Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good morning, colleagues.

Good morning, everyone.

Everybody, we are gathering together for the 117th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We have another three hours this morning and into the early afternoon.

I note that there was some surprise on the part of members that there was breakfast this morning. It feels as though, perhaps, this is one of the earlier meeting times, so I hope everyone is enjoying the change in meal plans.

We have with us this morning witnesses from the translation bureau.

I'm going to introduce them and give them the floor shortly.

As a reminder to colleagues and to witnesses, when you're not using your earpiece, please make sure that it is placed on the sticker to either your left or right in order to respect the health and well-being of our translators—which, of course, you would fully understand.

With that, colleagues, we continue our study. This is the second meeting of our study reviewing the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy. I thought the last meeting was incredibly informative, productive and respectful. I hope we can continue in that vein.

Without any further delay, I would like to welcome, from the translation bureau, Jean-François Lymburner, chief executive officer; Matthew Ball, vice-president, service to Parliament and interpretation; and Annie Trépanier, vice-president, policy and corporate.

You will have up to 10 minutes collectively, as a group, for an opening statement.

With that, I pass it over to you, Mr. Lymburner.

[Jean-François Lymburner, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I would like to acknowledge the presence of my colleagues Annie Trépanier and Matthew Ball, the two vice-presidents of the Translation Bureau.

I would also like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, thank you for this invitation to contribute to your review of the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy.

We are pleased to be able to discuss with you today the long-standing relationship between members of Parliament and our employees, as we celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Translation Bureau. For 90 years now, we have been providing the quality linguistic services that are essential to the smooth running of Parliament.

While our translators and terminologists rarely have the opportunity to meet the parliamentarians for whom they work, quite the opposite is true for the interpreters, who spend most of their days, and often their evenings, with elected officials.

Since the inauguration of simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons 65 years ago, bureau interpreters are seen and especially heard at most parliamentary meetings.

On that note, I would really like to take the opportunity to say thank you to Mathieu, Kristen and Caroline, who are interpreting our session today.

Mr. Chair, interpreters have no direct reporting relationship with MPs. They are not part of the political or parliamentary staff, but rather of the core public administration. Although MPs are their primary target audience, they don't have to interact with them directly, except on the few occasions when they are called upon to stand beside them and offer what we call “elbow interpretation”. Interpreters are usually isolated in their booth, and the clerks of the House of Commons administration act as their intermediaries with the MPs.

That being said, MPs have a direct impact on the working conditions of interpreters through their discipline during interpreted meetings. Certain basic behaviours, such as respecting the right to speak, go a long way towards facilitating the work of interpreters in addition to preventing the acoustic incidents that can occur when more than one microphone is open at the same time.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

On this subject, Mr. Chair, the honourable members of your committee will be aware that a number of directives, procedures and measures have been implemented over the past few years to promote sound quality and thus protect the hearing and health of our interpreters.

Interpreters started reporting symptoms after providing simultaneous interpretation at virtual and hybrid meetings over 10 years ago. Since then, we have been steadfastly taking steps to better understand and prevent risks to interpreters, with the help of the House of Commons administration, which is responsible for providing technical support for interpretation.

Drawing inspiration from the many study reports we have obtained and lessons learned from our consultations abroad, we implemented several protection measures. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs mentioned these measures in its May 2020 and January 2023 reports, entitled “Parliamentary Duties and the COVID-19 Pandemic,” and “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons”.

Allow me to mention a few of these measures. For example, interpretation consoles designed to protect hearing are being used. A technician is also assigned to each meeting with simultaneous interpretation. Sound tests must be carried out before each meeting. Lastly, anyone speaking virtually, as is the case here today, is required to use an ISO microphone; otherwise, what they say will not be interpreted.

We also created the position of a director of parliamentary affairs and interpreter well-being to ensure the effectiveness and enhancement of protective measures. Over the past years, our director has worked with the House of Commons administration to develop protocols that formalize the prevention and the management of acoustic incidents.

He also drew up a continuous improvement plan under which we received, this year, the results of the three new studies: two on the sound transmitted, and one on the changes in the hearing of the interpreters. We look forward to receiving the expert recommendations by the end of this year.

I'm happy to report, Mr. Chair, that all of these efforts are paying off. While 128 acoustic incidents were reported in 2022, 74 were recorded in 2023, and so far this year, we only have 10.

Of course, incidents still happen. Sound is a very highly complex thing that is very difficult to control perfectly, and there will always be a risk of an acoustic incident. Nevertheless, we're determined to continue working as a team with the House administration and with experts in the field to minimize the risk.

