Official Languages Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I would like to thank all three of you for being here.

We are talking about renegotiating a contract. My question is twofold.

What tools do you need for doing the work? Are there any new ones that you need? Can you see any needs in this regard?

I would like to come back to the technology, because there is a lot of talk about it. It is changing at a rapid pace. What are you doing, at the translation bureau, to plan for the future? How will technology influence the work over the next few years?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

That is a good question, Mr. Chair.

I will start by answering the question about the rapidly advancing technology.

The translation bureau acts as a convenor in the language industry in Quebec. We have created coordinating bodies that bring together not only interpreters, but also translators, terminologists and universities: All the key actors in the field of languages in Canada.

Most of the time, we put out joint messages cautioning people about the value and ethics of the tools. We have spent months discussing security. Sovereignty over the tools has become an issue not just for us, but also for private firms. There is an effort to coordinate. Obviously, we keep abreast of the latest technologies, which are often used first by the general public. That is a good thing. We often hear about them in the industry.

Technologies that are installed on our phones are getting better and better. Some already have eyeglasses and earpieces. Once a service is offered that is accessible and secure all across Canada, the translation bureau may look like it is dragging its feet.

For example, ensuring the sound quality at this meeting is a team effort. So I work with my colleages in the House of Commons and the Senate to get the best consoles and the best tools.

I am going to come back to your question about technology, Mr. Chair. The safety rules that are applied here require ISO-certified mikes: mikes that provide good sound. That is an example of what we are putting in place.

Regarding the tools that are used for preparing interpreters, they are evolving. There is software that will enable them to prepare for the work and also manage the meeting. We have not said much about that today, but remote interpretation is becoming increasingly common worldwide, and it is supported by quite a few tools. Some schools are delivering courses remotely only; others are in person. Interpreters have told me that they prefer to work remotely, in their own work environment, rather than in a booth, for interpreting. Everyone does not have the same…. There is also the issue of how we support interpreters in using tools while at the same time abiding by the safety rules.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That will be it for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve.

We will start the third round of questions.

I would ask my colleagues to keep to their times. That way, we will be able to finish the third round with a member from each party having the opportunity to ask questions.

We will start with Mr. Dalton for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Tell me whether I have understood correctly, Mr. Lymburner. Previously, an interpreter might have been at the mike for six hours. Since the pandemic, it is now four hours, but consideration is being given to going back to six hours. Is that correct?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

That is a very good question.

During the pandemic, working conditions…. The interpreters were here in Parliament, and parliamentarians were working elsewhere. At the time, they were using several methods of communication, including by telephone and several other tools. A number of injuries happened and the sound quality was very poor. We recognized those problems. My predecessors also determined that the number of hours had to be reduced in order to understand the extent of the problem.

I can assure you that there are limiters in the booths. The consoles are…. The fact remains that in Canada we have something truly unique. While I am speaking to you here today, I am not wearing an earpiece. I can do that because there are loudspeakers. When there is a loudspeaker and a mike, there can be feedback loops. That is what can cause acoustic injuries, and it is that aspect that we are giving our full attention. We are working with scientists to try to really understand what is going on.

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

My question was about changing the number of hours at the mike.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I'm getting there. Every committee has asked the same question.

During 2024‑25, the Labour Program at Social Development Canada declared Parliament to be a dangerous area because of the various acoustic injuries. We have worked on this with our colleagues in the department.

At the moment, we are talking about hybrid interpretation. The four-hour block was associated with hybrid interpretation. We are also speaking with our counterparts in other countries to see whether we can increase the number of hours to six in certain situations. For example, here, right how, we are not holding a hybrid meeting. The participants are here in the room. No one is participating in the meeting online. That could be a situation where an interpreter could work for six hours. Other parliamentary committees will have witnesses online. So that will be a four-hour period.

It's not binary. It's kind of—

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

I have heard that the situation would be changing in the near future and there would be improvements, and so on.

However, according to the testimony we heard, if the number of hours at the mike is changed by raising it from four to six hours, it will not only cause problems, but it will also pose a threat to the interpreters' work. We also heard that you would be losing interpreters.

Is that true? Can you tell us more about that?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I am speaking about both interpreters who are employed in the translation bureau and freelancers.

Yes, sound quality is the tool of their work. Before we proceed with increasing hours in the booth, we want to make sure we have considered all of the health and safety aspects. It has to be safe to do it.

