Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Jean-François Lymburner]

We received a few official complaints about the translation of certain documents in which mistakes were found. You are no doubt aware of these.

As for interpretation, I could ask Mr. Ball if he has any to report. The comments I've heard since arriving here sometimes had to do with things like the interpreters' tone of voice or the fact that one interpreter was speaking louder than another. I often hear comments like that, but nothing major was brought to our attention. I believe that our interpreters are among the best in the world, because it's a very stringent exam.

Nevertheless, there are preferences. It's like audiobooks: Some people like them, but others find them rather tedious. It depends on each person's preferences.

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

As we've seen, it's sometimes difficult not to talk at the same time as someone else when you're trying to have a conversation. That's what I wanted to illustrate. It's sometimes difficult for a member like me not to interrupt the person I'm speaking with. Sometimes, when I want to get a witness to talk about something, I have to interrupt them, even though I don't really want to. It's one of the problems we all have as MPs, when we're speaking with a witness and the witness is taking a long time to answer our question. But that wasn't the case with you just now. In any event, it illustrates the nature of conversation. I really wanted us to talk about that relationship.

So there were no complaints from MPs about interpreters for cases of harassment or anything like that.

But then, without naming names, could you tell me if any interpreters have complained about MPs in connection with harassment or related issues?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

There haven't been any official complaints as far as I know.

I have to say though, as I indicated at the outset, that the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and the department's code of conduct very much encourage informal conflict resolution. Some individuals might not have been heard, but that may be a matter of perception. For example, as you can see on the screen, the person speaking is in a car. The interpreter may say that he or she can't really hear what's being said, while others in the room may reply that they can hear the person loud and clear. That can make interpreters feel their judgment is somehow being questioned. I've heard of cases like that.

As for official complaints, Ms. Trépanier has been with the Translation Bureau longer than I have and can give you more details on that.

[Annie Trépanier, Vice-President, Policy and Corporate Services, Translation Bureau]

I haven't heard of any official complaints either.

Interpretation isn't easy work, as Mr. Lymburner said. Interpreters constantly have to rely on their judgment to determine what they can or can't interpret. I can assure you that all interpreters are keen to do their job when they show up for work. They don't enjoy interrupting someone's remarks or saying they can't interpret them because they can't clearly hear them. I can confirm that they don't like doing that.

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

I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Berthold, your five minutes are unfortunately up.

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

I just wanted to thank them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Absolutely, I'll let you do that.

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

Thank you very much for the work you do.

I worked for years in the sound industry, in very loud environments, as a radio host and disc jockey in the evenings and on weekends. So I understand how important it is to have good equipment.

It's hard to wear earpieces when you also wear glasses because they make for a very tight fit. That's just a brief personal comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Ms. Romanado, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here this morning.

I want to give a special thank you to the interpreters for doing what they do. Rest assured that when I was chair of a committee, if there were a sound issue, we stopped the committee. It did not go forward if we couldn't secure the sound for the interpreters to ensure the work they do.

I want to follow up a little bit on some of what my colleague MP Mathyssen was talking about. In this place, interpreters spend their day being our voice, and some MPs—and it happens, whether it be in the House or in a committee—will get very passionate about what they're talking about. Some will scream into the mike and some will argue amongst each other, so you have words that are being interpreted that are sometimes not the most pleasant, whether it be the very loud sound or fighting amongst each other.

There's also sometimes the subject matter. I've sat on the Veterans Affairs committee, where we would hear horrifying testimony. During some of the studies that we undertake in the status of women committee, we hear horrific testimony. The interpreters are very professional, but, at the end of the day, they go home, and they have to replay what they heard and what they had to say.

I think that is where we're trying to go, to say that the words that we are using, whether it be in tone, in sound or the actual words, must have an impact on them. I mean, I can get up and walk out of debate in the House if it's getting a little testy for me; they can't. I think that's where we're going with this, to understand how the words we use and how we use them impact them.

