Publication Search

This is meeting number 18 of the Board of Internal Economy.

Today is February 16, and this meeting is televised.

Members of the Board of Internal Economy are participating remotely, by video conference.

Before we go to the first one, I'd like to change the agenda a bit.

Would that be okay?

Item 3 requires a bit more time, so I suggest we deal with items 1, 2, 4 and 5 first. I think we can get through them fairly quickly.

Then we can move on to number 3 and take our time. I believe that one will take some time.

Mr. Julian.

I'm fine with that, Mr. Chair, but we have to discuss item 5 in camera. Were you planning to have the committee go in camera to discuss item 5 and, then, resume in public to deal with item 3?

Yes. Those in the room can stay for the in-camera portion of the meeting. We will discuss what we need to discuss in camera, after which, we will come back to item 3.

Go ahead, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

I'm fine with that as well, Mr. Chair. I hope all of my fellow members will stay to discuss that item and not try to duck out.

Some things I can't control, Mrs. DeBellefeuille. That said, considering everything that's going on in the House and in committees, I don't think anyone will slip out.

That brings us to the first item of business, the minutes of the previous meeting.

Are there any questions or comments?

I see that the committee is in agreement.

Under business arising from the previous meeting, item 2c is Internet expenses for members and their employees.

Ms. Findlay, do you want to cover that?

Was it Ms. Findlay who wrote a letter?

Yes. Ms. Findlay wrote a letter asking....

Do you want to speak to that? Either you or Ms. Findlay....

I'm assuming Ms. Findlay might like to start. If not, our finance folks might.

Okay. Maybe we'll let the finance folks talk to it first.

Ms. Findlay, do you want to introduce it?

Okay. It's fairly straightforward. I think anybody who has read it understands it.

Ms. Findlay, if you want to say a few words on that, that would be great.

I think it is quite straightforward. The issue is, I believe, payment of bills for Internet at your home or for staff at their homes, which, given the circumstances that Canadians find themselves in, having a difficult time paying bills and with inflation at the high rates it is at, seems to be something that should be a personal expense and not tied to your job as an MP or as staff to an MP.

That being said, some MPs have spoken to me and said that at the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdowns, etc., when they had to work from home, being in particularly rural communities, they had to upgrade their Internet. One MP even had a tower erected in his backyard in order to facilitate that. However, those costs were incurred in the past. Now that we are where we are, our feeling is that this should be a personal expense and should no longer be charged to members' budgets.

We as a party have taken the step of telling our members not to claim those charges anymore. I believe others have done likewise, but I don't know the status for all the parties.

Thank you.

Mr. Holland.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'll just add that we concur. We have advised our caucus the same. While there may have been a time when this particular item made sense, in the contemporary context it does not. Internet is something we all have to have in our homes, in the same way that we have to have hydro. I think for principal residences, it makes sense to withdraw the ability for members to apply for that.

Mr. Julian.

I just wanted to ask how many MPs accessed the home Internet costs over the past year.

If it's the percentage, we're looking at about 20% in terms of claims of the 338 over the last fiscal year.

Thank you for that.

Were those MPs from all parties, or preponderantly from one party?

That would be from all parties. That's primary residence only.

Do you have anything else, Mr. Julian?

I don't have an objection to the proposal. I saw some news reports that indicated that one party seemed to have accessed the home Internet costs more than other parties.

I think it's important that we have a consensus on this. I have no objections. It's fair to say that in BOIE we have a responsibility to take off our partisan hats. I will suggest that something like that shouldn't be, when we have correspondence around the BOIE, trying to tweak a sort of partisan element to it. I didn't appreciate the tone of the letter, but I certainly appreciate the intent.

Very good.

We'll now go to Madame DeBellefeuille.

I'm fine with changing the policy, Mr. Chair. It's important to ensure that the rules keep pace with the times. I completely agree with Mr. Holland on that. We should ask the House administration to repeal the policy.

Very well.

Are there comments on that?

Go ahead, please, Ms. Findlay.

I just wanted to add that I think the preponderance of MPs who serve rural ridings was the issue—not in all cases, but as I said, to my knowledge, those representing rural ridings have upgraded their Internet to a standard that is acceptable in the House and in committee.

At this point, I think we should move forward now, as the government House leader said, to look at the modern and current situation and act accordingly.

Thanks.

I believe we have consensus at the table. Everybody is nodding their head in favour.

The question is timing. I understand that it was in place until the end of March. Is that a good time to stop it from continuing? If we do it right away, it might cause some confusion.

