Official Languages Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Welcome to meeting number three of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. All comments must be addressed through the chair. I would ask committee members to raise their hand if they wish to speak, whether they are attending in person or on Zoom. The committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain the speaking order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted by the committee on September 25, 2025, we are meeting today to study the renewal of the employment contract for parliamentary interpreters.

I would now like to welcome Alionka Skup, chair of AIIC-Canada, the International Association of Conference Interpreters for the Canada region, and Nicole Gagnon, conference interpreter and spokesperson, also from that organization.

You will have five minutes for your opening remarks. We will then go to questions and answers with committee members.

Ms. Skup, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Alionka Skup, Chair, AIIC-Canada, International Association of Conference Interpreters - Canada Region]

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Chair and committee members, your decision to assess how new procurement rules will impact the availability and quality of interpretation services in Parliament and other high-level events is both important and timely.

As interpreters who have personally worked in Parliament for many years, we can address the question of how service quality will be affected by the new procurement requirements PSPC is about to put in place.

PSPC has shared with accredited official languages interpreters, who are potential bidders, their proposals for sweeping changes to the relationship between Canada and individual freelancers.

In turn, we have warned PSPC that their proposals would challenge the quality of interpretation services in Parliament. Today, our message is that you should be concerned about being understood when speaking your language of choice in Parliament if these proposals become requirements.

Next week, AIIC-Canada will release survey research that will make it clear that PSPC's proposals are likely to cause a critical mass of freelancers to refrain from bidding for Parliament work. This will make the shortage of accredited freelancers in Parliament even more acute, further constraining your work and the quality of interpretation services available to you.

Among other things, PSPC is proposing to introduce a “lowest price” system for assigning work. They call it best value procurement. It would replace all the measures in the current rules designed to ensure quality.

This is an antiquated approach other governments have long ago abandoned because it squeezes quality from the services being purchased. As Cal Harrison, who is a procurement expert, wrote in the Globe and Mail as far back as July 22, 2016: “It has been well documented internationally that price-based procurement wastes public money, both in the inefficiency of the process and in the low quality of solutions the bidders are forced to offer and implement.”

What PSPC is proposing will force freelance interpreters to cut corners. It will eliminate the most experienced interpreters whose knowledge about the high pressure and highly technical nature of interpreting parliamentary events will likely be lost.

PSPC suggests quality will be maintained because all freelancers will continue to be accredited by the translation bureau.

Yet, like other professionals, all interpreters are not equal and do not possess the same knowledge and experience.

Would you accept a newly licensed pilot as the captain of a 747 aircraft filled with hundreds of passengers? Would you hire a criminal lawyer to litigate a copyright matter? Of course not. The same realities apply to freelancers. Each of us offer different areas of expertise, experience and qualifications outside the realm of interpretation that will not be considered whatsoever under PSPC’s lowest price system.

PSPC will probably tell you in a moment that something must be done to control the cost of freelance interpreters whose rates have apparently climbed by 70% since 2018 (as per amendment no. 3 published on July 3, 2025).

In fact, in 2023, PSPC accepted bids for the current procurement system that could be up to 70% higher than the median or midpoint of all bids. In all the previous iterations of the contract, contracts were only awarded to those suppliers whose bids fell within plus or minus 20% of the median.

If tighter limits on the definition of acceptable bid were put in place in the upcoming rules, there would be no need to include proposed lowest price requirements in the assignment of parliamentary work.

PSPC has also proposed hourly rates paid only when interpreters are “at the mike” in place of the current system of daily rates.

A daily rate is the standard for professional interpreters, here in Canada and in institutions around the world, and for good reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Alionka Skup]

Interpreters working for the Parliament of Canada are tethered to the Hill for 13.5 hours each day. They spend considerable time preparing before each assignment. Federal officials suggest building standby and preparation time into freelancers’ hourly rates, but freelancers know that doing so would price them out of work in a lowest price system.

I am sure the minister is a very busy man. That said, it is regrettable that Minister Lightbound is absent today. The proposals of his ministry will effectively convert the Official Languages Act requirement for equality between French and English in Parliament to a guideline that may be followed or not.

Thank you for your invitation to appear and thank you to our colleagues in the booth today.

We will be happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Skup.

We will now go to questions from members. For the first round of questions, each committee member will have the floor for six minutes. We will start with the Liberals.

Ms. Chenette, you have the floor.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I would first like to thank the interpreters who are with us today.

We really do have to stress the important role played by interpreters in our two official languages here in Canada. The value and quality of their work is of the utmost importance.

I also want to stress what you said about experience and subject matter expertise in Parliament. This is important. That experience is put to use. From that perspective, we need interpreters who meet a high standard.

My question is about the changes we should be making when it comes to new technologies. I would like to hear your comments about that. We are in an environment—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I see that when we voted on routine motions, the Conservative Party was to have the floor first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I am going to suspend the meeting for a few seconds to consult the clerk.

You are correct, Mr. Godin. Pardon me, that was my mistake.

What I propose is to give Mr. Godin the floor, in accordance with what was adopted.

I'm sorry, Ms. Chenette. I will come back to you later and let you start over from the beginning.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

All right.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have sat on this committee for several years. Whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage depends on your point of view.

I want to thank my colleague for starting the questions.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here with us. I think this is important. Access to both official languages is a parliamentary right. It is essential that we have interpretation services.

What is going to change? What difference is there between the existing rules and the new ones? You are saying that the only eligibility criterion is the lowest bidder rule.

Is that right?

[Nicole Gagnon, Conference Interpreter and Spokesperson, AIIC-Canada, International Association of Conference Interpreters - Canada Region]

As in the past, the invitation to bid is still being sent to accredited interpreters. The new rules would be for accredited interpreters and would be based solely on the lowest bidder rule.

