Publication Search

This is meeting number eight on Thursday, May 19.

We will start off with number one, the minutes of the previous meeting. Are there any questions or any comments arising from the minutes of the previous meeting?

I hear nothing, so we can move on. That's very good. We have consensus.

We are now on the second agenda item, business arising from the previous meeting.

Are there any questions or comments?

Everything is clear. Great. We can move on.

Now we are going to go in camera, so we will take a one-minute break...or I guess it takes about three minutes to make that change.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

I call to order the sixth meeting of the Board of Internal Economy of the 44th Parliament.

We'll start off with the minutes of the previous meeting.

Is everything okay, or do we have any comments on the minutes?

Everything seems okay, so I will continue.

Next is business arising from previous meetings.

Are there any questions?

Go ahead, Mr. Holland.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I've had a lot of conversations with the member for Ottawa Centre, who has been very strong on this point. Obviously, we also have a lot of concerns with the area immediately outside of this building on Wellington Street, and have had conversations about its future. I understand, or at least it's my understanding now, that Ottawa police will have Wellington blocked off until November.

I'm wondering if it would be appropriate for a report with respect to the future of the parliamentary precinct and Wellington and any other areas. Would that be coming to PROC? Would that be coming to BOIE? I just want to make sure there is a report forthcoming and to understand where that report will be coming.

In my view, it's absolutely essential that the area of Wellington Street in front of Parliament not be open to vehicular traffic that is not related to Parliament.

I'll let Monsieur Patrice answer that question.

Yes, as you pointed out, there are many discussions, and in the public domain also, in terms of the future of Wellington. It's something on which I hope we would come to this committee to give a report and have a discussion, potentially in camera.

Thank you very much.

Very good.

I now give the floor to Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Speaker, the minutes refer to a lot of discussions on the issue of interpreters. As Chair, you have received letters from a union and documentation. This is under the business arising from the previous meeting.

Would you prefer that we deal with all of this under the third item, the one related to the Translation Bureau, or can we ask questions while we are dealing with business arising from the previous meeting?

I had intended for this to be discussed under the item related to the Translation Bureau.

Perfect.

However, if you wish to talk about it now, you may do so.

I feel it would be easier to keep all the subjects together that—

I agree that it would be easier to ask our questions when we talk about the Translation Bureau.

Perfect. Thank you.

We now move to the third item, “Translation Bureau – Resources Utilisation for Simultaneous Interpretation”.

Right now I'll hand it over to Lucie Séguin.

After that, Matthew Ball will have the floor.

I don't know if any others would like to present or if they are just going to answer questions.

At the last meeting, members had a lot of questions. So I'm wondering, would it be possible to limit question time to five or six minutes. I don't want to limit questions, but I want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to ask questions.

Please be as concise as possible when you're asking your questions. Try to keep to five or six minutes. Then we'll let the next person go, loop around again, and start over, if that's okay. Again, I'll let everyone be their own police officer and control their timing.

We begin with Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Speaker, because I'm attending the meeting virtually, I cannot see my colleagues. Therefore, I don't know if other colleagues raised their hand before I did.

Can you please let me know if any of them would like to have the floor?

For now, you are the only one who wants to speak.

All right.

I was asking because I want to give my speaking time to Mr. Julian. He didn't get to ask his questions at the last meeting, so I gave him the opportunity.

Basically, my questions are pretty simple.

Ms. Séguin, when you made your presentation, which was fascinating, we learned a lot about how the Translation Bureau works, what your responsibilities are, and what the responsibilities of the House Administration are. We had to end our meeting abruptly, and that's why you came back to testify today.

You stated that 14 incidents were identified in the House of Commons, but I believe you did not finish the breakdown into incident categories.

Can you tell us how many incidents were identified by interpreters working in committee rooms?

Thank you very much.

First, I would like to inform the members of the Board of Internal Economy that my colleague Matthew Ball, vice-president of interpretation services, is joining us from Winnipeg. I would also like to take a quick moment to thank our interpreters in the booth today: Cecilia, Carol and Bryce.