I propose ending it on March 31, at the same time as the policy.

The expiration of the rule will cause it to sunset. Is that fair? Does that work well?

Over to you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

That's fine with us, Mr. Chair.

I think people have heard or read that almost every party has already opted to halt the practice. Logically, then, there shouldn't be any requests coming in, since each caucus came to the decision on its own.

I understand that, from an administrative standpoint, the rule has to expire, so it's better for that to coincide with the end of the fiscal year. It's important for those following today's proceedings to understand that the members of each caucus made the decision to put an end to the practice.

Very good.

Everyone is in agreement, then.

Everything is in place. Very good. I believe we have unanimous consent, which is nice.

Now we'll move on to number four.

Monsieur St George, Monsieur Fernandez and Ms. Lafontaine will be presenting on the quarterly financial report for the third quarter of 2022-23.

Go ahead, Monsieur St George.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, I am presenting the quarterly financial report for the third quarter of 2022‑23.

This unaudited report, based on a modified cash basis of accounting, was prepared by the administration. I attest to the accuracy and reliability of the information provided in the report.

As of December 31, the House had spent $391.6 million, which is an increase of $24.8 million over the same quarter last year.

The increase is mainly due to four items.

The first accounts for more than half of the increase, so $11.6 million, resulting from an increase in travel costs as activity levels on Parliament Hill increased and public health restrictions were lifted.

The second item represents an increase of $3.6 million in equipment costs, mainly due to equipment delivery delays in the previous year and IT projects in support of members and equipment life-cycling.

The third item is also attributable to increased parliamentary activities and amounts to $3.1 million for supplies for food services and printing services.

Finally, the fourth item accounts for $2.7 million, an increase mainly for IT projects and initiatives related to members' security enhancements and higher hospitality costs.

Most importantly, it should be noted that as of December 31, the House was operating within the approved authorities, and there are no other financial material variances or concerns to bring to the board's attention.

Mr. Speaker, this concludes my presentation. I welcome any questions the board may have.

Are there any comments?

Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. MacKinnon.

Thank you for your always diligent work.

I have a very quick question.

My understanding is that the increase over last year is due to activities resuming once public health restrictions were lifted, meaning that members returned to Parliament Hill instead of continuing to work remotely.

Yes, Mr. MacKinnon. The rise in parliamentary activity accounts for the entire increase.

Are there other questions?

Okay, we'll now go in camera. We'll take two minutes, have a bit of a break, and then come back. While we are in camera it shouldn't be very long. I'm going to ask those who are not privy to this to please vacate. At 11:20 a.m., we'll start with the in camera session.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

We are ready to carry on.

We are now on agenda item 3.

Thank you for agreeing to deal with the items out of order so we could spend a bit more time on item 3, which is a very important item for everyone here and at the House.

Before we begin the discussion, I'm going to ask Mr. Janse to give us a bit of background on the subject.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the newly appointed acting clerk, I would like to state on behalf of the House administration that we fully realize how challenging and frustrating the issue of interpretation capacity has been and that, frankly, it has taken too much of the board's time.

This issue is a priority for us, as it is for the translation bureau.

A few weeks ago, Dominic Laporte became the Translation Bureau's new CEO. One of the first things he did was contact me so we could meet to discuss the matter, which we did. Since then, he has been meeting with Ian McDonald and Stéphan Aubé nearly every day.

The three of them have some information to share on the issue. Afterwards, of course, we'll be more than pleased to answer your questions.

I think Dominic is going to start, if that's okay.

Yes.

Our presenters today are Monsieur Dominic Laporte, chief executive officer of the translation bureau, Matthew Ball, vice-president of the translation bureau, Ian McDonald, clerk assistant of the committees and legislative services directorate, Scott Lemoine, principal clerk of committees, and Stéphan Aubé, chief information officer.

Now we'll turn it over to Monsieur Laporte.

Welcome, Mr. Laporte, and congratulations on your appointment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning, honourable members of the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to recognize our parliamentary partners who are here today. I would also like to recognize and thank Cécilia Shea, Bernadette Blain and Linda Ballantyne, who are providing the interpretation services for today's meeting.

I am pleased to appear before you for the first time since taking on the role of chief executive officer of the Translation Bureau in January. Of course, you know the fellow who is with me today, Matthew Ball, vice-president of the services to Parliament and interpretation sector.

It is with great humility that I appear before you to discuss the complex issue of interpretation service capacity.

Over the past few weeks, I've had the opportunity to examine the issues affecting interpretation services in an effort to grasp all the implications. Matthew Ball and his team gave me a detailed history of the situation, describing the significant measures that have been implemented.