The most recent contracts were based on the interpreter's profile. There were five criteria that had to be met, including the ones related to quality. That has all gone away in the new rules. The new rules would be based solely on accreditation and lowest bidder.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

As I understand it, the rates for freelance interpreters used to vary based on their specialties and skills.

Is that right?

[Nicole Gagnon]

That's right, accreditation is the minimum requirement for working on Parliament Hill.

On top of that, and as is the case in Canadian society, interpreters have different experience and degrees. They have more expertise in some subjects that others. That is all taken into account when they bid. That is to be expected. If someone has more experience than a beginner, it is hardly surprising that they would ask for more.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

If we leave money out of it, what would the solution be in order to ensure that parliamentarians are better served when it comes to interpretation?

I have to say that we, as parliamentarians, are being shortchanged, because we do not always have access to interpretation.

We have to understand that these are tough economic times and we are going to hit a wall.

What solution would ensure that we both respect the right of parliamentarians and are more effective when it comes to interpretation services?

[Nicole Gagnon]

The problem isn't money. Interpreters are not asking for higher pay.

I completely understand your concern about the Canadian government's current austerity program. However, the solution is not to make cuts to interpretation services. You want to increase capacity. We understand that. We commend the translation bureau for its efforts in recent years to expand the number of programs at various Canadian universities in order to attract new talent.

We are currently working to secure the next generation. I can tell you that in 2022, when AICC did a study on this, almost half of interpreters working today were preparing to leave the profession over the following five years. Some 30 interpreters have left since 2022. That tells you how important recruiting the next generation is.

You want to increase capacity for interpretation, which is understandable. It could be done as long as we returned to in-person meetings only. It was Parliament that decided in 2022 to hold meetings in hybrid format. Because of that, interpreters have been seriously injured. Many interpreters have simply left the profession for that reason. They want to protect their hearing.

The translation bureau has adopted a protocol to be followed for incidents. Most importantly, and thanks to pressure from AICC‑Canada, it opted for what is called the precautionary principle: safer working hours. As a result, we are working fewer hours at the mike. Preparation time is the same, whether interpreters are at the mike for two or four or six hours. The number of hours at the mike was reduced so we would be exposed to virtual sounds on virtual platforms for as little time as possible.

If we went back, we could work more hours. But that decision is up to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Godin, you have about a minute of your time left.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

What you are saying is that interpreters have been on duty and working fewer hours since the pandemic. This was caused by the pandemic. However, there were already committees being held virtually before the pandemic. Witnesses testified virtually at committees before 2022.

Is that an exception?

On Parliament Hill overall, access to interpretation services could be expanded by eliminating virtual participation, but I don't think it can be completely eliminated.

Is it possible for it to work in hybrid format?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Ms. Gagnon, I would ask that you answer briefly, in about 15 seconds.

[Nicole Gagnon]

You are absolutely right, Mr. Godin. Before the pandemic, before hybrid Parliament, witnesses appeared by video conference. The difference is that those witnesses had to go to a sound studio. There were technicians there to ensure sound quality and protect the interpreters' hearing health. Now, people are participating in meetings online, from their home or workplace. So we have no control over sound input.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Ms. Chenette, you have the floor.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here with us, Ms. Gagnon and Ms. Skup. I commend you for the work you are doing.

You bring up the issue of technological change as it relates to the virtual aspect of your work. I think Mr. Godin also brought that up as well. It is impossible to go backwards. We are truly transforming every occupation in our society as a result of technology and artificial intelligence. Certainly, health and safety is important to everyone, and I don't think anyone wants to go back on that.

There are learning curves when it comes to protecting people. For your profession, how are you going to be able to adapt? You could optimize preparation time by using technology, for example.

Optimizing means seeing how to do more with the resources you have. How can you optimize the work involved in interpreting and the services offered to Parliament as a whole?

Does the competition you have to face have resources that raise concerns for you in terms of the lowest price?

What plan do you have for adapting?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Thank you for the question.

We agree that everybody is talking about artificial intelligence. We are not standing in the way of progress. AIIC-Canada is not opposed to progress.

That being said, we have to understand that artificial intelligence does not have a mind of its own. Yes, it is a tool that can be useful for preparation, if interpreters receive the texts in advance—something that is happening less and less often, I have to say. When I started my career, the rule was that texts had to be provided 48 hours in advance; failing that, the interpreters would not do the work.

To come back to artificial intelligence, generative AI has no understanding of the context of what it is reading. It does not have a mind of its own; it is an algorithmic solution. It has trouble interpreting interpersonal dynamics, culture, humour and emotions. It is basically mimicry. Artificial intelligence is based on databases that record interpreters. Nine times out of ten, we say word A to translate word B.

When context has to be interpreted, humour doesn't come across, at this point. It is certainly possible to use it for preparation. However, artificial intelligence does not lend itself to interpreting in the House or Senate or in committee, at least not at this point.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

You are clearly right about the limits of the technologies in use today. However, we can see that things are changing very rapidly. Given this, a contract has to last over time. That is why I asked about adapting. We are now seeing algorithms that allow for interpretation to be provided directly using a device worn in the ear.

Again, I am not saying this is the approach we have to adopt. I am just trying to understand the situation. You are the one doing the job of interpreting. You understand the full breadth of contexts possible and the experience it takes to interpret what is said.

How are you adapting to the technologies that can make us more efficient?

It is one thing to say we are not there yet, but from the standpoint of adapting, with the benefit of all the experience you have, how can you enable our government to optimize how the work is done?