with bidirectionality. Like you, interpreters have a mother tongue. They usually work from their second language into their mother tongue. For example, an English-speaking MP will be interpreted into French by a francophone interpreter. Interpreters are capable of interpreting into their second language. This is known as bidirectional interpreting, but most interpreters who work into their second language offer a service of lesser quality because of accent, syntax and vocabulary, for example. For this reason, AICC-Canada strongly advises against this practice when interpreters are working in Parliament for broadcast, unless they have been deemed qualified to do so.

By its own admission, the Translation Bureau has no shortage of accredited interpreters, so interpretation into a second language is not necessary. Parliament is sacrosanct and should receive only top-notch interpretation services.

The third compromise concerns fatigue and injury.

“Zoom fatigue” is magnified for interpreters because we are working with new technologies that are not yet perfected for remote interpretation. Thus, in addition to the normal challenges faced by interpreters, they are not getting sound that is adequate for good results, they are lacking the usual visual cues—and we know that body language represents 70% of communication—and they are presently working in the booth alone, no longer in teams, because of physical distancing.

We therefore have to strain and concentrate more, to the extent that we are suffering injuries such as serious headaches and earaches, tinnitus, hyperacusis and excessive fatigue.

We do not know when this pandemic will end, but we want to be in it for the long haul and to make it through this crisis with you. We therefore ask that you be mindful of the health and safety of accredited interpreters, because remote interpreting is so much more taxing in the current context.

The critical resource that we represent must be protected and carefully managed during this time of crisis. In all cases, quality must be paramount.

Lastly, I wish to bring to your attention the force that has been eroding the quality of interpretation of federal proceedings for years. It may come as news, but it is the policy of the federal government to allow a double standard of quality to exist in the interpretation of its proceedings. We held out hope that this would change when, in early 2017, the then minister Judy Foote called on the President of the Treasury Board to fix this problem. Three years later, nothing has been done.

On the one hand, there is a high standard of quality that is delivered by federally accredited interpreters. The Canadian federal accreditation is recognized worldwide as the gold standard of quality. The Translation Bureau hires and contracts only those who hold this credential. Parliament is served by the Translation Bureau in keeping with this high standard, but every other government department and agency, including the PMO and ministers' offices, can and do hire unqualified interpreters through private language service companies. Therein lies the double standard. Due to the pandemic, this practice has become increasingly widespread because of growing demand for interpretation agreements and the events held over phone lines.

Last year, the Translation Bureau stopped offering over-the-phone interpretation, because typical audio levels are so dismal that quality interpretation is near impossible. Moreover, in the case of hybrid meetings, where you have people meeting in person and others joining in over the phone, interpreters risk sustaining the most serious of injuries: acoustic shock. If the federal government truly values our linguistic duality, it will end this double standard forthwith.

As you know, the association is committed to making virtual meetings of Parliament work. With this in mind, I draw your attention to a summary of recommendations that we urge your committee to adopt.

With thanks, honourable members, we conclude our presentation. Jim Thompson and I will both be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. We appreciate both of the opening statements.

We will move on to our six-minute questioning round, started by Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

To whomever wants to answer this, to be an interpreter with the Translation Bureau, there's obviously some very high standards involved in that. For everyone's information, can you briefly give us all a rundown of what those qualifications are to be an interpreter?

[Greg Phillips]

If I may, I would turn it over to Bastien Tremblay-Cousineau, who is an interpreter.

If he's comfortable answering that, he could give you exactly what the qualifications are.

[Bastien Tremblay-Cousineau, Parliamentary Interpreter and Occupational Health and Safety Representative, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

All interpreters working for the Translation Bureau have a master's degree in conference interpretation, and all interpreters working for the Translation Bureau have to later pass an accreditation exam that is administered by the Translation Bureau. That is recognized worldwide as the gold standard for accrediting interpreters.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

How deep is the pool of interpreters of those available and qualified to work at Parliament?

We've heard that there is an increase in the number of interpreters needed to do these kinds of proceedings that are virtual or hybrid, or others. I am sure that a number of those are unable to work for a variety of reasons related to COVID. We're now hearing, of course, that there's been a huge increase in the number of workplace injuries. Are we in a situation where we could be getting thinned right out and wouldn't have enough interpreters available?

[Greg Phillips]

That is the ongoing concern.

There are about 70 staff interpreters working in official languages. There are another dozen working in foreign languages and sign languages. Of the 70 staff interpreters in official languages, during the pandemic, there are about 40 interpreters who are unable to work because of child care or health issues. There are about 60 accredited freelancers based in the national capital region, for all languages, who are not official language interpreters but are willing to work for Parliament.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

My understanding—and I want you to verify this for me—is that although we're all meeting virtually, I believe the requirement for the interpreters is still that they are working from booths in the West Block or from somewhere on the Hill for these virtual parliamentary proceedings. That's something that's being required and is necessary. Is that accurate?

[Greg Phillips]

It's my understanding that they're still working in the booths on Parliament Hill. They used to work in the same booth; they would be close by. Now, because of COVID and physical distancing, they're not in the same booth, but they're still working out of the booths.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

The reason I ask is that you were mentioning how many are available in the national capital region. The obvious question that someone might ask is, why not source people from elsewhere in the country? Tell me what the reasons are that this is the case and whether that's necessary, and that they are working from West Block and why that is.

[Greg Phillips]

My belief is that it's just based on demand for services. For the interpretation services, there are a lot more people who need interpretation services here in Ottawa, because this is where the government is. There might be a lot less need for interpretation services out of Calgary or other places where there may not be the demand for it.

[Jim Thompson]

Could I just add to that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Sure, briefly.

[Jim Thompson]

Mr. Richards, I wanted to let you know that, because the Zoom platform is not a stand-alone platform that interpreters plug into via their own laptops, they need to go to a place—in this case, the Hill—where there is an interface that connects Zoom to the consoles they normally work on. That is largely the reason for them having to go to work in the West Block.

Nicole may want to add to that. I don't know.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'd like to hear about that because we were told by a representative of Zoom the other day that the interpretation could be done through their platform, and it sounds to me like you're telling me that maybe that's not the case.

Quickly, before you answer that, could you also answer this for me? Your association sent a brief to our committee. It says that there is “conclusive proof that the quality of sound these [teleconferences] provide never come close to the quality of sound needed for” remote simultaneous interpretation.

Is there a research paper or a study where you've pulled this from that you could table with the committee for us?

You—or Ms. Gagnon, if she'd like to—can go also ahead and give me a bit more information.