To summarize, based on what I understood, the hybrid Parliament we're experiencing now—it could have been different—, and that we're going to experience starting Friday morning requires many hours of interpretation.
In the past, there were no committee meetings on Monday mornings and there were no committee meetings at all on Fridays. We focused on the few weekdays when meetings were held. Now, you're telling me it's hard to recruit interpreters and you have to use your own resources to correct exams, which creates a vicious cycle. As a unilingual Francophone, when I see what's happening and hear what you're saying, I'm not at all reassured when I think ahead to the month of September.
If the translation bureau's resources don't increase in September, it will be like collectively deciding that it's acceptable for parliamentary activities and committees not to happen, because your bureau is unable to recruit, train and accredit the interpreters we need to do our work. That's the impression I'm left with.
In spite of everything you and the House Administration are doing, we come to the same conclusion: in September, there won't be more than 160 hours of interpretation per week, which is the equivalent of 57 events. That's what you said in your letter and your testimony. So, no matter who forms the government, as soon as it increases working hours at Parliament, we have to reduce working hours at committee. Honestly, Mr. Laporte and Mr. McDonald, I find that unacceptable.
What solution do we have left, Mr. McDonald? It's increasing the amount of in‑person participation, in spite of the motion being rammed through today under closure. What's at stake is the political leadership of whips and every party leader, because we will have to discipline our party members to make them sit in person, as well as ask your team, Mr. McDonald, to encourage witnesses to participate in person more often than not.
The overall goal is to limit interpreter injuries. Mr. Aubé told us that audiologists and experts are conducting studies. We know that House Administration made significant efforts, and so did the rest you. In spite of all that, interpreters are still getting hurt. When they get hurt, regardless of the reason or the location, that means fewer of them can serve parliamentarians. You do not have enough staff and that worries me.
In spite of that state of affairs, documented for two years now, we are going to hit a wall in September. Mr. Laporte, I hope the prediction made by the union or the interpreters' association isn't accurate. They expect interpreters won't sign a new contract asking them to choose between four and six hours, because they want to protect themselves.
Having worked in the field of human resources management, I know that to retain your staff, you must apply the precautionary principle. In this case, it's about preserving our resources: the interpreters. For members to access both official languages, they need healthy interpreters, and many of them.
To conclude, I honestly get the impression that the issue of interpretation resources and interpreter health and safety doesn't interest many parliamentarians. Sometimes, I talk about it and members or other people don't put their earpiece on. I speak French, and 85% of what happens here is in English. That means I need interpretation. I think I'm interesting and have a lot of things to say. I don't know if the Liberal whip shares my opinion. People can use their earpiece to hear me, but they don't always put it on.
Personally, I hope a miracle happens in June, so that interpretation resources increase in September.
I also hope that my colleagues around the table, who are very passionate about this subject, can discipline their party members, so that the fewest number of them participate in meetings virtually. That would protect your resources, Mr. Laporte.