Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 10 - Evidence - June 12, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:35 a.m. to consider that the Senate should recognize the inalienable right of the first inhabitants of the land now known as Canada to use their ancestral language to communicate for any purpose; and that, to facilitate the expression of this right, the Senate should immediately take the necessary administrative and technical measures so that senators wishing to use their ancestral language in this house may do so.
Senator Wilbert J. Keon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This morning, we resume our study of how to provide interpretation for Aboriginal languages in the Senate chamber. With us today is Alain Wood, Director, Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation, from the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Wood will give us some context in terms of the standard of interpretation we receive now in English and French, and how that standard compares to the existing services available in other Aboriginal languages. In addition, he can give us an idea of what our options are and the implications of those options with respect to filling any gaps in services that are currently available. Finally, we should explore with Mr. Wood what it would take in terms of physical renovations to create adequate infrastructure for the options we are interested in.
As a sub-item on the agenda, Senator Smith and I have had a special request from the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that we provide interpretation for them from Inuktitut. That would occur in the fall, but Senator Smith will raise that with you. I have another commitment. I will leave at ten o'clock and Senator Smith will chair the meeting from that time on. Senator Di Nino is here and we have enough representation from our side to allow that.
With that, Mr. Wood, please begin.
[Translation]
Alain Wood, Director, Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation, Translation Bureau: First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak to you about interpretation in Aboriginal languages at the Senate and the challenges that this represents.
I have prepared a presentation that explains what interpretation services are currently available at the Senate, and an overview of interpretation in Aboriginal languages. The purpose of the presentation is to identify your needs, the challenges and the options you have.
We will begin with a few definitions that I will be referring to throughout the presentation. Translation is an activity that consists of transferring written information or spoken information from one language to another. Interpretation refers to transferring spoken information from one language to another.
Now I would like to describe the four types of interpretation to you. First of all, we have simultaneous interpretation. The interpreter immediately transfers the information from the source language to the target language, respecting the speaker's style, tone and choice of words, and accurately rendering each idea. Then you have consecutive interpretation, whereby the interpreter conveys a message in the target language sequentially after the speaker has finished a thought. In relay interpretation, the interpreter relays a message that has already been conveyed in an intermediary language. For example, if an Aboriginal speaker spoke in his own language, it could be interpreted into English, and then from English, interpreted into French. We also have community interpretation. In this mode, the interpreter facilitates communication between a service provider and his clients right in the community. Generally speaking, this mode of interpretation is used in a medical setting, in a courtroom, or at school, et cetera.
The Translation Bureau has a team of 50 interpreters and freelancers who provide simultaneous interpretation in both official languages for the debates of the Senate and the House of Commons; Cabinet meetings; committees; and parliamentary associations. The Translation Bureau is providing this service right now.
What training is needed to become a parliamentary interpreter? One must have a university degree in translation as well as a master's degree in conference interpretation. At present, the University of Ottawa is the only institution that offers a master's degree in interpretation. If you are a freelancer, you must pass the Translation Bureau's accreditation exam. A few weeks ago, we held an exam, and of the 17 candidates, only 2 passed the exam for official languages. So as you can see, the requirements are very high.
One must have a good knowledge of the workings of Parliament, and a high level of familiarity with the culture of the source language and of the target language. One must have an extensive vocabulary in the two or three languages, and the ability to express oneself clearly and precisely. A top secret security clearance is required.
What is the current situation for Aboriginal languages? At the Translation Bureau, the demand is very low. We receive about four requests for Aboriginal-language interpretation per year.
The Nunavut Interpreter-Translator Society certifies graduates of the Nunavut Arctic College in community interpretation. To the best of our knowledge, the Aboriginal interpreters who have experience in parliamentary interpretation work for the legislative assemblies of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Outside the legislative assemblies of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, most Aboriginal interpreters do community work.
When we use freelancers, we turn to the Translation Bureau's inventory.
For instance, we have two interpreters on the inventory who work from the Baffin Island dialect into English. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that with the exception of Montagnais, these translators essentially interpret into English. At the present time, there is a shortage — and that is putting it mildly — of Aboriginal-language interpreters who can work into French.
As for the legislative assemblies, in Nunavut, simultaneous interpretation is provided in English, in Inuktitut and in Inuinnaqtun. The Hansard is translated and published in English and in Inuktitut. In the Northwest Territories, simultaneous interpretation is provided alternately in 11 languages, namely in English and in two official Aboriginal languages that alternate. The Hansard is published in English. In the Yukon, there is no interpretation in Aboriginal languages and the Hansard is published in English only.
