Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Working conditions aren't the only reason. I would remind you that interpreters were always physically present on the job throughout the pandemic, although some of them may be working remotely now. There are many reasons that have to be considered. Their working conditions are quite intense and the work is fast paced. Interpreters work long hours on site, but I believe they do their work with passion and pride.

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

I don't even doubt that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

Ms. Mathyssen, two and a half minutes go to you.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

You've spoken a lot about the new policies that are in place and the new rules, such as the spacing out of members and the placement of earpieces. They're all very important.

These are important changes for your workplace, but an institution steeped in tradition, as we heard at the last committee meeting, may be resistant to change. Barriers could be seen or there could be resistance through parliamentary privilege or things like that.

How can we, in this committee, take the lessons you've learned in applying those rules and creating that change you need so that we can also create a healthier, safer and more functional workplace?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I'll be quick, Mr. Chair.

Many measures to respond to the instructions we got were very technical, as you mentioned. Some of those were put in place all at the same time. I just want to reassure everyone that we're working with our colleagues to see if there are some measures we can adjust.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the opening statement by the chair of every committee was very long. Now it's a bit shorter. We feel that people understand the distantiation. Again, if there's some possibility to use the new technology to limit the impact on you...because we understand that it can create some frustration.

I would go back to when everybody speaks at the same time. That's probably the one I hear about the most. It is very difficult to do a good job, because there are a lot of voices coming in. That's one piece I hear a lot.

Again, if there's a service interruption, to make sure that everybody understands...there are ways for people to get the information quickly. Sometimes, it's coming from behind the window. Other times, it's coming from the sound system. However, I would say respect the fact that everybody wants to get going with the procedure and be respectful in that sense.

The last one is for those online. We're able to send headsets around the world in a very short time. They are those headsets that have been approved. They're ISO headsets. Sometimes, witnesses are in very remote areas of the world. We're doing very well. We can conduct tests ahead of time for your witnesses so that they can use better headsets for our work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Berthold, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to take these last five minutes because I hadn't really finished. I have two more points that I'd like to make.

Here's what I understand from your remarks in response to all the questions that have been asked. Interpreters ultimately don't want to be part of the debate or to alter the course of the discussion. What they do want is to convey the debate as is for the people who are listening. Is that correct?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Yes, and they also have to do it within very short periods of time. As you can often see, it's harder to maintain a dialogue when the interpretation lags four or five seconds behind.

So, on the one hand, interpreters have to consider the emotion, as Mr. Ball noted. That's the Canadian interpretation model, and it's a good one. And, on the other hand, they have to do the work quite quickly to facilitate a real-time discussion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Interpreters are proud of what they do. I initially didn't understand that when I got here, but I eventually learned that interpreters weren't translators. That was of the first discussion I had with them. I had referred to them as translators, and they then told me that what they did was interpretation, not translation, so people could understand what was being said in the other language. The words aren't the same, but the emotion can be. I find it really interesting.

Ms. Trépanier, we receive training when we're elected as MPs for the first time. Would it be possible to consider giving new members a one-hour training session on how interpretation works? It would be helpful. When I was elected, I had to learn on the job how to work with interpreters.

Do you think that's something the committee might recommend?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I'm going to turn the floor over to Ms. Trépanier, but I can tell you we've been involved in many training sessions with our Privy Council Office colleagues during government changeovers and new ministerial office appointments. So it should certainly be offered to our colleagues in the House as well. There should definitely be some basic explanatory document.

As for a course, I'll let Ms. Trépanier answer you on that.

[Annie Trépanier]

I think that's an excellent idea. As the CEO of the Translation Bureau mentioned, there are documents, but training might indeed be appropriate. Thank you for that suggestion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

It would be good to provide practical training during which people could see the work interpreters do and experience a little of what goes on inside the “box”, as I call it. By taking an interest in the work they do and experiencing what they experience, we can get a clearer understanding of their situation and do our own work better in a manner respectful of the interpreters.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Thank you very much.

We've posted a few videos online to familiarize people with what happens on the other side and with the highly specialized work that interpreters do. We'll make sure we continue promoting them.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Now I'd like to discuss the technical aspect of the matter. As I mentioned earlier, I worked in the sound industry and therefore have some experience with it. I know there are sound limiters to prevent peak sound levels, for example. In some places, I've even seen systems that prevent more than one microphone from being unmuted at a time. Here, however, anyone can unmute a microphone and join the debate.