I thank the member for her question. Things ended a little abruptly last time. We cited the number of incident reports that were filed with the Translation Bureau. I'd like to give you the breakdown by year.

In 2019, 23 incident reports were filed. In 2020, 125 were filed, and in 2021, there were 99. The number 14 was mentioned, so we checked the information concerning Parliament. By the way, I wish to remind the members of the Board of Internal Economy that the Translation Bureau provides services not only to the House and its committees, but also the Senate, the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Cabinet, among others.

Of the 99 incidents reported in 2021, 73 involved Parliament, including the Parliamentary Precinct. Next, of the 125 incidents reported in 2020, 110 were related to the clients I just mentioned, including the Senate, the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery and the Privy Council Office. In 2019, of 23 reports, 21 were related to Parliament.

As you know, Ms. Séguin, our discussions are public and the interpreters' union is listening carefully to your comments. The Board of Internal Economy has no mandate to manage labour relations, far from it. However, we want to validate the figures we've received from the two unions representing the interpreters, be they Translation Bureau interpreters or other interpreters working within the House Administration, including freelancers, because we don't have the same breakdown. How can you explain that?

The tables that were sent to the chair and that we have all been copied on indicate that there have been 107 incidents in committee rooms. I imagine that includes both Senate and House of Commons committees. We know that there are fewer incidents in the House of Commons than in committee rooms.

Why don't you arrive at the number in the tables that were sent to the chair?

Thank you very much for your question.

I'd like to say that since the pandemic began, we've been meeting regularly with our union partners at the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, or CAPE, the union that represents all translators, interpreters and terminologists at the Translation Bureau. We sit with them on a health and safety committee, so we all have access to the same incident reports. The data that I gave you are the raw data. I don't have access to the methodology used by our CAPE colleagues, who may have done a more in‑depth analysis than we have.

As you know, today there are three interpreters in the booth here. We have about 50 interpreters on Parliament Hill, and with the pandemic, there are committee rooms all over the place. So I can't comment on the methodology that our colleagues at CAPE have used, but the raw data that I've provided you on the total number of incident reports should be consistent with those of our union partners because we actually share the same source of information.

Mr. Chair, since I don't have an overview, are there other members who have raised their hands to speak?

I imagine my five minutes is up. Do you want me to stop? If not, I'll ask more questions.

With your permission, we'll go to Mr. Julian, and then to Mr. Brassard. You'll be able to continue afterwards.

Perfect.

Mr. Julian, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Séguin, thank you for your presentation.

My first question has to do with workplace injuries. How many cases of auditory injury have been reported by the interpreters?

Thank you very much for your question.

I'll turn to my colleague Matthew Ball, but first I can tell you that incident reports are filed by the employees and that the most common symptoms reported include headache, fatigue and tinnitus. The numbers I gave you are the number of incident reports.

There are currently no Translation Bureau interpreters on sick leave due to a sound‑related incident. However, about 10 of our interpreters are interpreting part time and are assigned to other related duties because of medical recommendations that they should be given rest.

I can take pause and turn it over to my colleague Mr. Ball, if he has anything to add.

Thank you, Ms. Séguin.

Our reports indicate three types of injuries. Disabling injuries refer to cases where the interpreter consults a doctor and obtains a medical certificate for one day or more of leave. There are also minor injuries.

Near misses is the third type. A near miss is when no medical care has been given and there has been no time off work. For example, if an interpreter goes home, has a headache and hears a ringing in the ears, it is called a near miss because there was no medical consultation.

Last year, in 2021, out of 99 injuries, 36 injuries were disabling and 63 were near misses. There were no minor injuries. Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you. It answers the question, but the numbers are different from the ones the union provided.

The union indicated that 68 injuries resulted in time off work. I would like to touch on that for a moment, because it's extremely important and I know you take it seriously as well.

Before I became an MP, I worked with deaf and hard‑of‑hearing people. During the recent occupation in Ottawa, an entire downtown population were exposed to a noise level that must have caused permanent injury.

It's the same thing here when we talk about injuries requiring interpreters to take sick leave to recuperate. Often, these injuries can cause permanent hearing loss. For that reason, I'd like to know whether the number of interpreters who have suffered permanent hearing loss is recorded.