If one were to introduce one or more Aboriginal languages in the Senate, one of the challenges will be to maintain quality standards in all these languages and to meet Hansard production deadlines, which are very tight. Will there be an impact on production? Another difficulty will be to attract enough candidates in the desired languages. When we do find candidates in the areas further to the north, most hesitate to move south. It is a challenge. There are few Aboriginal interpreters who interpret into French. There is also the issue of security clearances. Another challenge will be to add additional facilities and the space required in a heritage building. Finally, there are no university-level courses in interpretation and translation in Aboriginal languages.
Those are the challenges we face. This does not mean that there is no solution, but those are the challenges that we would have to tackle.
The solutions range from an immediate option to a mid-term option. On an immediate basis, for a period of 12 months, the Translation Bureau can offer simultaneous reading in French and English of material already translated. This is a temporary, immediate solution to the lack of certified Aboriginal-language interpreters. It means the service would be available within 48 hours, using the translation of a text already prepared for Hansard.
To do so, the current facilities would have to be slightly changed. When a senator spoke in an Aboriginal language, if you wanted his remarks to be interpreted into English and into French at the same time, you would have to install a microphone outside the booth so that the interpreter could very briefly read out the speech in one of the two other languages. The interpreters cannot interpret in the same place at the same time.
This system could be established within 6 to 12 months. It could even be done sooner. It would be a matter of recruiting interpreters currently on the market and evaluating their skills. Then we would have to develop the necessary training to upgrade their skills. We could take advantage of the opportunity to test remote interpretation, which could be one way of solving our problem, namely encouraging people to move here.
Senator Robichaud: What do you mean by remote interpretation?
Mr. Wood: It means that our Aboriginal-language interpreter could be elsewhere, for example, in Iqualuit or Yellowknife. We would have to try it out. It would the quickest way to offer the Senate appropriate resources. Obviously, if we found a gem, a very competent interpreter, we could begin immediately. However, if we are being realistic and if we take into account the training that we provide our interpreters, additional training would probably be required for this interpreter. However, remote interpretation would provide greater availability. We could have more interpreters working in several languages, since distance would no longer be a restriction. It could perhaps reduce the need to build additional facilities. It is a solution that we could look at.
In the medium term, the Translation Bureau is suggesting — this is really what we support — that we create a parliamentary interpretation training program through a partnership with the Senate, the Translation Bureau and Nunavut Arctic College. This would increase awareness of Aboriginal-language interpretation and translation. Even if the demand is low at the present time, we do sense that it will increase. It would allow us to train truly professional Aboriginal interpreters to work into French and English. It would contribute to the growth of Aboriginal-language interpretation as a profession in Canada and would address the lack of material and resources.
There is very little parliamentary terminology in Aboriginal languages at the present time. If a senator wanted to discuss a parliamentary problem, does the terminology exist? This is an issue that we must look at. If the terminology does not exist, it has to be created.
The entire process could take from 18 months to three years, so it would be a long-term effort. This implies a great deal of discussion and consultation. We at the Translation Bureau are willing to begin such discussions.
On page 15 of my presentation, you can see the facilities that would be required for each scenario. I have tried to make it simple. Scenario 1 is the current one. You have the two official languages. In a three-person booth, you have a francophone, an anglophone and the relief interpreter between the two, that is, the person who may work in one direction or the other, depending on circumstances.
Scenario 2 is the one where we introduce an Aboriginal language. So ``FRA'' or ``E'' is what we currently have. Then, if an Aboriginal speaker takes the floor, what he says is then interpreted simultaneously into English and into French.
Then, if you have a francophone senator speaking, his remarks will be interpreted into the Aboriginal language and the same thing into English. This is what explains the combination here. It is the ideal scenario: if everything goes well, we find the people and we build additional booths. We wonder why we did not do it before. If everything works out well, that could be the solution.
If you were to opt for relay interpretation, you would have scenario three, which is the current booth, with a French interpreter, a relief interpreter, and English interpreter and an Aboriginal-language interpreter. What would happen then? An Aboriginal senator who speaks in his own language would be interpreted into English — because we know that there is a shortage of interpreters who work into French — and then our French interpreter would take the English interpretation and interpret it into French.