Most recently, following direction received from the labour program of Employment and Social Development Canada, new guidelines for handling earpieces, as mentioned this morning, have been introduced to prevent audio feedback, also known as the Larsen effect.

The Translation Bureau knows that these measures increase the complexity of your meetings, and we are grateful to your honourable colleagues for their goodwill in complying with them.

We are also cognizant of the frustration that MPs can feel when, despite all the precautions, a meeting has to be interrupted because the sound is not good enough to allow for interpretation.

For somebody who has never interpreted, it can be difficult to imagine how a seemingly minor sound problem could prevent interpretation. But because interpreters have to speak while they are listening, they require sound quality that is superior to that required by the participants. A bit of crackling that an ordinary participant would hardly notice can cause interpreters to experience headaches and hearing problems.

That's why we've instructed our interpreters to stop interpreting in the event of sound problems.

I will not deny that this decision is often unpopular. Even if the clerk acts as an intermediary between the MPs and the interpreter, some MPs may express dissatisfaction, and the interpreter may be, or feel, targeted.

In the end, despite the inconvenience, one thing is clear: Interpreters cannot interpret what they cannot hear. They should never put themselves at risk by attempting to plow ahead to avoid criticism. This is why our protocol clearly stipulates that if pressure is placed on an interpreter to not interrupt the service or to resume it despite poor sound quality, they must contact the supervisor immediately, and we will intervene to rectify the situation.

That being said, so far, thanks to the great collaboration with the clerks and the committee chairs, interactions have been respectful.

Nonetheless, tools such as the policy you are currently reviewing are very useful for defusing any conflicts that might arise in the context of parliamentary meetings, where emotions can run high. Although we have never had to use it, we are grateful to the honourable members for introducing it, and we thank the committee for seeking our comments regarding its implementation.

We would be happy to take your questions now.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

I'm glad to hear that there has been a remarkable improvement following the introduction of the new rules. Without a doubt, the interpreters do very important work for us, and we thank them for it.

Colleagues, we're going to now enter our first round of questioning.

Mr. Duncan, I believe you would like the floor, and you will have six minutes.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning. Happy 90th anniversary to the organization and your team, and thank you for the work you do.

I always say that I have to make sure I talk slowly. I speak “Duncanese” sometimes, as our family in eastern Ontario would say, so I've come to respect, more often, the longer I'm here, the work that you do, day in and day out.

You referenced the reports that PROC has undertaken before, and I want to build off those and ask some follow-up questions, just to narrow down a few different things.

You've alluded to this in your opening, but it is the hybrid aspect, that extra technology through Zoom and through meetings, that has been the the overwhelming increase in workplace injuries or a lot of the anxieties that your staff face. Is that correct?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Mr. Chair, absolutely.

I think the period especially at the beginning of the pandemic, for all of us, only a few years ago, we had probably no clue about MS Teams or Zoom, or even about connecting with family and friends, and also in the workplace. Also, the systems were very different. We've come a long way, and now I think it's part of the behaviour of most of the workplaces around the world. I heard that in around 90% of the meetings everywhere now have at least one person who's connecting from a different location; it could be in town, a few blocks away or it could be at the other end of the country.

We got a lot better at understanding, and the companies have also adjusted to make sure they understand the quality of sounds. You've also recognized behaviours, like talking without a microphone. I see more and more people using their headsets. Today, we have people online, and they have their headsets on. A few years ago, it was not even part of the normal practice. Absolutely, I think we've got a lot better.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

With that, just in looking at the stats that were in a report, from March 2020 to September 2022 the bureau received 90 incident reports. By contrast, prepandemic, when virtual or remote connection was not an option, there was one complaint in the five years before that. My point being, as well....

We have interesting work that we do here—this was brought up at our previous meeting—and it's different from most workplaces in many different ways, in the sense that this is, at times, an adversarial committee as well. Yes, people have remote work options, but the style, the organization of meetings and the passions that are here are a bit different as well.

I don't know if you are able to break it down a bit, but can you elaborate a bit more about the different types of hybrid meetings in which these injuries are reported? The incidents that happen—whether they're injuries, complaints that are made or issues that are raised—are they of a technical nature or were they because multiple people were talking? Do you have those broken down about exactly what the complaints emanated from?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

That's a very good question, Mr. Chair. I'll try to break that down, absolutely.