Have you had any complaints or people saying, “Look, I just I can't do that committee anymore; it's too heavy for me.” Has that ever happened?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Mr. Chair, it hasn't happened since I joined the translation bureau, but what I would like to maybe elaborate on today is that there are two or three people in the booth, and they are also replacing one another in the course of a conversation, and sometimes they would focus on something else, so maybe they won't have the entire view.

Just from an energy perspective, when you get into a room and there's something heavy, everybody's affected, of course, and we can understand that. We've been so focused on their mental health and well-being that there's a possibility for them to voice those concerns. It's not something that we take lightly. Of course, recently, the emphasis seems to be on the physical, but I don't think we ever put down the impact on their mental health.

The scheduling is extremely tight as well. Some of your committees are going over time, beyond midnight, and they're extremely well trained for that type of very intense, short period of time. After that, they have other measures over the summer to kind of get ready.

Maybe I'll ask Matthew about the screaming part, because, again, we have limiters for sounds behind the scene, and that will cut off a sound that is going too high. Maybe you want to elaborate on that.

[Matthew Ball]

If I may, Mr. Chair, it's a very interesting question, and it is something we are aware of. It is a phenomenon known as secondary or vicarious trauma, and interpreters do experience it.

We have the chief interpreter for Canada behind us here, and she's part of a network of worldwide heads of interpreting services, and this is something that's discussed at these tables, so it is something we're certainly aware of.

I'd just like to reassure the committee members that the interpreters who work for Parliament understand the cut and thrust of the debate. I would say that even members themselves probably understand that, sometimes, you know, they put it on a little and it's a little dramatic, a show, and sometimes it's very authentic and genuine, and that's part of the job. I think all of our staff and our freelance interpreters understand this very well.

I'm not overly concerned about vicarious or secondary trauma. Like Mr. Lymburner said, the bigger concern for me is that they feel safe and that it's a healthy work environment, and Mr. Lymburner alluded to this, that it's a team sport. I've been in the booth when I've had to interpret stuff that's emotional, and sometimes you just have to take a break, so there are three people in the booth to support you.

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

I'm out of time, but I wanted to thank you for that. As you've trained us or taught us about the importance of good sound hygiene, we want to also keep in mind that the words that we're using can also hurt in a sense—not just the person receiving them but also the person having to translate them. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor, but unfortunately for only two and a half minutes.

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but there was a brief lag in the interpretation, and I didn't hear what you said, but I gather it's my turn to speak.

Once again, hats off to the interpreters.

How many interpreters have resigned from the Translation Bureau in the past decade?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Let me give you an idea of the number of employees we have. We have approximately 70 interpreters who are Translation Bureau employees. They work 50,000 interpretation hours every year, as I said earlier. We also employ freelancers. So we have roughly 100 interpreters. The interpreter pool is quite limited both in Canada and around the world.

Obviously, some have also retired. Have people retired earlier than anticipated as a result of tougher working conditions in recent years? It's possible.

I'm going to let Mr. Ball tell you more about the number of resignations.

[Matthew Ball]

There haven't been any resignations. Our staff consists of approximately 60 permanent interpreters, but they may also perform other duties. For example, some have asked to do translation for a period of time, for several reasons. So it's hard to say—

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

That's exactly what I'd like to know: What are the reasons?

[Matthew Ball]

Some people are assigned to translation for certain periods of their lives because, for example, they are new parents or they want more stable work schedules. I don't have the exact figures. However, some people do perform other duties and return to interpretation at a later date. We could come up with the figures on—

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

I actually want to know what can cause trauma in interpreters on the job. What comments do you hear? Perhaps you don't know because you don't work closely with them. I'd like to hear the interpreters' point of view. What do they talk about at the end of their workday? Do they discuss their weekend activities or the remarks they had to interpret?

[Matthew Ball]

It varies from one individual or group to another. Sometimes interpreters discuss the meeting that has just adjourned, but I imagine they mostly talk about their weekends, their children or their plans for the evening.

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

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

May I add something, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Yes, but please be brief.