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

We heard that there will also be changes in terms of the quality of interpreters and their skill level. For example, freelancers will not be paid based on their skills.

Can you tell us a bit about that?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

This is about bureau certification.

I am going to ask Ms. Plouffe to provide some clarification about quality. There was a question about that earlier.

[Annie Plouffe]

I thank the member for his question.

At the moment, the way the contract and assignment of resources are done, we do not take a freelancer's expertise, experience and profile into account—whether they are a former lawyer or a biologist, for example—when we assign them.

I am proud to say that we have employees with varying backgrounds. We are certainly going to know this anecdotally, but it is not one of our criteria. In exceptional cases, we may need a freelancer who has specific skills for a study a committee is doing. We will then look at freelancers' up-to-date profiles and resumes so we can assign them to the committee in question. This is de facto invisible to us. Interpreters are deemed to be of a certain quality. That is how we will assign them.

For the moment, when we select a person, we do it randomly. Price is not a factor at this time. We rely on their expertise in assigning them.

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

I would like to give Mr. Godin a few seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

There are only 15 seconds left.

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

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

In that case, I will get right to the point.

Before the pandemic, shifts were six hours. Today, they are four hours.

Is it realistic or utopian, with improvements in technology, to go back to six hours if there are no virtual meetings, excluding committees where witnesses were present as in the past?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Please give a very short answer.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

Mr. Chair, it is not utopian.

There are countries that have ways of calculating the number of minutes when people are participating virtually. That is what enables them to manage capacity. So that is a very good question. Obviously, it calls for certain systems. We are working very hard on this with the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Godin and Mr. Dalton.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for that excellent clarification.

I am going to go back to preparation, because we were told earlier that preparation would no longer be paid for. So I have three questions about that.

First, is that the case?

Second, in terms of preparation, is there really a difference today between people who have experience and people who use technological tools to look up all the fine points on a subject?

Third, how is this preparation work recognized? I ask this question because it is actually important in terms of quality.

[Jean-François Lymburner]

I am going to let Ms. Plouffe answer.

[Annie Plouffe]

Thank you for your questions.

Regarding preparation, at the moment, freelancers assigned to Parliament get their assignments, as the previous witnesses said, between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. the day before. So there is a certain amount of time for the preparation they have to do.

In addition, regarding expertise relating to committees, our employees work with the freelancers to help them and enable them to catch up when they are assigned to those committees. These are people who are involved in our parliamentary work. They actually do have some general information.

Regarding preparation time, I would say that everyone includes it in the rate they bid. That is how it is accounted for at the moment. For parliamentary work, we do not have a figure for preparation time.

Let's look at an example in another area.

If we are covering conference x or y, in some very specific cases, such as the G7 summit, for example, we gave interpreters a preparation day. They had consultations, documents to read, and so on. It was paid, but it was a requirement, because we didn't know what the participants would be talking about.

So for conferences, it varies. Sometimes, we can anticipate it well in advance.

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

If I understand correctly, preparation was not paid, even before. So it is included in the rate requested. In that case, everyone determines the amount to be billed for preparation, based on their experience or the research that needs to be done.

Given this, what tools will soon be made available to our interpreters to help them optimize their preparation time?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

That is a very good question.

I have seen several kinds of tools. There are some that can give you the text almost instantaneously. The interpreter will be able to read it at the same time. If they missed something, they will be able to make adjustments. We are talking about the text in this case.

For subtitling and transcription, a lot of progress is being made.

For research, we now have tools that make it possible to search for expert opinions on a specific subject.

For a discussion like the one today, there are the opening remarks, which the interpreters have in advance, but then there is the question period. The interpretation is a function of the questions and answers.

There may eventually be tools that might be somewhat more advanced for voice. When it comes to voice, enormous progress is being made at present. Work is being done on accents, tone and humour. A lot of things are being done. Sports commentary is starting to be done using artificial intelligence. We are not there yet, but we have to keep an eye on things.

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

I am going to change the subject.

I would like to talk about how confident we can be in the interpretation. It is nice to see these tools; it is fascinating. They are available for interpreting and they improve both quality and efficiency.

In Canada, our two official languages are important and we want to show them to be valuable, but people who are not fluent in the other language do not see how the quality of the language is being diminished because of the use of these tools. What is being done in Canada to ensure high quality interpretation?

What could our government do in this regard that would be important? What are you doing?