Let me assure you of something: my priority is to step up efforts to ensure the health and safety of interpreters, while, as you mentioned, improving interpretation capacity.

Since my arrival, I have met with the House administration partners who are in charge of the technical setting for interpretation services. They have clearly explained the logistics that need to be taken into account from Parliament's point of view, as well as the difficulties that service interruptions and the lack of capacity cause for parliamentarians.

As far as capacity is concerned, as you may have heard, our accreditation exam in November added 10 new freelancers to our pool. Their arrival does not in itself represent an increase in our capacity, given the number of injured interpreters and departures, but they are still welcome reinforcements.

We are also continuing to work with the House administration to implement the provision of interpretation from outside the parliamentary facilities using freelance interpreters. We now have contracts in place so that we can provide two additional two-hour meetings per day from Monday to Thursday, as we promised in December, using interpreters outside of Ottawa.

We are working on another long-term project to increase our capacity, such as a tour of universities to foster the next generation.

That said, even if we increase the number of interpreters, we won't make any headway if we cannot guarantee their health and safety.

I've had the opportunity to meet with our staff interpreters twice in the past two weeks. I was extremely impressed by their professionalism and their determination to serve the needs of their parliamentary clients. I was also very moved to hear how distressed they were by the current circumstances. It's terrible to learn that interpreters can no longer go to concerts and have trouble hearing their children at play because of hearing injuries they suffered while doing their jobs.

Those discussions actually helped dispel a misconception I had. I was under the impression that if the audio quality was fine for me, as a virtual or in-person participant, it was also fine for the interpreters. That is completely untrue, however. Interpretation is so cognitively demanding that in order for interpreters to listen and speak at the same time, the audio has to be broadcast quality.

That is why improving the sound quality is so crucial. The use of proper microphones by participants is part of the solution. Another part is encouraging participants who are in the area to attend meetings in person. What's more, the Internet connection, the computer equipment, the audio system and education all play a role, and it doesn't end there.

After seven weeks on the job, I am well aware that there is no magic formula to fix everything. It's a long-term undertaking. I understand the challenge we are facing.

When I say “we”, I don't mean only the Translation Bureau. One thing is clear to me: the bureau can't fix this on its own. All the stakeholders have to work together. The bureau is grateful for the House administration's support.

Honourable members of Parliament, you are certainly aware of the direction that Employment and Social Development Canada's labour program issued to the translation bureau on February 1, 2023. In accordance with these directions, our interpreters are instructed, as of February 6, not to interpret participants who do not use an appropriate microphone. We will soon be commissioning random sound tests in real work situations in the House and Senate committee rooms.

These instructions are in line with the work we were already doing with the administration to improve sound quality. They are not the solution to everything, but they clearly illustrate how important it is that we remain truly committed to our efforts.

Every new measure and every small gain in our long-term work to promote sound quality benefit not only the interpreters, who can do their work safely, but also the translation bureau, which will have improved capacity thanks to a healthy workforce, and the users of interpretation services, who will enjoy more stable services.

Honourable members of the Board of Internal Economy, thank you for your co-operation with the translation bureau and thank you for inviting me to speak on this important topic.

Matthew and I will now be happy to answer your questions.

Very good.

Do we have any comments or questions?

Go ahead, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's my turn to congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Laporte. I wish you much success as you take on this new challenge in your career. I appreciate the magnitude of the challenge you're facing, with the labour shortage and the impact it's having on one of our valuable resources, interpreters.

I read the letter you sent the Speaker on February 15, and I have a few questions.

That is well within the bounds of the topic, is it not, Mr. Speaker?

Yes. Go ahead.

Wonderful.

There's been a lot of information out there about how many interpreters were trained and wrote the accreditation exam. There was talk of 70 interpreters at one point. At the end of the day, my understanding is that 10 interpreters passed the exam. They are Canadian residents and are at the end of the security clearance process, but they opted not to accept positions with the Translation Bureau as staff interpreters, unfortunately. Instead, they decided to work as freelancers. From what I gather, for freelancers, the House administration is a client like any other client whom they agree to provide a certain amount of coverage to.

In simple terms, the additional resources are calculated not in interpreters, but in blocks of time or shifts, because they involve freelance capacity.

In your letter, you say that the bureau will provide coverage for eight meetings or shifts, so two hours per day from Monday to Thursday, as promised.

Do I have that right?

Yes, that's exactly right.