Are these things that are being considered? Technically speaking, what is the Translation Bureau's plan for the next few months and years?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Since I'm an industrial engineer, not an interpreter, I've had a fair amount of training in the field as well.

Yes, we're considering a number of technical measures. You mentioned the earpiece, for example. There are ways to ensure that it mutes as soon as the user removes it. As for sound, we can reduce Larsen effects by digitizing the sound and thus limit the risk. I'm thinking of the people who are attending today's meeting via Zoom. The danger occurs when you're in a somewhat more analog acoustic environment. So that's another factor that we're looking into.

At concerts, for example, you see singers wearing earpieces that are pushed inside the ear. That limits Larsen effects and vastly improves the situation.

In our case here, we want many people to use earpieces. We could consider having you use earpiece models that belong to you. We're working with our colleagues on that. We don't do audiovisual work; we supply people, the living beings who are the interpreters and who enter the room. However, we're working with people to come up with the technological tools that could completely eliminate Larsen effects. They're out there and we're looking into this because we obviously want to reduce the number of interruptions for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You only have a few seconds left, Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

You've nevertheless managed to do an excellent job because you've gone from 128 incidents to 10 in only three years. I tip my hat to you.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I would add that those 10 incidents were due to human error.

The last mile is always the toughest one, so that's really where we are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Berthold, I believe I used the word “translation” instead of “interpretation” at the start of the meeting. If that's the case, I'd like to correct what I said.

Thank you for clarifying that point.

Ms. Romanado, it's over to you.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief because I know we have very limited time.

Mr. Ball, I know that you mentioned there are not a lot of injuries or complaints with respect to vicarious or secondary trauma. I'm not sure if you've had a chance to survey the interpreters to see if that is a problem. I would suggest that you do because I would anticipate that there are some people who are having to deal with that.

The other thing I would say, though we didn't talk about it, is that I have seen in debate, especially in committee, MPs who slam their hand down or bang on the desk to make a point.

I anticipate that also could injure. Is that correct?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I'll start with the last part.

The loud bang, which is not an example of the Larsen effect, could definitely have an impact on interpreters. It could be a laptop or a microphone dropping down or somebody banging on the table.

As for the vicarious effects, maybe Matthew can discuss that.

[Matthew Ball]

We work really closely with the union. There is a professional association representing the freelance interpreters. The bureau management is very open and constantly working with them to ensure that issues are addressed as they come up.

To echo my boss's sentiments from earlier, the biggest issue facing the staff and freelance interpreters right now is the matter of health and safety and the sound quality. We're working really closely on that.

Absolutely, we're always open. We actually did a workplace evaluation recently, so we'll be getting the results from that as well. If there are vicarious trauma issues, they will come up in that report, which we're expecting soon.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Romanado.

Colleagues, we are going to suspend briefly in order to set up the next panel.

Typically, we've been inserting some health breaks into our meetings to allow people to move around a little bit and catch their breath. I'm going to give us a generous couple of minutes here to turn over because we do still have a couple more hours to go this morning.

I did want to raise one thing that could be helpful. I know it might be a little bit difficult to adjust to, but in order to assist all of us knowing how much time is remaining in our speaking order—and I note Ms. Gaudreau did this earlier—it is helpful to time yourself and have that clock in front of you.

That would accomplish two things: One, there'd be no discrepancy between the chair and members' clocks, and, two, I wouldn't have to interrupt and it would perhaps allow for a more seamless meeting.

I make that recommendation. I know it might take a little bit of time for us to implement, but I think it could be helpful.

And with that, Mr. Ball, Mr. Lymburner and Ms. Trépanier, thank you very much for being with us here this morning.

Colleagues, we're going to suspend for a few minutes, and we'll be back for our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, I'm going to call our meeting back to order.

In our second panel, we are welcoming two members of Parliament—our colleagues, Iqra Khalid and Pam Damoff—who are going to be sharing some testimony.

I do want to start by offering a little bit of a trigger warning. I understand that we'll be discussing some things relating to abuses that have either been experienced directly by people around this table, or by extension. I know that for those watching, some of the language or the retelling of stories may be disconcerting and triggering.

For colleagues around the table, for staff in the room, if there is any assistance that is required, you are most certainly welcome at any point to see me or the clerk if we can be of help. I know there will be a number of difficult topics raised, not only by our colleagues across the way, but by other members around the table as well. Just as a courtesy, I wanted to offer that before we begin.

Ms. Rempel Garner, I see you out of the corner of my eye, so I'll turn to you momentarily.