Official Languages Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Nicole Gagnon]

As I said, at this point it is limited to using these technologies for preparation. I can't predict the future, but I think all these technologies have been created by men and women, who still have to be there behind all of it to ensure that the interpretation done is of high quality.

I know these devices that are worn in the ear and interpret “hello”, “hola”, into every language are very popular. However, we are talking here about discussions between human beings, where people apologize and explain if they make a mistake.

Interpreters work in booths without a safety net, and things move very fast. They do not have time to say they misunderstood, or apologize. My opinion is that we should use the technologies based on what is available to us right now: for preparation.

As for the future, we will let you know when the time comes. There are certainly improvements to be made in terms of virtual platforms. They are already much improved, as compared to what they were before, but the quality is still not up to par.

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

In terms of what the needs are for interpretation in Parliament, how can we work together to improve the service and to both protect people's health and safety and ensure that we have the skills and we adapt?

[Nicole Gagnon]

I will try to give you a better answer.

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

I would like you to tell us what can be done about this, by the government, to help you adapt.

[Nicole Gagnon]

I think the parties involved are doing what they can. Interpreters are using artificial intelligence to prepare their texts. The suppliers are working on their platforms, or so I hope, to improve them.

You have adopted measures or protocols to follow regarding the equipment to be used and how to keep the earpiece away from the microphone to avoid feedback. So everyone is doing what they need to do to keep things moving forward.

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

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Chenette.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for being here with us.

We often hear it said that there are two official languages in Parliament: English and interpretation from English. If interpretation gets tossed out, I don't know where we're going.

You are correct that the whole question of linguistic duality is back on the table. You said that if we used only the lowest bidder criterion, it would surely result in interpretation being lower quality, because less experienced interpreters could be used.

If I understand correctly, what you want is the status quo.

That being said, how can we make sure we are getting a service at less cost while maintaining quality?

[Alionka Skup]

At this point, it is not necessarily about maintaining the status quo.

On the question of interpreters' assignments, we currently use five criteria: availability, language profile, security clearance, quality index and professional domicile. Obviously, we start with people who live in the national capital region.

The quality index no longer exists in the new version, or is not mentioned in what we were presented with in the RFI, the request for information. We are not sure how the evaluation will be done.

For assignments to the various jobs, we have interpreters who have worked on Parliament Hill for a very long time. They have a law degree or have expertise in different specialties. It would therefore be logical for them to be assigned to committees that have a connection with their various subject fields, rather than just taking the list and choosing the lowest bidder. Interpreters would have to be assigned to committees in that order.

In addition, if it operates that way, the interpreters with the most experience will simply not be here in Parliament, because their rates will be too high, based on their experience, their various degrees, and everything else. They will no longer be included in the pool of available interpreters.

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

Basically, you are saying that the quality index and the interpreters' experience should also be taken into account in order to do a value for money assessment, rather than just taking price into account.

Is this new approach, as proposed by the government, not a clear illustration of how French and interpretation are increasingly seen by Parliament as less important? We see it here when members speak. There is less and less French. Recently, a press conference was held in English only. I know this is a difficult subject for you, but personally, I think it reflects a lack of political will on the government's part.

[Alionka Skup]

I don't believe it is our job to talk about politics.

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

I am going to address another subject.

You said that measures to protect interpreters' hearing health would be eliminated, particularly regarding sound quality. How is that going to change things? Do you think less attention will be paid to interpreters' hearing health in future, under the new terms?

[Nicole Gagnon]

First, let me make another comment about the previous question.

It is not just French that would be affected, Mr. Beaulieu. If francophones on the Hill speak French, your anglophone colleagues need to understand them in English just as much, and quality will not be up to par in English either.

Remind me of your last question, please.

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

It was about eliminating measures to protect interpreters' hearing health.

[Nicole Gagnon]

I would like to be clear, because I would not want to mislead you: There is nothing in the proposed rules that says the protocol and the measures taken to protect interpreters are going to be eliminated. However, those measures, which are already included in the current contract, do not appear in the new rules. As we know, even with the best of intentions, it is wise to get things in writing.

We are concerned that these measures are not spelled out in black and white in the next contract.

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

Yes, there have been a lot of hearing accidents, not to mention the interpreter shortage.

You also said that Zoom, the platform used by Parliament, is not made for interpretation. Are there other platforms that could be used? Have you seen any studies on this?

[Nicole Gagnon]

That is correct, Zoom is not an interpretation platform. It was not designed for that purpose. There are other platforms. I can't recommend one over another, but I know the translation bureau consults internationally and the European Union uses something else. There are other platforms, platforms designed for interpretation, which is not the case for Zoom or Microsoft Teams.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have about 40 seconds, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I have also read that under the new rules, breaks would no longer be counted and it would be strictly interpreting time alone that would be counted. What do you have to say about that?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Yes, there was discussion last year about not counting breaks, for example when there are technical problems at the beginning of a meeting, but that problem has since been solved. We are paid by the day, at least for now, since one of the translation bureau's other proposals is to pay us only for the time we are at the mike. That is a bit like paying a teacher for their classroom time, not counting all the work they do before and after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

We will now go to the second round of questions.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

I would like to thank all the interpreters for their vital services, without which we would not be able to work. We are very grateful to them.

First, what is the difference between staff interpreters and independent interpreters? Do staff interpreters work year-round or only during the parliamentary session? How does it work?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Interpreters who are employees are represented by their union, the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, or CAPE. So I think that question should be directed to CAPE, but I can tell you briefly that staff interpreters are employed year-round, so they are at your service year-round when Parliament is sitting.

During the summer there is sessional leave, but otherwise they are available year-round.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Could you tell us a bit more about the preparation you do when you are not at the microphone?

[Alionka Skup]

As a professional interpreter, I can tell you that when we receive speeches and presentations before an event, we review them and take note of the terminology and we prepare so we are really ready by the time the meeting starts. When we have not received any documents, we do research online and try to find as much information as possible on the topic of the meeting.

I am sure you will agree with me that, depending on the complexity of the subject, providing interpretation for Parliament and various departments is one of the most complex events an interpreter can be assigned to. So we have to spend several hours on preparation if we want to provide you with the quality service you certainly deserve.