If, furthermore, the interpreter were working at a distance, we would not have the Aboriginal-language interpreter here. We would have that person, but he would be elsewhere. You must realize that if relay interpretation is to be effective and produce the desired quality, if it is done from English, the quality of the English must be top-notch, or the best possible, because it has a direct impact on the French that follows. Even so, relay interpretation has signification constraints. English and French cannot be interpreted simultaneously. There is a further delay for the language interpreted by relay — there is always a lag of about 10 seconds or so — and the precision of the message could be reduced between the source language — Inuktitut, using this example — and French. You would have to agree to live with this risk. We try to avoid any loss of accuracy, but once you get to the third language, you may have lost some.
What I have provided you with this morning does not include costs as such. First of all, we would have to know which scenario you want, and then I could give you a rather detailed estimate of the costs, so you could see the costs for the various scenarios. What I have for you this morning represents the inputs, which would have to be taken into consideration.
Regarding the immediate options, there would be the translation of speeches and the facilities modification. In my opinion, we are talking about very low costs. I am not saying that it would cost nothing, but this solution would not be very expensive.
As for the short-term option, which would mean finding people immediately and determining whether we can bring them up to the required level, there would be recruitment and training. Infrastructure would be necessary for remote interpretation. I think that the Senate authorities would be able to do that assessment.
And as for the medium-term option, we are talking about a partnership program. That would be more expensive. As for the installation of additional booths, at this time, since they are professional interpreters, we would have to determine whether we can attract them to the region over the years. Remote interpretation could become so good that this would no longer be a problem. We would see at that time. Those are the rough estimates of the costs that would be involved.
For the Translation Bureau, the next steps would be to determine the Senate's needs — which Aboriginal languages you would like to use and in which direction. In my example, if I could return to relay interpretation, you would have an Aboriginal language, English and French, but there would be no return. That is what I suggest in any event. So the factors would include the Aboriginal languages used and in which direction, the type of interpretation — consecutive or simultaneous — the frequency of use — at any time or according to a particular schedule — and with or without prior notice. All of these factors have an impact on the complexity and on the costs. So, once we know what your needs are, we will be able to choose the scenario, evaluate the costs, and then we would have to obtain financing, which is not done overnight. It requires calculations, analyses, a business plan and so on and so forth.
So that is the general situation that I have tried to outline for you this morning.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Wood. As far as I can perceive at this point in time, the most pressing request is for translation of Inuktitut. If, for example, you were to embark on meeting the needs for interpretation and translation of Inuktitut to English and French, leaving the door open for the other languages, and Cree seems to be second in line, would it expedite your implementation program if you zeroed in on Inuktitut for the time being?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: If we took the example of Inuktitut, we would do both at the same time, we would not do one and then the other. But in the very short term, we could provide a translation, in advance, of a speech in Inuktitut; the speech would be translated into English and into French. It is less difficult to get a translation done. Then, the senator would make his remarks in his language, and at the same time, the interpreters would render his remarks in the two languages. That could be done immediately.
At the same time, what we should do is find interpreters, evaluate them, and determine if they are ready to do parliamentary interpretation. If they are ready immediately, so much the better. We would have to assess our experiment with remote interpretation. And we would be ready. If training is involved, we would certainly need a few months. We have never provided such training before. It would be a first for us to train someone towards another language. In the short term, we would not be able to assess the person working into his own language. We would start with the assumption that he speaks his own language properly, but we would have to assess his knowledge of English in depth. And that is what we would focus our efforts on. It would take a few months. So, if you wanted to provide service for Inuktitut, that is what could be done.
[English]
Senator Smith: I might start by giving you my impression of what we have a consensus on so far. That might be helpful to you. You could then give us your reaction. We have not adopted hard, fast and binding resolutions yet because we needed to have this sort of exercise to start the process.
The initial request came from Senator Watt and Senator Adams with regard to Inuktitut. I think there has been a consensus that we want to do something that was reasonable and practical and shows respect. The first initiative would be Inuktitut. However, at the outset, there was also a feeling that there must be equality in terms of other Aboriginal languages.
We conducted a survey of all the senators who have some ability in other Aboriginal languages. If we can set Inuktitut aside and put it as a special case, the other ones were all agreeable that if they had the right to speak in their Aboriginal language, they were prepared to give two or three weeks' notice. It probably would be for special occasions when there might be visiting people.