I would like to clarify, though, that the new resources for remote simultaneous interpretation are not resources that were previously assigned to Parliament. Those individuals, who do not live in the national capital region, do represent new resources, so that is really additional capacity. The two additional events per week that we will be covering—for a total of 59, instead of 57—are events that we would not have been able to cover without those interpreters.

Those resources come from the off-site interpretation pilot project, which we are examining. Do I have that right?

Yes.

Very good.

I have another question.

Both the House of Commons and the Senate require your interpretation services, Mr. Laporte. Who will decide where the interpreters covering those eight new shifts or meetings are assigned?

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask Mr. Ball to answer that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bureau schedules the daily assignments according to client needs. As you already know, the bureau prioritizes services to Parliament. Currently, the bureau's resources are assigned to Parliament first. Once those interpreters agree to work for us, we decide which meeting they will cover.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. McDonald?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I simply want to point out that, once the Translation Bureau makes the resources available, the whips decide who gets the available meeting capacity, whether for committee or other meetings. Usually, committees are given priority, but it's always up to the whips.

Will we be sharing the capacity for the new shifts with the Senate, or is it strictly for the House and its committees?

The freelancers working for the translation bureau serve both legislative chambers. Their priority is Parliament, before clients from the Government of Canada.

Who will decide whether they go to the Senate or the House of Commons? The needs of the House of Commons and its committees are already not being met. Who will make the decisions? How will agreements be reached? What is the mechanism?

Since the remote simultaneous interpretation pilot project is being conducted in close partnership with the House of Commons, the resources will be allocated to the House at first. I think we will learn a lot from the pilot project.

To be honest and quite frank with you, we are not necessarily planning for additional resources. I talked about the limited capacity. The new resources will simply allow us to continue providing the services we currently provide to the Senate and the House of Commons, in the same proportion.

We are not in a situation where we can allocate additional resources to the Senate or the House of Commons, except through the remote simultaneous interpretation pilot project, which we are conducting with the House of Commons Administration.

I see.

I understand that the pilot project was set up by the House of Commons. The eight new shifts will therefore be attributed to the House.

Mr. McDonald, when will these new shifts be available? Is there a planned start date?

No start date has yet been set for the use of this new service, as we are still conducting tests. Once the tests have been successfully completed, we will offer demonstrations to staff from whips' and parliamentary leaders' offices so they can try this new service and find out how it works and what the details are.

We also want to try this service in other meetings that require interpretation services but that are not necessarily committee meetings. Once we have completed these steps, we will give BOIE members, or at least the whips, a report to indicate that the service is ready to be used at committee meetings.

At that point, the whips will be able to decide and determine how to use the capacity that will then be available.

I imagine you have a time frame in mind. Can you tell us when you are hoping to make this service available?

We hope to have it available in mid‑April, after the Easter holidays. It will all depend on the other steps of the process, and we will have to make sure everything works without any hiccups. We know that interruptions during committee meetings have a significant impact on parliamentary work.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll ask one last question before giving the floor to my colleagues. I'll speak again afterwards if there is still time left.

Mr. Laporte, you know that, since Parliament switched to hybrid mode nearly three years ago, everyone has worked hard to do their job in a virtual and hybrid setting. We are now at the last steps of refining the system, so that everything can be done even more easily.

Your co-operation with the House of Commons Administration is critical to really ensure teamwork. You can support us by following the system’s development closely and ensuring people’s health and safety, as well as by providing high‑quality service with enough resources to meet parliamentarians’ needs.

We talked a lot about incident reports, injuries, and all of that. In another life, I was a manager, and I know that incident reports are very important in informing our practices.

I wonder whether your co-operation with House of Commons IT and Administration is close enough that you could send them your incident reports quickly, so that they can follow up just as quickly. Can they use the recordings and do their own analyses for you to also get answers much more quickly? This would allow you to draft and analyze your incident reports.

I sense that there is new, even closer co-operation between the bureau and the House. Will it lead you to communicate quickly as part of your processes, your procedures and your incident reports?

Based on what I have seen, co-operation between the Translation Bureau and the House of Commons Administration has always been excellent and we want to build on that co-operation.

We have work to do to be able to send information in real time. Often, interpreters will inform us as soon as there is an incident or a service interruption. Multimedia services staff are also informed of the incident. We need to send the information more efficiently and in real time.

I am currently working to hire a director who will be dedicated to these protocol issues. This is an important priority for me.

If we want to be able to correct certain situations and distinguish between problems that are purely technical and those that threaten interpreters’ health and safety, we really need technological platforms that will allow for information to be better transmitted in real time.