Evidence of meeting #34 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was interpreters.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
We cannot take the other answers at this time. We will definitely welcome them after.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Chair, we do not have time to hear the other two witnesses' answers. Is that correct?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our colleague, Mr. Fergus, will have time to come back to his question, anyway.
I sympathize with the difficult work done by the interpreters, who have to constantly adapt. For example, my colleague across the way spoke very slowly, which is not the case for me right now.
I want to thank the witnesses very much for being here.
I am left speechless by the information being given today. How can we find a winning formula, considering all these obstacles?
You say that the time the interpreters are exposed has to be reduced.
Where can we find interpreters? Where is the next generation?
We do not have full interpretation capacity right now for want of human resources. How could we manage to make up for this shortage, in the interests of the interpreters?
You have answered numerous questions. I take their situation very much to heart. I wanted to tell you that.
I am going to come back to the subject of sound quality not being adequate.
Madam Chair, you and I both know, unless a member points out that the interpreter is saying the sound is inaudible, the conversation continues. It is not easy to do our work properly in this situation. That sometimes happens with the French to English interpretation.
The interpreters tell us that they do not have control over their work environment. Could we acquire a different technical means to replace the tool that is causing them problems?
Can our witnesses suggest means that could be implemented to avoid the interpreters suffering these acoustic shocks and to give us assurance that they are able to work effectively?
12:30 p.m.
Professor, University of Geneva, As an Individual
I will answer those questions, if I may, Madam Chair.
It is hard to manage this when there are very few factors that we can affect. First, there are technological factors we have no control over, because we cannot control the Internet. Even if I have a high-speed connection, the person I am talking to might not. So I can never control this.
Second, I cannot really control the part that comes under human resources. Interpreters, like parliamentarians, keep working despite a heavy cognitive workload. That may be what explains, in part, the emergence of essentially medical manifestations that we were previously not aware of, because remote interpretation was not something that happened regularly.
Unfortunately, I cannot suggest a solution to you, because there are so few factors on which we can have an effect.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, I think it is important to say that we would like to do things, but our capacity to act is limited.
Do other witnesses want to speak?
12:30 p.m.
Otolaryngologist and Neuro-Otologist, Assistant Professor, Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't really know the best solution to the problem. However, I will point out that in terms of manpower, part of the issue is that these people are off work and are not getting treatment and they can't get back to work. Probably, like people in most lines of work, they want to work but they cannot tolerate the conditions and the symptoms that would result from working.
If we can recognize the problem and get patients the right treatment and get them back to work, that would go some way toward solving the manpower issues, for sure.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, I am very concerned that the symptoms and subsequent problems are not adequately recognized. We are going to receive the official report showing the number of incidents and accidents. We should have it shortly. I am noticing a direct correlation with the tools that were used in the past, for videoconferencing, that my colleague referred to. That can definitely create some problems. There is a direct link with the use of various bandwidths, software, hardware, and so on.
Do you think, as I do, that if Parliament decides to continue with some type of hybrid formula in an environment that we do not control, we would have to be extremely vigilant with respect to the volume of the interpreters' work?
I would like you to answer quickly, in turn.
12:30 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Audiologist, Université Laval, As an Individual
I will start.
I think we have to be vigilant and proceed carefully, because there are risks for the interpreters.
12:30 p.m.
Professor, University of Geneva, As an Individual
I think the challenge is a global one. With that said, other organizations have found formulas that work, at least for them, by trying to act in various ways, particularly by reducing interpreters' working time, but also by allowing passive hybrid participation. The effect of that is to relieve the interpreters, because then it is not their work that is affected by the poor quality, which may be tied to the technology currently available.
Obviously, that has repercussions for other political issues.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Yes, it touches on the issue of inclusion, which was addressed earlier.
Is there time for one last response?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Could we ask, on the other hand, for additional information to be sent to us?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Yes, that is always the case.
Ms. Blaney, the floor is yours for six minutes.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I really appreciate the testimony that we're hearing today.
Perhaps I could start with you, Professor Seeber. One of the things that would be helpful, just for clarity, is if you could talk about the difference between the cognitive capacity load effort as opposed to what it means to talk about acoustic shock.
12:35 p.m.
Professor, University of Geneva, As an Individual
Yes. If you want to find out more about acoustic shock, I think you're best advised to talk to my colleagues, who are experts in the field. I am not a medical expert. I can tell you that from the literature I have read, I am unaware of any direct link between cognitive load and acoustic shock.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Okay, that's fine. I'll ask you a question you can answer, then. I apologize for that.
You talked about cognitive load. I'm just wondering if you could talk to us about what is specific to this in interpreting from remote participation as opposed to seeing the person right across from you.
12:35 p.m.
Professor, University of Geneva, As an Individual
We're still in the process of finding out what the factors are that do change. What certainly does change more often than not is the makeup of the sound signal. I'm deliberately not calling it “quality of sound”, because that's a laden term in itself. There might be other factors as well, including visual input or the necessary multi-tasking, which increases tremendously when you have to interact with a platform set-up like the one I'm using right now. I have to process at the same time signal forces in different modalities that come at me, which they usually do not.
Some of this might be a matter of training, but I am afraid to say that the human brain, most likely, did not make as great a stride as technology did over the past few years.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
What safeguards should be put in place to protect interpreters from the problems associated with audio from remote participation?
12:35 p.m.
Professor, University of Geneva, As an Individual
Is this a question for me?
12:35 p.m.
Professor, University of Geneva, As an Individual
I'm not sure I'm best placed to talk about the safeguards in terms of their potential health issues, because the link between cognitive load and the potential cognitive overload, and the resulting health issues, is still under-explored. Obviously, we know it is not a good thing for you to be overexposed to overload for an extended period of time, and this is the kind of overload that you would experience if you encounter such parameters as deteriorated sound for an extended period of time.
Again, for right now, my only and perhaps trivial answer is reducing time on task, because we do not know a whole lot more, and there are certain parameters that we can't act upon.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you so much for that.
I will go now to Professor Fournier, if I could.
You said earlier “adapt better”. If you could explain what that means, it would be helpful.
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Audiologist, Université Laval, As an Individual
Again, as long as we do not know the exact cause of the symptoms, it will be difficult to know whether one thing or another has to be reduced. Is it the quantity, the volume, the exposure to loud sounds over a long period, or exposure to noise spikes, as was mentioned earlier?
We can adjust if the interpreters report problems. Because we do not have enough data to know the exact cause, we rely on what is reported. One of the things reported by the interpreters is that certain meetings or the length of certain periods of interpretation generate more symptoms. So we can try to reduce the length of meetings. That is a form of adjustment. I am not saying that it is a miracle solution or the best solution, but based on the data we have at present, it might reduce the interpreters' symptoms. So we have to rely on what they report. Again, however, as was said earlier, it will take more research to understand what is going on.
I know the interpreters can use a limiter to limit the volume of sound that is transmitted through the headsets. In concrete terms, it seems to work, but if the sound quality is poor, the interpreters tend to raise the volume anyway, because they have a job to do and they have to hear the signal clearly. So again, they may be exposed to more dangerous noise levels.
In addition, interpreting what is said is not like passively listening to a sound. You have to speak, so you have more of a tendency to increase the volume.
So there are a lot of possible factors, but there are ways to adapt. I reiterate that it will take more research to ensure that the right adaptations are applied.