The languages I have identified that might be needed are, in the case of Senator Gill, Montagnais; in the case of Senator Dyck, Cree; for Senator Lovelace Nicholas, Maliseet; and Senator Sibbeston, Slavey. Our initial hope was — and I do not think any such agency exists — that rather than having employees, we have a contract with some interpretation service, perhaps one out of Yellowknife because they seem to have as many as any. There might be a contract so that if we had reasonable notice, we would try and address their needs; but those ones are not pressing. For the moment, I think we should focus on Inuktitut because in the case of Senator Adams, he has about three years to go and it would mean a huge amount to him if we had made progress on this front during his tenure.
I think it is also fair to say that we have heard stories of the number of languages in Yellowknife, which left some people with the impression it was almost a make-work project for a lot of people. That might seem a little bit harsh. However, everyone wants to do what is right, but do it on a cost-effective basis that shows respect for these languages but also respects that these are tax dollars and what the priorities are.
In recent discussions with Senator Adams and Senator Watt, the consensus seems to be that if the initial experiment is to have translation available for the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, that would be a first start that seems manageable, and hopefully we would learn a lot from that.
I think it is fair to say that with regard to Hansard, there has not been any consensus on that. I do not recall people pressing for tha to be done. I am not ruling it out, but there is no assumption that everything would be done necessarily in Hansard.
Senator Watt, do you and Senator Adams use the same dialect, as I understand there are three different Inuit dialects — the Baffin Island, Labrador and universal ones? Do you both use the same one? Could you advise us on that?
Senator Watt: There is one language but there are variations in terms of dialects. One thing that is missing here is Inuktitut; I do not know what you mean by ``universal.'' The Quebec Inuit dialect should be add-on English and French.
Senator Smith: So there are really three — the Baffin, the Quebec and the Labrador.
Senator Watt: Yes, it is the same language but there is a variation in dialects. Over the last 25 years, it is becoming more and more one.
Senator Smith: Which one is yours?
Senator Watt: Mine is Quebec, but I can also speak what you call universal Inuktitut. Senator Adams speaks Baffin Island and also Quebec; he is originally from Quebec.
Senator Smith: Do we have anyone with the Labrador dialect as a member?
Senator Watt: No, we do not, except in the House of Commons.
Senator Smith: If my colleagues think I have overstepped in describing what I think we have consensus on, I am happy to be corrected. However, we have a consensus on what we would like to achieve as soon as possible. Ideally, when we come back in the fall, we can start off with the Fisheries Committee and see how that goes. Is that fair, colleagues?
Senator Fraser: What do you mean by start off with the Fisheries Committee? Is that committee asking for interpretation all fall long or for one meeting? I was not sure about that. Also, that is Cree, not Inuktitut.
The Chairman: It is Inuktitut.
Senator Smith: Nobody is asking for any language other —
Senator Fraser: I am sorry; I thought I heard the chair say Cree. Do they want it for all fall, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes, but not for every meeting. They would give advance notice of which ones they would like it for.
Senator Fraser: Do they want true simultaneous interpretation?
The Chairman: We did not get that close to the ground.
Senator Smith: Based on my conversations, what I think would satisfy our colleagues in the initial phase would be to have translation available at the Fisheries Committee — not necessarily at every meeting, but for us to make reasonable attempts to start there in Inuktitut and see how that goes. I am not aware of any requests for Cree or any other language at this phase.
I am assuring you because I have been talking to all of them.
Senator Fraser: Before we announce a consensus, the details of which I am unsure, I would like to ask Mr. Wood a few more questions.
Looking at scenario three — I guess even ultimately, scenario four, where you do the interpretation in both directions — how many translators does one need? One translator cannot translate for five hours.
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: Are you talking about interpreters?
[English]
Senator Fraser: An interpreter, I am sorry. One interpreter cannot go on for a long time. Ideally, I assume we want to arrive at the scenario where, in the Aboriginal languages we have decided to provide interpretation for, those languages would receive the same treatment as English and French. Therefore, any senator whose first language is Inuktitut would be able to participate in any debate without notice, as any other senator now can in their mother tongue. If we set that as an ultimate vision, how many interpreters do we need?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: In fact, in that case it should really work something along the lines of scenario 2. I see that as a medium- term objective, once we have taken the time to really train people as interpreters. That is our objective, and that is why we favour the medium-term option, because then, we would have interpreters of the same quality. They would not be second-class interpreters. They would be properly trained interpreters exercising their profession. But to reach that goal, we must look further down the road.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Today, how many interpreters do you furnish for a Senate sitting?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: In principle, we provide three.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Only three? They do not change shifts?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: For a meeting that might last from two to four hours. But generally speaking, when a meeting goes longer than that, we send reinforcements. An interpreter's workday cannot exceed six hours. It would be a bit complicated to explain all the ins and outs of the collective agreement, which contains all kinds of provisions that we must follow. Indeed, we cannot ask someone to interpret for too long a period. Usually, they interpret for half an hour and take a break. That is why a relief team is necessary sometimes.