You mentioned what happened before the pandemic. I also said in my opening remarks that, for the past 10 years, we've been measuring that. I played Canadian football, if you remember, and people are a lot more aware now of concussion issues. It's a similar effect when you get a big loud bang in your ear. That can create.... I think the data and the science are getting better to...understand what happens. Similarly to concussions, when I played nobody cared about that, but now I think there are a lot of protocols in place. The reason there was no data in the past may be that they were put in the spotlight, given the conditions of the pandemic.

In terms of the breakdown—I really like the question, Mr. Chair, because we call them “sound incidents”—the sound is like the supply chain, but it's a sound chain. It could be many things. If it's a remote participant, like we have today, something can happen in their building, they can lose connectivity and we can lose sound there. For us that might be a sound incident that might not cause an injury or affect the hearing of the interpreter. That being said, they might not be able to interpret if they're not getting the sound, so for us it's a service interruption. We track those.

After that there's.... I don't know, but some of you might have been in meetings a couple of weeks ago when there was an alert on our phones, which was testing the alert system around Canada. There were a lot of meetings, believe it or not, around Canada. Everybody had their phone and, all of a sudden, that big buzz came out. For interpreters who were actually actively listening, it could have created some discomfort, and we have measures for that.

As we mentioned, we went from 128 cases in 2022 to 78 last year, and now we have 10. The downside of that is that the ones we have left are driven mostly by human behaviour. It is the fact that you bring the earpiece towards the microphone, and that's what causes what they call the “Larsen effect”. The Larsen effect is basically a fancy name for feedback, the buzz. That sound can be extremely harmful for your hearing. That's why, even though we only have a few now, those are the ones we would really like to prevent by working with our colleagues. We have that type.

It could be, also, that when the sound is super low, they will work but they can't hear, so it will probably have an effect on them. That's not as immediate as the Larson effect, but we're tracking those as well. They're in the family of sound-related incidents.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I'm cognizant of my time. I think I can get one more in.

I appreciate the football...that is a good example. Maybe the difference we have to keep confronting here is that, when you play a football game, everyone's there on the field. Here, when we're trying to do the work, people are at home, or in an office or could be wherever, having or not having an approved headset.

My final point for you to comment on is that I think, from the previous studies, the best and safest way for the work you do is when we are here in person within the room. That can control, from a technological...or what you can control is the best. If you're relying on Zoom or other things, wherever people are, the Internet connection, what devices they're using or the way they're participating in a meeting.... The best way, at the end of the day, the safest way for you is still when we are in person as much as possible. Is that correct?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Very quickly, I would say it is correct. We really enjoy when it's in person because do work out of the cabin, but there could be some incidents in an in-person setting as well: I will just highlight that. This is where the Larsen effect happens, whereas online there are different types of problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Duncan.

Ms. Fortier, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.

Before beginning, I'd like to thank you for your professionalism and your work, because you are being asked to do first-rate work for us every day. Once again, I'd like to thank you for it.

I can work in both languages, but I sometimes use the interpretation service. It's an essential service for ensuring that information is transmitted. I can tell you that the work you do is good indeed.

Getting back to this study, we are currently reviewing the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy, and I'd like to focus on this particular exercise, about which we would like to hear your opinion and observations.

I was wondering whether you could describe one or two instances in which the behaviour of an MP during a committee meeting could be harmful to the interpreters.

I'd also like to know whether situations like this occur frequently.

That's the information I would like to have from you today.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Those are excellent questions.

First of all, it's important to point out that the Translation Bureau is part of the public administration, and as such, subject to the values and ethics code for the public sector. The Translation Bureau is within the Public Services and Procurement Canada portfolio, which also has a code of conduct. These two codes govern cases of violence and harassment not only within the department, but also in dealings with the public or clients. It's worth noting that 90 to 100 departments and agencies use the bureau's services. This includes translation services, but what we're looking at today is interpretation.

We won't deny that the interpreters here are rather invisible. Things can often happen behind the window of the interpreters' booth. At a liaison committee meeting, we met the committee chairs and were able to discuss ways of improving communications to ensure that the chair or the clerk would be informed if any incidents were to occur in the interpreters' booth.

I can give you an example of certain types of behaviour. You've no doubt already heard about people who twist the cord of their earpiece while speaking. It's not necessarily done consciously. It's often a nervous tick during debate. It's like what some people do when they nervously fiddle with a pencil. But it can definitely jeopardize the interpreters' work. It can also be perceived, not as a lack of respect, but as a lack of familiarity with the dangers of the Larsen effect. That's why stickers are posted to explain how to proceed.

