Evidence of meeting #15 for Official Languages in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was interpreters.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you.
This presentation is very interesting. You say that the Zoom platform ranked among the last of the systems that were evaluated.
You explained this mechanism, but are there other platforms more efficient than Zoom?
Which ones would you recommend?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
I will provide the answer in writing, of course, as far as I can. As I said, I'm not personally involved there. However, I have been instrumental in designing our three conference halls in Heidelberg, with a total of 60 interpreting console places.
I'll now answer Mr. Beaulieu's question.
Yes, there are much better platforms in some respects. We've seen the factors, the parameters measured, and platforms such as Interprefy and Kudo are much better in some of these parameters. The problem is that none of these platforms comes close to a conference interpreting system, and all of them do not match the frequency range that is required to be able to listen and to speak at the same time.
It's very different, as you've probably noticed, if you just listen to a conversation, and even conference interpreters when listening to the speaker and not working themselves sometimes wonder why their colleague is struggling. As soon as you start working yourself, you notice how bad the sound quality is, which you haven't noticed before.
We absolutely need a frequency range from nine to 15 kilohertz—or better, 18 kilohertz.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
If no platform meets the standards, then it becomes even more important to use the best platforms.
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
Yes, I agree.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Also, according to the clerk, the Zoom platform is one of the factors, but what would matter most is the sound that reaches the interpreters, which comes from an in-house system.
I don't know if you have any information on that, but do you think we could use something better than the in-house system we use in Parliament to improve the sound quality?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
You're entirely right.
The conference interpreting system you have in-house is excellent. It would be possible to ensure better quality than you have at the moment if you had a dedicated, tunnelled connection with fixed bandwidth.
Sound engineers would have to decide that, but to my knowledge, it's not possible to have a guaranteed quality for the connection from the many speakers who are joining from outlying locations to the centre hub where the interpreters are located.
They are sitting in excellent technical conditions with a professional system, but the sound is coming through a connection, like a bad telephone line, basically, that compromises sound to the level where you cannot really hear and speak at the same time unless you turn up the volume to a level where it damages your hearing.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
As I understand it, to your knowledge, the sound system in Parliament is still of high quality, and it isn't at all certain that it could be improved.
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
It was, I suppose—as everywhere else in the world, in parliaments around the world—designed by sound engineers and measured by professionals, and designed for simultaneous interpreters. However, the chat and video systems and telephone lines are not designed.... If you've tried speaking to somebody at the same time as listening to a mobile phone conversation, for instance, you will simply interrupt the other party. It's simply not possible to listen and speak at the same time and not have a problem.
The systems are excellent. I like Zoom and use it on a daily basis for all sorts of purposes, but I cannot work on it as a simultaneous interpreter. It's a very good system, but it's designed to cope with very bad connection quality.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
It seems that one of the big problems is the fact that we are going through the Internet. You also said that it was better to be connected directly to the routers.
If the MPs who participate in the debates were to be wired not by WiFi connection, would this help to facilitate the work of the interpreters?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
Yes, it can, but it will not address the central problem. We need a fixed bandwidth connection between all participants.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you.
We're going to continue with Mr. Boulerice.
Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Stoll, for being with us this evening. I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to listen to last Tuesday's testimony. I find it very interesting that you took your valuable time to be well prepared.
I have to admit I was a little confused after Tuesday's meeting. We had two versions of the facts that were difficult to reconcile. I apologize for the bad pun, but we felt like we were having a dialogue of the deaf.
You said a few times that ISO standards are a minimum. You've even talked about a bare minimum.
Are there other or higher standards or norms that we could use as an example?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
Yes. There is a whole host of ISO standards and also of best practices that sound engineers and sound technicians use. This would go far beyond the scope that we can discuss today, but this is an established science. There is a human component. There is the outer ear canal. Medical professionals come in.
Absolutely, once you talk to professionals, they know exactly what to do to achieve the sound quality that you in the House of Commons have in your House system. Excluding the connection outside to the Internet Zoom platform and similar platforms, your local system is excellent. If we could achieve that sort of quality level, that would be far beyond the standards set in the ISO minimum standards for what we absolutely need to be able to work at all.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Dr. Stoll, if all the equipment in the House of Commons is ISO-compliant, even if it's a minimum standard, why would you say that the sound system wouldn't be ISO-compliant?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
This is precisely my point. The system that connects the House of Commons system to where you are currently located, where you're speaking from, that goes over the Internet. There is a way to connect over the Internet with good quality, but that's quite expensive. You cannot do that using normal routers, and you need the hardware on both sides that ensures an encrypted connection and a stable sound quality across the Internet. It is possible, but you need sound engineers and not algorithms to do that.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Okay.