In my scenarios for providing service in Aboriginal languages, I did not provide for relief teams because resources are so scarce. I said to myself that I had to be realistic. We could make provisions for relief teams, but we will not be able to find any.
I agree that if we want to treat Aboriginal-languages interpreters equally, the booth will have to be like the booths for the English and French interpreters.
I could tell you five or six interpreters per language, so that the service could be provided on an ongoing basis, and if we were to add another language, it would easily be five or six more interpreters.
We have staff interpreters and suppliers. We have struck a balance between the two. I would say that for each staff interpreter, we would need at least one supplier so as to have backup for the days when someone is away.
I would have to do a much more detailed analysis to provide you with a proper answer to the question, but it could be done.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I think this question is directed more to the chair, but if we use Fisheries as a pilot project, which might be an interesting way to go, I have participated in some committees where there was consecutive interpretation to and from an Aboriginal language. I assume they want to hear witnesses in Inuktitut, unilingual witnesses, so they need the interpretation both ways, but you do not know if they want it to be simultaneous or consecutive translation. Simultaneous would be the best way if we could achieve it.
The Chairman: They would like simultaneous translation, at least that is what Senator Watt and Senator Adams said to Senator Smith and me, but they would be satisfied with sequential translation to begin with.
Senator Smith: They will be satisfied with what is manageable in the early phases — you crawl before you walk and you walk before you run. It shows respect and also tries to make it possible for them to speak in their mother languages. We can all assume that in this phase we are not worrying about Hansard. That will continue to be in English and French.
Senator Fraser: I am not worried about Hansard. I am trying to figure out what they are actually talking about, which is the only thing that seems to me really useful, and that is to have the capacity to have a true interchange between people who are unilingual in Inuktitut and people who are unilingual in one of the two officials languages. They are not, I assume, talking about option A: Provide a speech that is already translated and have a translator read it into the record. They do not want that. They want what we are thinking of when we talk about interpretation.
Senator Smith: Why not ask your questions to Senator Watt for now and he can speak for himself. I think there is a good idea of what Senator Adams wanted, but ask Senator Watt for some feedback.
Senator Fraser: I am sorry. I thought the request had come from the Fisheries Committee.
Senator Smith: No, it is not really from the Fisheries Committee.
Senator Fraser: It is from Senator Watt, fine.
Senator Smith: No, it is because the subject matter in that committee is more important to them than in any other committee. To the extent of wanting to start somewhere, the subject matter in that committee is most important to them. They said they wanted to start with that committee. That seems practical to me. Is that fair, Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: It is difficult when someone else tries to put words into your mouth; let me speak my own thoughts here.
I approached you first at the Fisheries Committee and then you approached the chairman. From time to time, this committee has been active in receiving Aboriginal people from the north, either from Quebec or from Nunavut over the last few years. It is uncomfortable at times hearing people trying to speak a second language when we well know that they can best express themselves in their mother tongue. Those are the witnesses I am talking about. That is number one.
At the same time, it is embarrassing when we are televised that we try to answer those people in English, which is not our mother tongue, and a lot of things are missed in between when we try to get our points across. That is number two.
I might try to extract myself from this, but I am part of it also. Senator Adams, from time to time in the Fisheries Committee and the Energy Committee has expressed himself and made points a number of times. There is a need for him to be understood by the general public of Canada, but those watching television have stated publicly recently that Senator Adams has made points over and over again and at times they wonder whether he is fully understood by his own colleagues. At times he does not initiate the conversations, but the points he makes seem to be left up in the air. I am only highlighting the problem here.
I am saying that we would like, as much as possible, to have the same access as any other senator to get a message across, to receive the message clearly and to express clearly to the general public of Canada, especially when the committee meeting is televised, in order not to lose ``our good ability.'' If we happen to say the wrong word at times, and I am sure that applies to the French and English also, we can easily, under the influence of the camera, lose our credibility. We have a genuine concern about this.
I understood Mr. Wood highlighting the fact that it will not be easy to facilitate Inuktitut at the beginning but this is where the needs are. Over the last 23 years, I have not witnessed an additional need aside from Inuktitut at this point.