In some instances, meetings had to be interrupted. We spoke about people who are online. There was one instance in which, even though the witness had a working microphone, there was no sound. It's impossible to interpret what you can't hear. When that happens, the meeting has to be interrupted. Once the interpretation is working again following an interruption, you can sense that the committee is eager to get on with the meeting. Sometimes there are heated debates during committee meetings.

Those are the sorts of situations that can arise. We have so far dealt with them in discussions.

I'm going to ask Mr. Ball, an experienced interpreter, to tell you more about it.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'm going to ask you to briefly give us an example, Mr. Ball. After that, I have another question.

[Matthew Ball, Vice-President, Service to Parliament and Interpretation, Translation Bureau]

Thank you.

Interpreters are well aware of their role in political debate in Canada. We work in a highly politicized setting. In the cut and thrust of political debate, emotions run high. When there's an interruption in interpretation, some people often become critical or angry. However, it's a situation we deal with extremely well. The interpreters know that they are under a great deal of pressure.

The interpreters know that I, as a manager responsible for their services, support them, back them up and help them whenever they have to interrupt their interpretation. We also have a code of ethics: Interpreters who can't hear what is being said can't provide the service, and have to stop interpreting.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I used to sit on committees before I became a minister, and now that I find myself back in committee, I have noticed that some of the conversations can be highly toxic.

Would you agree that this has increased? How does this sort of thing impact the work of the interpreters? How can it be dealt with?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I'm going to ask Mr. Ball to answer.

[Matthew Ball]

Thank you for the question. It's a very interesting one. I must say that it would be difficult for me to comment on that.

Interpreters are the voice of you, the MPs. They put themselves in your place. You know better than me how emotions can enter into your statements and your answers. But the interpreter is not you. Interpreters know how to separate themselves from you, the members, and your role. They are there to represent you. They even address themselves in the first person and use the pronoun “I” on your behalf.

I don't think that the situation you are describing is a problem.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The interpreter doesn't necessarily adopt the attitude or behaviour of the person speaking. If someone is speaking really loudly, the interpreter is not necessarily going to do so. The interpreter is not going to adopt the emotions of a member, for example. I would imagine that in doing their work, they interpret words, but not necessarily actions or moods. Am I wrong?

[Matthew Ball]

No, you're not wrong. I think that's a good question.

There are two schools of thought on emotions and interpretation. There is the more traditional European school according to which interpreters should speak in a monotone. Emotions don't enter into it. I believe that today, many clients prefer a more emotional form of interpretation that reflects the emotions behind the words. I used to teach at the University of Ottawa. My view is that interpreting what people say amounts to more than just words, but also the ideas underlying the words, including emotions and other aspects.

So I think it's all right for an interpreter to capture some of the emotion that underlies what you, the members, are saying. But the interpreter is not feeling your emotions, just representing them.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If I have an opportunity to speak about this again later, I'd like to go into the matter in greater depth. I'd like to know about current practices based on this school of thought and whether you have any suggestions to make to us as part of our study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Fortier.

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours now for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to my colleagues, the interpreters and the witnesses. I don't often attend meetings remotely.

Given what I've heard, I would like to focus on one particular aspect with the witnesses.

For quite a few minutes, we've been talking about physical health. We talked about the Larsen effect. And we've just talked about the tone of interpretation to render emotions to a certain extent.

We are currently considering the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy. I am putting myself in the interpreters' shoes. I believe you'll be able to answer my question, which is about whether they should interpret every single word spoken by parliamentarians, including insulting and disrespectful words?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I'll make a start on answering that question, and then ask Mr. Ball to add his comments.

One thing we don't want is for interpreters to add words that were not spoken. We've talked about this. If they don't hear something, even if they think they might have understood the intent of what was said, they are not to use words that were not mentioned.

As words are being spoken, the interpreters can sometimes summarize what was said. It's something that happens very quickly and there's no real gap. They are listening and speaking at the same time. So interpreters can sometimes summarize what was said.

I'll ask Mr. Ball to add his comments about specific words.

Mr. Ball, can you recall instances where words were omitted?

[Matthew Ball]

It's true that it's important for interpreters to translate all words that are spoken. And, as Mr. Lymburner just said, it's important not to add any words. There are some key moments in political debate. Some words are unparliamentary. Even so, the interpreter should render them because otherwise, people who speak the other language will not have heard them. This happened recently in the House of Commons, and it led to important decisions.