Official Languages Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2021

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Perfect.

I really want to ask you this question because it's come up in the media and in public. A spokesperson for Public Services and Procurement Canada said that freelance interpreters earned between $750 and $1,250 a day for approximately three hours of work.

Could you give us some context and perhaps set the record straight?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Thank you very much.

We are here to talk but the quality of sound and auditory safety, but this is a very important question because I'm afraid the spokesperson for Public Services and Procurement Canada has misled you.

It's true that we have worked three or four hours a day since May 2020, when the virtual Parliament started. Our six-hour day shrank to four hours as a result of the precaution taken by the Translation Bureau.

The fact is we don't work three hours a day; that's just the tip of the iceberg. I mentioned the 33,000 species of fish, for example. I have to prepare for those three- or four-hour meetings every day. When I enter the booth, that's the end of the process. I've already spent three or four hours preparing everything; then I enter the booth and have another three or four hours of work ahead of me.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's like teachers who have to prepare lesson plans and correct students' work after class. Their work isn't limited solely to the hours they spend in class. It's somewhat the same situation as yours, since you have preparatory work to do so you can provide a professional service.

[Nicole Gagnon]

That's correct.

[Jim Thompson]

It's also important to understand that this is a free market. These are freelance suppliers to the government. The government sets the rules, and the freelancers bid.

In keeping with the very strong demand for this service and the very limited supply, you have to take that into account when you're talking about money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

We will now begin another round of questions, in which two members may participate, but it will be a five-minute round. I think it's Mr. Blaney who will be asking questions instead of Mr. Généreux.

We are listening, Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here this evening, Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Thompson.

I wanted my colleague Mr. Généreux to start the round of questions because he's the one who introduced the motion. I salute him and my colleagues who made it possible for you to appear here as soon as possible. The Standing Committee on Official Languages made the unanimous decision to invite you to join us this evening and Thursday.

I think we can agree that headsets are necessary for parliamentarians, but, this evening, you raised what I think is the most important aspect, the platform, the software we use. We can understand that the government chose Zoom in a rush, but, based on the figures you've shown us, that software doesn't make the grade. This evening, you said it was a videoconferencing platform, not an interpretation platform. It's also the only software package among all those tested that's rated not compliant on the speech intelligibility criterion. I'd like to hear what you have to say on that subject. I imagine it's extremely important for you to hear and understand what's being said.

My impression is that the Government of Canada is driving a Lada, when we know that linguistic duality is central to our identity and parliamentary activities.

Could you explain to us at greater length how this platform isn't satisfactory?

Your comments may definitely be included in the recommendations we make following your appearance.

[Nicole Gagnon]

The platform is the choice that was made by the Canadian government, which had its own reasons. On Thursday evening, you'll be hearing from expert witnesses who can definitely explain this better than I can. I'm not an expert on these platforms. Our association and the Translation Bureau are conducting studies on the platform, more specifically its impact on the work of interpreters and linguistic duality in Canada.

Obviously, if we can't hear your remarks clearly, we have to interrupt the service, and, as we've shown, we've had to interrupt you more than 1,000 times since we started, and we're talking about just 14 committees. Imagine what that would be if we included all committees. It's really annoying because it compromises your right to speak in both official languages and interferes in your parliamentary work, not to mention that it's irritating for you to be constantly interrupted because we can't make out what you're saying.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That's especially the case when we tend to speak a bit quickly, as I do.

Ms. Gagnon, Mr. Généreux said there were international standards. You mentioned European standards.

Could you tell us what those standards are and why it would be important for Canada to adopt such standards, which are recognized by interpretation professionals?

[Nicole Gagnon]

I wasn't actually talking about standards, Mr. Blaney. European institutions opted for interpretation platforms, whereas, here in Canada, we opted for a videoconferencing platform.