In addition, do they undergo periodic hearing tests, as is usually done in workplaces with variable or high noise levels? Has that process already been put in place on Parliament Hill?

Your question is very important. I'd first like to reiterate that the entire Translation Bureau management team is very concerned and aware of this issue. We are doing everything we can to protect the health and safety of interpreters.

A few studies have been undertaken by the bureau to help us understand the long‑term effects of exposure to less than optimal noise. In the first, the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC, helped us conduct an analysis in collaboration with our colleagues in the House of Commons. This analysis concluded that interpreters are protected in terms of sound quantity, such as acoustic shock, but that there are still some noise quality issues that need to be addressed.

Just to add to that, because there is no evidence‑based studies in Canada or internationally on long‑term effects on hearing, we have invested in two other studies. I'll turn it over to Matthew to talk about what we're doing with the University of Geneva and the University of Ottawa to get more evidence on this.

Thank you, Ms. Séguin.

As the committee has just heard, we lack data and information on the effects of sound quality on interpreters' hearing. At the bureau's request, the NRC has already analyzed the sound quality that suitable for the interpreters' ears in the booth. The analysis revealed that the sound quantity was safe, but that the sound quality still needed to be improved.

The Translation Bureau is therefore finalizing a contract for audiologists from the University of Ottawa to conduct a longitudinal study of reference levels for interpreters' hearing, to follow up on time and to provide care in case of hearing damage. We are currently negotiating the terms of the contract and hope that the study can begin this spring.

Is it a long‑term study?

It's a two‑year study.

Okay.

Another problem that has already been raised by the union is acoustic trauma. I understand what you're saying, but I think it would be important for the committee to hear from union representatives, to ensure that that we're on the same wavelength. Reducing acoustic trauma is extremely important, since it will help prevent injuries.

That said, I'm concerned about the number of injuries at work. We all know that the interpreters work hard and are essential to our work. I'm concerned about the number of injuries. I have enough experience to know that this can contribute to permanent injuries.

Some people have indicated that it's the sound system used by the interpreters that is causing these injuries. Do you agree with that? Are you looking for other ways of conveying the information so that interpreters can do their job without getting injured?

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I'd like to give some additional information on the previous point.

We immediately put measures in place to change the working conditions of interpreters, right from the start of work in virtual mode. We've reduced the hours of our employees and freelancers, without affecting their pay. We've also increased the number of interpreters per team. Finally, we've been working with the House Administration to ensure, among other things, that testing is done.

The Translation Bureau is responsible for providing interpreters, but it isn't responsible for the technological environment.

I believe my colleagues in the House Administration will be better able to answer questions about the technological means.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, may I interrupt you for a second?

Yes.

I just want to remind you that other members want to ask questions. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but the time allotted to each speaker is roughly five minutes.

You can choose to let someone else speak or continue with your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to ask one last question. I didn't mean to filibuster, but the health and safety of House employees are an important issue.

Did you recommend that the House Administration change the House audiovisual system? Is the House Administration looking at alternatives to the audiovisual system?

The union had said that this problem was the source of the workplace injuries.

That's an excellent question.

We work constantly with the House Administration on everything relating to technical requirements. We want to protect the health of the interpreters, while ensuring that we provide a quality service and minimize interruptions.

We convey what the interpreters need to provide good interpretation services. We have a good understanding of the human aspect. As I mentioned, we communicate on a daily basis the current requirements that allow us to work in optimal technological conditions.

I'm not in a position to give you any answers as to what is within the system. So I'll ask the House Administration to answer those questions. In my opinion, they are in a better position to do so than I am.

Mr. Aubé, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Julian, following all the incidents that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, we've put in place a continuous improvement process with the Translation Bureau. You asked whether the problems that occurred were caused by the system. I would answer that this is not the case.

Several factors contribute to the sound incidents and poor sound quality. The audio system consists of several components such as the microphone, the computer, the quality of the Internet connection, the videoconferencing system and the system used internally in the House. We consider that all these elements to be part of the audio system, and we are working on each of them to improve the interpreters' working conditions.