You indicated earlier that one of the short-term solutions would be to reduce the exposure time for interpreters to Zoom's toxic sounds, since these effects are cumulative.
We've learned that some contracts are due to expire in February. We'll therefore be asking some interpreters to work five hours a day, instead of four. This is the exact opposite of what you said.
What potential effects can interpreters expect if we increase their exposure time to toxic sounds by 25%?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
As a researcher, I cannot use that sort of term, “toxic sound”.
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
As an interpreter, I'm absolutely with you. I have been raging at sound quality and what it does to my hearing.
As a researcher, I have to say, it depends on the exact conditions, on the amount of the damage inflicted on people's hearing. In the worst case—people connected through Wi-Fi with a non-ISO-compliant headset or their laptop microphone, and interpreters being my age or above, where the muscles that I described in my opening statement have weakened anyway and age-related hearing deterioration is setting in and that sort of thing—you can have hearing damage from one hour of listening too loud, but that would have to be investigated by medical professionals.
These studies are still outstanding, for precise settings in conference interpreting, but we have a plethora of studies available to us from similar settings that indicate very strongly a suspicion is justified that this causes damage.
As you're in the limelight and as you are a role model in so many senses, but also in the way you have managed this very difficult situation, as opposed to many other parliaments and institutions—I have to add that there are much more problematic settings around that I've heard of—increasing the exposure time is absolutely the wrong signal to send. I do feel that the precautionary principle would be advisable.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
It's good that you mention this, Dr. Stoll, because it ties in with my next question, which is that the Translation Bureau of the House of Commons should apply the precautionary principle. This term is used in the fields of the environment and health. The end of your answer touched on that, so I'm very pleased that you touched on that principle. That's exactly my point.
I'll conclude this round of questions right now, Mr. Chair. I think we'll have a chance to talk about this a little later.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Thank you very much for your co-operation.
I was looking at the timer. You did well to end this round of questions.
Thank you.
We'll begin the next round of questions.
We will start with Mr. Blaney, for five minutes.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to share my time with my colleague Mr. Dalton.
Dr. Stoll, thank you very much for bringing us your perspective, which we can look at with a bit of hindsight after meeting with other stakeholders on Tuesday.
I grew up watching Star Trek, where people used teleporting and spoke on giant screens. We thought it looked amazing.
Reality is catching up to us, and we realize that technology poses many challenges, including a linguistic challenge in interpretation.
Something about your intervention really struck me. You talked about our headsets. You seemed to say that they are of poor quality and that we could have better ones. Is that correct?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
It's my pleasure.
It's just that particular model. I can't see which one you are wearing, because you're quite small on my screen. It's just the Plantronics 310, which has a very distinct design as well.
Particularly when you only have one side on your ear, it's not suitable for interpreters and it's not very good for listening either, because you're putting load on only one eardrum and also on the rest of your hearing. Using both sides is good.
For conference interpreters, it is very advisable to use something above the 6.8 kilohertz. What's very telling is that on their website, in the specification sheet, it is advertised for call centres to connect to a phone, that very recommended headset. To my mind, it's not good for professional use by conference interpreters or for the microphone transmission, because it cuts off the sound quality just above phone quality. Phone is around four kilohertz.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Dr. Stoll.
So that means that our equipment is the minimum. Yet we are 338 members of Parliament, and God knows we save a lot of money by meeting virtually. However, it's essential to have quality equipment. It should be mandatory for MPs.
What you're saying is that we should have quality headphones. At my office, I've provided my team with some, and I find that their headsets look better than the ones we received from the House. Sometimes it's worth the investment. Thank you, Dr. Stoll.
The Zoom platform therefore poses challenges for interpretation. Do you think we should continue to use the Zoom platform and ask this company to provide us with more powerful versions?
Do you think there's a better platform?
I understand that the House of Commons system is excellent. Do you advise us to migrate to a platform other than Zoom that would offer better sound quality, especially in an interpretation context?
Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow, Conference Interpreting Programme, University of Heidelberg, As an Individual
Yes. As I was saying, in fact, about the team of engineers who did the measurements of the current platforms, which I believe you've been given a summary of, that very team has said that there is the web synchronized connection and there is an STC connection as well.
I'm not a sound engineer, although I've been involved in the design of many conference halls. There are platforms that sound engineers—specialists, professionals—can set up and which are much better, but it's quite expensive, because you need dedicated hardware rather than normal routers on both sides. You would have to consider the cost and whether it's feasible.