The standards in question are the ISO standards, which apply in Canada as well. Unfortunately, the current platform doesn't meet ISO standards in the two categories you can see on the chart, which are fidelity and speech intelligibility, which is very important.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

So you recommend that Canada simply use a platform that meets ISO standards. There are several choices, but the platform we're using doesn't meet them. Thank you very much.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have one minute and five seconds left.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

All right. I will yield my speaking time to Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Gagnon, you mentioned the percentage of time devoted to preparation. Do you do three or four hours of preparation for three or four hours of work for all committees? Does preparation time correspond to interpretation time?

In addition, what percentage of material, such as witness speeches, do you receive in advance to assist you in your interpretation work? Do such percentages exist?

[Nicole Gagnon]

I don't know of any percentages, Mr. Généreux. However, I can tell you that, since the pandemic started, and since Parliament went virtual, we've noticed that we've been receiving fewer and fewer briefs [Technical difficulty], which help us prepare for our committees. An interpreter like me normally works on as many as three different committees a day. There may be seven or eight witnesses per witness panel, who may or may not give us their briefs, which we may or may not be able to prepare. We don't get them the day before the meeting. Sometimes we receive them 10 minutes before the meeting starts. We can't prepare adequately, and that compromises the quality of the service we offer you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the next five minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, Ms. Gagnon.

Good evening, Mr. Thompson. I'm going to be directing my first question to you.

In moments of crisis like these, it is especially important that we, as politicians and parliamentarians, be able to communicate effectively with our constituents. I want to basically come back to what you said before when we spoke about the platform and having issues—that we could face different issues. The headset would be one issue, but you also said that fixing one element doesn't necessarily fix the whole problem.

Am I to understand that no matter what platform or device or however we would correct it, we would always encounter some sort of an issue, whether it be Internet connectivity, as you said, or headsets, or whether it be delays in getting the proper equipment?

I'd like for you to elaborate on that this evening. Thank you.

[Jim Thompson]

Thank you.

I want to start by quoting from the transcript of the PROC from a meeting at the end of April last year. Harry Moseley, from Zoom, was asked about the suitability of Zoom as an interpretation platform, and he said, “Madam Chair, thank you for the question. I'm not sure I understand what 'simultaneous interpretation' is.” That's pretty illustrative of how suitable Zoom is as a platform for a bilingual country like Canada.

It's true that there are multiple chains in the audio stream from the speaker to the listener and that you're only as strong as your weakest link, but that is not an argument to allow for weak links to persist. It's an argument, I think, for addressing the weakest links, starting with the platform and working from there. That's the most difficult problem we have.

It's certainly one thing to have members of Parliament using the proper equipment, and that's been terrific; it's been picked up well. We need to do more work with the witnesses on that front. However, we need to put some attention on the platform too.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

To your knowledge in terms of this platform, I understand your colleague has given us a grading of these different platforms, and I understand that Zoom was placed in last place. Of these other platforms, which ones would be the most effective, if not the one that Parliament would be better off with, and why?

[Jim Thompson]

The comparison that we presented to you was done by an independent sound engineering firm in Germany for AIIC International, and it compared, on four or five parameters, the audio performance of these nine different platforms.

There was one of them that was compliant with all of the parameters tested. None of them were compliant with all...and Zoom was the least compliant, earning a non-compliant grade for two out of the four parameters, all of which are really important technical things that make a huge difference in what you can and cannot hear over these platforms.

I'm sure you'll get more information—and I don't want to bore you with the technicalities—but, yes, Zoom came last.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Gagnon, you say your report emphasizes that some witnesses have had to testify in English as a result of interpretation difficulties and that members have even had to limit their speeches as a result of technical problems.

In addition to changing platforms, what can we do to help witnesses and parliamentarians feel comfortable and able to speak in the language of their choice?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Ms. Gagnon, it would be ideal if you could answer that long question in 10 or 15 seconds.

Do you have a few words to add in response to that question?

[Nicole Gagnon]

All I can tell you is that people must absolutely wear a headset and there must absolutely be a cable connection. Where possible, people must familiarize themselves with the way the platform is used so they know how to do things right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

The next speeches will be for two and a half minutes.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

As regards your working conditions, under the new contract the government wants to offer you, your working days would be extended by 25% and you would be required to be available for 15 hours.

What do you think about that?