Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

You keep referencing research, which is really important. We have a report from the NRC and we have a report that this committee is still waiting to see from the House of Commons administration on the AV system. With respect to that, do you have any comments on those two reports and what their impact is? What is the difference between translation provided in person versus in virtual participation?

[Philippe Fournier]

I have not had an opportunity to read those reports. I participated in a meeting with the NRC, at the outset, when it created its protocol, but I have not received or read the report, unfortunately, so I cannot comment on it.

However, I think that all the research initiatives are heading in the right direction. There are multiple factors, and the NRC project is very useful for understanding the system and the signals that are sent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will continue with Mr. Berthold, who will be followed by Mr. Hanley.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will go quickly.

I would like to recognize the interpreters who are interpreting what we are saying right now. I want to thank them very much for their work. I can be a nightmare for them, particularly during question period, where I ordinarily speak very fast. This meeting has made me aware of the issue and reminded me to pay a bit more attention to their work.

I am going to ask a very important question and I would like to get a fairly short answer from each of the participants.

Does the desire to make life easier for members justify our maintaining a work environment that is dangerous for the interpreters, without knowing the results of the studies that will tell us how we can make sure we are not causing more damage to their health?

My question is for Dr. Tse, Mr. Fournier and Mr. Seeber.

[Dr. Darren Tse]

As I mentioned earlier, you can minimize harm as soon as possible and still carry out research. In my line of work, if it's a matter of convenience versus harm, I always pick no harm with a bit of extra inconvenience.

That's a pretty easy decision, to be honest.

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

I am listening, Mr. Fournier.

[Philippe Fournier]

I agree entirely with my colleague. It is a matter of due diligence.

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

I am listening, Mr. Seeber.

[Kilian G. Seeber]

I am entirely in agreement. It is not part of my experience or my technical expertise, but from an ethical point of view, the answer is pretty clear.

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

As we can see every day, the interpreters' work, at present, is more difficult when people participate via Zoom. The damage is attributable to poor audio quality, technical difficulties, and the environment.

I must admit that last week, I made a speech, not while in the House of Commons, while there were workers rebuilding the roof and hammering. I never realized that I could have been causing damage to someone interpreting what I was saying. That is not something that comes automatically to mind. You have smacked me right in the face today by telling me about this damage. I too am going to hurry up and talk to some interpreters, after our meeting, to get to know the problems they are facing.

To make sure that people understand clearly, I would like you to explain the main difference between interpreting what someone says using Zoom and interpreting what someone says on site.

Mr. Seeber, you are a specialist in interpretation; can you answer?

[Kilian G. Seeber]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are a lot of variable factors. Some are relatively visible and obvious to everyone, even to people who are not very familiar with the interpreter's job.

When you are in the room, you see the participants more directly. When you are using Zoom, a degree of fatigue settles in. That is a concept we started talking about a year and a half ago now. It is a reality. Fatigue associated with interacting via a virtual or digital interface is apparent among the communicators, and even more among the interpreters.

Apart from that, there is the fact that interpreters work in pairs or groups of three, depending on the meetings they are assigned to. All of that work has to be transferred and dematerialized to achieve what is sometimes a digital collaboration, depending on where the interpreters are. Sometimes, they stay on site, as is probably the case in the House of Commons, but there are other cases where the interpreters are not in the same room.

Not being able to use my sense of sight in the same way can also play a role. In person, I can focus on a single speaker and see all the others in the background. Remotely, there may be 20 speakers, and each one is a talking head that I see in front of me. That is potentially a factor that contributes to this Zoom-generated fatigue.

Those are not all the factors that have been explored and tested, but we know there is a long list of potential and varying factors. It is really a completely different environment.

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

Thank you.

I have one last question.

Interpretation in Parliament is mainly from English to French. Given the factors you have just described, for example, the fact that it causes more damage to short-term memory, do you think that the people who listen to the interpretation into French lose a bit of the content of the speeches and are at a disadvantage?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That is a good question, but you have no time left to hear the answer, Mr. Berthold. Perhaps you will get an answer later.

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

The witness agreed by nodding his head, however, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

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

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for this really interesting testimony. It's really important to hear, to listen and to understand.

I want to second Monsieur Berthold's thanks to the interpreters for all the hard work they do.

Hearing deficits are definitely preventable. At times, we're certainly unaware of the effect of noise on our hearing, but I wish the precautionary principle could be applied so simply. In any setting, there are harms and there are harms. After listening to our witnesses from the first hour, do we really think there would be no harms associated with scaling back from hybrid to in-person Parliament only? The simple solution may be to recoil from uncertainty and lack of data, but the more complex solution may be to better understand the issue so that we can go forward.

In that context, I have a few questions.

Mr. Fournier, I think you said there was no consensus as to the prevalence of acoustic shock among interpreters. Did I understand you correctly?

[Philippe Fournier]

In fact, I said there was no consensus as to what constitutes an acoustic shock. Acoustic shock is not recognized as a clinical entity by everyone. My colleague said earlier that different terms are used. For example, we might also talk about noise trauma.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I think it's really important to try to understand the scale and scope of acoustic injury. I recognize that this is an emerging field.

Dr. Tse, I think you already answered this to some degree. You brought up the important point that symptoms may be varied and under-recognized. Nevertheless, you mentioned that you have not seen, in 10 years of practice, an interpreter with auditory problems. Is that correct?

[Dr. Darren Tse]

Yes. I've seen people who work in air traffic control, obviously military radio, and people in all lines of work exposed to industrial noise, such as the armed forces, police officers and things like that. I've never seen a single person who works in interpretation.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

You cited a study that ranked Canada as 13th out of 81 countries. Can you briefly elaborate on that? I may not have caught it all. Can you also reflect on whether this reflected the adoption rate in Canada of virtual technology? In other words, was that number adjusted for the denominator or does it speak to the amount of usage in Canada?

[Dr. Darren Tse]

I'll defer to Philippe Fournier on that, because that was his study.

[Philippe Fournier]

The question is whether it was adjusted for the number of interpreters in Canada, is that right?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, that's right.

[Philippe Fournier]

It was a survey done online with the International Association of Conference Interpreters, the AIIC. They are interpreters from all fields, people who work in the private sector or at Parliament. No study has been done relating precisely to parliamentary interpreters. As well, people were free to respond to the survey or not. I do not believe that all interpreters in Canada responded to the survey, but a number of AIIC members did respond.

There are a lot of reasons why interpreters are not going to consult. That is also part of the report. Among other things, interpreters are afraid they will not be taken seriously. Often, when ordinary clinical testing is done, no abnormality is found, so they get the feeling they are not being taken seriously.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Since I do not have much time, I will conclude with an observation.

I think we really want to protect our interpreters and make sure that they have access to appropriate technology and that acoustic etiquette, as I'll call it, is observed. Regardless of whether Parliament maintains hybrid or not, we will always be using translators for a variety of functions, including the various settings and meetings that we have.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's not an issue of whether we should or should not do hybrid based on concerns about the well-being of interpreters. That would be a bit like saying that air traffic controllers should perhaps, if they're susceptible to ear shock, stop managing air traffic, get outside and wave their arms around. I think it's more about identifying and understanding a hazard that we must recognize, address and prevent.

Thank you.