Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

No, no; it's a serious question, please.

[Linda Ballantyne]

It is a serious question, and we take your question very seriously, but it is a fact that interpreters, during the pandemic, have been working with their fingers on their volume control.

One of the issues we have with the hybrid format, with people in the room and also coming in online, is the lack of level. There's a discrepancy between the sound that comes into our ears. It's a different quality of sound. It's a different volume of sound and texture of sound. All we have is a volume button.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you. That's a really important answer.

In your opinion, Ms. Ballantyne, is the way we're doing things now sustainable for your profession? If hybrid is adopted on a permanent basis, do you think that's sustainable for your essential service?

[Linda Ballantyne]

What you ask is a very important and crucial question. We keep insisting that in-person sound is the best quality sound for us to work with. Anything that's not in-person sound is going to be very difficult for us to work with. It produces poor quality and it is dangerous.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

My next question is about bilingualism.

When I'm here in Ottawa, I can speak French with my colleague, Ms. Gaudreau. However, when I'm at home on my own, I don't speak any French at all.

Do you think that the hybrid format has lowered the level of bilingualism in Canada?

[Paule Antonelli]

That would be difficult to say.

I think that parliamentarians make a huge effort to speak both languages. We appreciate these efforts, as do their colleagues who speak the other official language.

[Linda Ballantyne]

We are a bilingual country. We have the Official Languages Act. It's in place precisely because not all of us speak the two languages and everyone is entitled to be able to understand everything that goes on in our democracy. That's why we have interpretation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Right. This is what I'm trying to get at.

[Linda Ballantyne]

This is the big challenge we have. We're here because we have a huge challenge. Our challenge here in the Canadian Parliament is all the more huge because we have a shortage of interpreters.

We don't disagree that there's a shortage everywhere, but here, we do.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm sorry, I have to interrupt. I'm really trying to make an important point.

Anecdotally, do you find that because of hybrid Parliament, anglophones speak more English than French in a hybrid setting than they do in a non-hybrid setting?

[Linda Ballantyne]

Canada did conduct a survey dating back to December 2021, I think it was. Measuring the amount of time spoken in Parliament by different parliamentarians of different languages, indeed we found that English has predominated and French has been snuffed out.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you. That's really disappointing to hear.

[Paule Antonelli]

I was in the House then, and the system did not retransmit the same sound to the console. The sound wasn't very loud.

The sound was not carried to the....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

I have a few questions to follow up on those asked by my colleague Mr. Calkins.

I was actually quite surprised because when I was elected in 2015, on committees we had a lot of video conferencing for witnesses who would come to testify. I was actually surprised to learn—and this has been helpful—that the quality of the audio on the video conference we used prior to hybrid wasn't very good. Witnesses would not be using the headsets. They would not be using good microphones.

We're learning now, Ms. Antonelli, that the worst sound comes from the telephone.

During the pandemic, at the very beginning we were doing daily phone calls with parliamentarians and we had very bad-quality telephones. On top of that, we had 338 parliamentarians who were trying to speak. It's helpful for us to know that it's actually not very good, because we do often use the telephone for caucus calls and so on. I don't use a headset when I'm on a phone call. I'm listening to the phone call. Thank you for letting us know that. It is very helpful.

In terms of how we do what we do.... For instance, I keep a distance from the microphone so I don't pop in your ears and I know, for the sake of interpreters, not to yell in the chamber. Are there other things that we can be doing? I know about wearing our proper headsets. Are there other recommendations that you could give us as parliamentarians, such as using a headset if we are on a teleconference? Would you like to elaborate?

I'll have another question as well.

[Paule Antonelli]

I'm sure you have heard the recommendations before about positioning the headset microphone between your mouth and your nose.

Some MPs have recurring bad connections. They just live in a corner of the country where connections are bad. If those MPs have notes and are using them, it would be important for them to provide notes if at all possible, and to speak as slowly as possible so that they can in some way compensate for how poor the connection is.

[Jim Thompson]

I would like to add another thing that could be done. It relates to the approach to the rules, the conditions, that apply for interpreters working in remote settings. The institution needs to take into account that remote sound is damaging and dangerous, and, as other institutions have done, take steps to limit exposure to that sound, and to define what an in-person meeting is in a way that takes into account the fact that there are remote participants.

Any remote sound is dangerous, and we would encourage your committee to recognize that in whatever recommendations you might make.

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

Thank you for that.

In a previous Parliament, I chaired a committee, and one thing that was very difficult for interpreters was when the members would talk over the witness or cut them off. The back-and-forth doesn't help in terms of interpretation, so this is just another little friendly reminder to our members not to do that.

My next question is for Mr. Ball. You talked a little bit about the pool or the pipeline of talent that you're looking to develop. There are people who are taking the two masters programs. It was a great recommendation to invest in some of those programs so that we can entice more people to consider a career in interpretation.

You mentioned that we have some already on staff. You have identified some as freelance who can assist. I understand from Madame Corneau that we do have enough interpreters at the moment to fill the 57 slots over the course of a week.

With the potential addition of new recruits coming through, if we were to invest in some more programs and training, would that help make sure that you have that buffer in terms of the pipeline of talent you will need going forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We would welcome the answer in writing, if that's okay.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have time for a very quick question.

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

Thank you very much for offering me this speaking time.

There was one question I didn't get to earlier. It's for Mr. Ball or Ms. Comeau.

There was a mention of disabling injuries that caused absences from work, right? I'd like it if the witnesses could, in their report, point out where and in what context these accidents occurred.

That's the only other thing I would like. Is it possible?

[Caroline Corneau]

Yes, we can provide that information to the committee.

I don't think I have the precise information in my briefcase, unfortunately. Rather than mislead the committee, I'd rather send that information in writing.

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

If you have information about any differences between the committees and the House of Commons on that, it would be nice to have all the details.

[Jim Thompson]

Madam Chair, just before we adjourn, there is one fact I wanted to leave with the committee. It arises from a survey of all freelance interpreters we did in July. Eighty per cent participated. The shocking thing is that half of currently accredited freelance interpreters are planning to retire in the next five years.

It's not just a question of whether we have enough interpreters for the 57 meetings in a week; members asked about sustainability. We're facing a mass retirement event, and we need to have appropriate attention paid to that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for those comments.

Thank you to all members and our witnesses for this important conversation.

I think the points that were just raised are also really relevant, because I'm understanding more and more the amount of work you do and for whom you're all doing it. It's not just for the House of Commons, but also for cabinet, for departments. I think you helped me amend some of the information I had in my head, and you've actually countered it.

I think we need to better understand the work you do, how you do it and who you do it for. If you could provide us with those details and actually differentiate between the conversation that we are having for the House of Commons versus all of your other commitments, I think that would better inform us as to where the harms are, and the opportunities, and how we can have the conversation we're having.

Thank you so much for your service.

I hope you know how much I adore you people. I really do try my best to make sure you—

[Jim Thompson]

We feel your love.