However, replacing one part of the system isn't enough to solve the problem. This is a problem that exists around the world right now, and if there were a solution, we would have already implemented it, I can assure you, Mr. Julian.

We're working on all of these things to try to improve the situation, and it's constantly improving. I can tell you that it's because of these improvements that we've seen a reduction in the number of incidents involving interpreters over the past two years.

For example, in the first year we replaced all the interpreting consoles to ensure we put an end to incidents among interpreters. We're in the process of replacing the headsets with a microphone to improve the situation. We're evaluating the system to see how we can improve it and changing the configuration to improve the sound quality. We're constantly testing with the National Research Centre Canada and with global experts to ensure that our systems are performing at their best. I have to tell you that the systems we use to solve these problems are very good, if not the best in the world.

We're going to continue.

We'll go to Mr. Brassard, followed by Mr. MacKinnon.

Then we'll go to Mrs. DeBellefeuille, and Mr. Julian can ask more questions if he wants. I know this is a very important topic for everyone, and we want to give everyone a chance to ask questions.

Thank you for your co‑operation.

Go ahead, Mr. Brassard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin my line of questioning, on an unrelated matter, Mr. Julian brought up a claim of permanent hearing loss for residents of the city of Ottawa as a result of the recent protests. I'm just wondering—and I don't know whether this is normal—if Mr. Julian could table with this committee the reports that he's referencing and where that claim comes from. I haven't seen any and in order for us to make informed decisions around this place, I would like to see precisely where that report comes from.

Could you table that, Mr. Julian?

Mr. Chair, I'm delighted to answer this question, because this is fundamentally important. Something that I think people often try to simply brush aside is the issue of permanent hearing loss that comes from excessive levels of noise that is unprotected—

Is there a report that justifies that?

—and that's certainly what we saw over the last three weeks.

I'm answering your question, Mr. Brassard.

What we would need to do is see each of the individual residents of Ottawa who have gone in and seen their audiologist and those who have yet to see their audiologist to see the tracing of their hearing previous to the occupation and then post-occupation.

There is no doubt that the levels of sound reached over 100 decibels, sometimes as high as 120 decibels. That is enough to cause permanent hearing loss within minutes. To me, this is something that was profoundly disturbing, and it surprised me that certain members of Parliament didn't understand the importance of actually acting and that the hearing loss the people of Ottawa were experiencing was doubted.

Thank you.

The claim was made, but there's no basis for the claim at this point anyway.

If I can interrupt—

Quite the contrary, Mr. Brassard, quite the contrary.

Order. If I can have your attention, please, we have some people who are being very patient with us here—

All right. I do have questions for the interpreter.

—so maybe we can take this and have a separate item altogether.

I would love that.

That might be something we want to look at, but right now, Madame Séguin and Matthew Ball are here to answer our questions. We'll concentrate on them and then come back to this one. We can have our own discussions later.

Mr. Brassard, please continue.

Thank you, sir.

My question relates to parliamentary functions of interpreters and the function as it relates to the cabinet and the Prime Minister. We've obviously seen the parliamentary functions, and we understand where that comes from, whether it's through committee work or work in the House, but there's also when the cabinet and the Prime Minister have their press conference on almost a daily basis as it relates to COVID and other issues.

Can you differentiate between the number of injuries related to the parliamentary function and the function of the cabinet and the Prime Minister? Is there a way to quantify how that's played out?

That's a very good question, Mr. Brassard.

Right now we are looking at the number of incidents and those that occur in the parliamentary precinct. We have not done the analysis to determine where each incident is occurring. We're working actively with our House administration partners as well as our other clients to put in place a rigorous monitoring process to understand where incidents are happening and what the sources of the issues are, and then to put corrective measures in place immediately.

I would say that interpreters are reporting incidents from all over the place right now, including in conference interpretation for departments and agencies as well as the Supreme Court of Canada and the CRTC. We don't have a breakdown of where incidents are happening right now.

Can you speak, then, to the differences between the services provided to parliamentary resources and those provided to the cabinet and Prime Minister? My understanding is that there is a difference between the two. Is that correct?