Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

If you can, answer in 30 seconds. We're already over the time.

[Jim Thompson]

Nicole.

[Nicole Gagnon]

Yes, I realize that Mr. Moseley from the Zoom corporation assured you that there was an interpretation functionality on the Zoom platform. That is true, but it is minimal.

In the case of the Government of Canada, specifically parliamentary services, although the House administration has adopted a Zoom platform, it has been modified, so to speak, because of security concerns, first and foremost, and the end-to-end encryption that is required. Secondly, there has been an interface developed that has been twinned with the Zoom platform, whereby interpreters can go into work for you and do what it is they do day in and day out, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.

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

Madam Chair, I asked if there was something that they could table to the committee in relation to that quote from their paper. Would you be able to allow them to give us a yes or no on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. I thought it was a given.

Would you be able to table that for us, please?

[Nicole Gagnon]

We will endeavour to do so, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Next we have Mr. Turnbull, please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses today for their statements. We really appreciate it.

I want to say first off that I think you are quite right that the work many of our interpreters do is often in the background. I just want to say how much you are valued. You are really an integral part of the functioning of Parliament. I want to acknowledge that and really thank you for the quality of interpretation you've provided despite circumstances that have obviously been quite challenging. Our country has a dual linguistic nature and history, and it is really important to all of us to preserve that.

I just wanted to start with that thank you for and acknowledgement of your hard work, and our appreciation of the quality of interpretation and how you're protecting that.

That said, I never would have thought that all of the situational improvements being made to Parliament's ability to operate would cause injury to interpreters. When I learned of this, I was deeply concerned. I want to ask for some clarification on some of the injuries that have resulted and on how quickly people can recover from them. Eventually I will ask you another question, but in particular, how many people are getting tinnitus, for example? That seems like a pretty severe injury. Of the number of interpreters, how many were afflicted with tinnitus?

Greg, why don't we start with you?

[Greg Phillips]

It's really hard. We can table it, for sure, and we can follow up with more precise numbers—the problem being to get an accurate count. Many injured interpreters might go home and may have experienced tinnitus but have not submitted a report. They might not go to see a doctor and might just suffer through it and not tell anybody.

I know that the Translation Bureau is doing a thorough review of the incident reports they've been receiving. I think the Translation Bureau is coming back, and they're going to be talking about it, but we can definitely endeavour to table something for you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you. I would appreciate that. It is certainly something that is a cause for concern.

Could someone explain acoustic shock for us? I'm not really familiar with that as an injury. I've never had it and I have never known anyone to have it. Obviously, you would know more of the details on that.

Could you also describe what was said in the remarks—I think it was in your remarks, Ms. Gagnon—which was that hybrid meetings would pose the greatest shock or the greatest risk for acoustic shock? Could you explain what it is and why hybrid meetings might pose a greater risk?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Thank you very much for that question. I would be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.

Acoustic shock presents symptoms like a concussion where you have headaches, nausea, difficulty with this fog we're talking about. I'm sure you know that concussions are cumulative in impact over time. As you sustain one after the other, it takes a lot longer to recover.

As to the statistics, I believe that CAPE is best placed to speak to that because the staff interpreters are providing incident reports to the Translation Bureau. The International Association of Conference Interpreters in Canada does not compile such statistics, but we are getting feedback from the membership to that effect—tinnitus, hypersensitivity to loud noises and that kind of thing.

You had a second question as to hybrid meetings. Yes, they are the most serious of the issues because when you're meeting in person—we are all familiar with that experience—what happens is that, on top of that, you have people joining the call over the phone lines, so you are dealing with different technologies. You have the equipment that has been put in place for the in-person meeting; you have, on top of that, a layer of equipment that is being provided for the interpretation; and then finally, you have the telephone equipment on top of all of that, to put it in simple terms.

All of this is not necessarily compatible. When people are joining by phone, they can be joining on a land line, but there aren't too many of those left. Most of them are on cell phones. Some are in their cars driving with a hands-free system. It's a matter of the inputs. The inputs are various, and because of this, the quality of the sound is degraded and makes our work all the more difficult. That is when you can have a feedback loop that causes acoustic shock.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Since virtual Parliament under this global pandemic began, which I think is a gradual process, would you say that improvements have been made? Have the Speaker, the House administration and others been listening to the feedback you have given? It seems to me that some of the suggestions you have made have actually already been implemented. My impression is that the House administration is working really hard to make sure we get the best quality interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

In 10 seconds, please.

[Nicole Gagnon]

Improvements have been made. Of course, virtual Parliament goes back some six weeks now. Staff interpreters were working these sessions and reporting back to the Translation Bureau. Because of that, the Translation Bureau has been talking to the House administration.

Freelancers only went back to the Hill last week, and after a week, they have been reporting back to their association as well about these issues we've raised. The association has talked to the Translation Bureau, and up the chain it goes.

So, yes, improvements are being made, but it's a very recent experience.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Next up for questions we have Ms. Normandin, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here and for their opening remarks.

I will continue with the same subject that Mr. Turnbull mentioned. I know the reference point is very recent, but has there been any improvement since headsets are being used, and so on?

That brings me to another question. The pace is likely to be a little bit faster in the coming weeks because there will be more and more virtual committee meetings and virtual sessions of the House.

Given these improvements, do you feel you are able to provide service, even if there is greater demand for it?

[Greg Phillips]

I believe we do have the ability, but we will have to wait and see what the workload actually entails.

I know the interpreters are dwindling, and if you increase it, there are going to be problems. I think it's a question you might want to ask the Translation Bureau when they show up. I answered a question earlier in which I outlined the exact numbers of interpreters; about 40 out of the 70 are unable to work right now. It's not just sick leave; there are other issues around why they can't work right now.

If everybody's able to wear the headsets, and if all of our suggestions outlined in my presentation come true, then I think it will extend and enable more interpretation to be handled, but things can't continue as they are right now.

[Nicole Gagnon]

Madam Chair, may I speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, absolutely, Ms. Gagnon.

[Nicole Gagnon]

I just wanted to add to what Mr. Phillips said about the injuries to interpreters being serious. Fewer and fewer interpreters are available. I must say that the Translation Bureau has been listening and has introduced basic health measures. No one is worried about potential COVID-19 infection. However, what is important to us now is our hearing.

I would like to thank the members and all the online participants today as they are all wearing a headset. As long as everyone does their best to do so, we will be able to avoid injury and the interpreters will be able to continue working for you. That is all they ask. They want the virtual Parliament to be a success. They are simply asking you to help them be successful.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I gather from the presentations that there is more pressure to interpret from English to French because there are more English speakers.

If French-speaking members talk in French rather than English when they have the opportunity, would that help the interpreters?

[Nicole Gagnon]

It certainly would, Ms. Normandin.

Right now, I would say that 75% of the work is interpretation from English to French and 25% is from French to English. I don't have statistics, I am providing figures based on my personal impression.

Of course, members are free to speak in the language of their choice. If they want to speak in their second language, that is their right. We have to interpret them.

To answer your question, if the French-speaking members start speaking in French, it will surely lighten the load.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I don't know if you will have the answer to my next question. It is about the interpreting system.

I really like being able to hear the interpretation in one ear and to listen to the source language in the other, so I can compare the two, which Zoom does not currently allow me to do. It is one or the other.

Have you considered using a parallel system?

We could use the telephone and have an earpiece or something. We could set the volume of the interpretation and hear the original version at all times. Witnesses would not have to constantly switch channels either.