Simultaneous translation means being able to interact immediately, quickly, the same way as everyone else does. This can be done. This is already being done in the North. I also realized the Quebec Inuit were not noted in the people who have Aboriginal language. Sometimes the Quebec Inuit are misplaced in this country. You mentioned Baffin Island, Labrador and Inuktitut Universal. Universal means that all three dialects are in one. That is happening very fast, but you have to remember the fact that at this point in time the Quebec Inuit dialect also deals with French and English. This dialect may not be available at the federal level but I would say, that dialect is probably used a lot more in the professional line, in terms of being able to have a dialogue in Inuktitut, English and French. I thought I would mention that. I hope I am making it clearer. Hopefully, I am not confusing people.
Senator Smith: That is helpful.
The Chairman: Does that help you, Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: It does indeed.
I have a question for Mr. Wood. If we decided to recommend a pilot project with the Fisheries Committee this fall, I would be concerned about the relay scenario. It is difficult enough to be precise in direct translation from language A to language B, but then if they translate from language B to language C, as you pointed out, the potential for error grows exponentially.
If we decided to do a pilot project for Fisheries, do you think it would be possible to find people who could translate from Inuktitut to English and other people who could translate from Inuktitut to French simultaneously by this fall, and obviously, we would prefer vice versa.
[Translation]
In fact, it is difficult for me to make a commitment because we first have to determine what there already is in the field. I think it is rather unlikely that we could provide service from Inuktitut into French this fall. It is not impossible. We will do what has to be done to find sources.
As for committees, from time to time we do use relay interpretation when a witness is unable to give testimony before a committee in English or in French. That can be done for an Aboriginal language, and also for any other language. At this time we provide relay interpretation, even if it is not ideal. We do it on an exceptional basis. For the Senate Fisheries and Oceans Committee this fall, if we receive the list of witnesses in advance, we could provide an interpreter for the right language, even if it were only towards English. Then we would provide relay interpretation, but that would be on an exceptional basis so that the witness could express himself in his own language. There could be one witness per week or every two weeks, but it would remain on a from-time-to-time basis.
If we look at the committee's operations with the addition of Inuktitut, we would have to look further a field, we would have to try out remote interpretation. You are suggesting that it be somewhat like a laboratory that we would use to evaluate the best approach.
[English]
Senator Watt: I would like clarification on the point that you made earlier. Technology today is different from what it used to be in the old days. If a pool of translators could be established, not only for the Senate but for anyone else in Canada, and if distance is no longer an obstacle, what would it cost to link yourself to a pool of translators and interpreters out of Nunavik, Nunavut and Labrador through the Internet? I am talking about the person not necessarily being here in Ottawa but being in their own background providing translation. Are we talking about a huge number of dollars here?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: I could not tell you. We know that in general, the price of technology is constantly dropping. A few years ago, we organised a videoconference country-wide that cost $200 per hour per city. The costs are lower now. The cost certainly represents a barrier, but I would not say that this is the biggest challenge. The greatest challenge is success on the technological level. You can have a videoconference connecting various cities, and it works well when people are speaking the same language, but once you introduce interpretation — and I am not saying that this is not done — you have to take the time to do it properly. Otherwise, it is frustrating for everyone. It is frustrating for the participants, for the listeners and for the interpreters. However, it can be done if you take the proper amount of time.
You mentioned interpreters who were available in Northern Quebec or in Yellowknife. I was thinking of going there to meet with the associations and going to the assembly in Yellowknife to meet with the authorities there. I am going to Iqaluit this summer. I am going to see how they operate and what resources they have. It would be nice if a company were ready to provide the service to us, but since we accredit the companies, we must ascertain the quality. If the quality is not there, that does not mean that we would not do business with them. We would have to see how the service could be improved to provide parliamentarians with the service and the quality that they are entitled to expect from the Translation Bureau.
This can all be done, but we must take the time to do it properly.
[English]
Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: I want to call to the committee's attention the experience we had with the House of Lords when we looked at televising questions. You will remember the number of sound delays and picture quality problems that we had. At both Westminster and Ottawa, we had state of the art equipment. There was nothing wrong with our equipment. The intermediary equipment was the problem, and we cannot choose that. We have no control over the quality or amount of bandwidth available from two different points, whether it is across the country or across the Atlantic. From what I have been told, the only way to guarantee a quality connection is to pay extra and go with a satellite connection. On behalf of the committee, over the summer, I would undertake to look into what it would take to build in that kind of quality infrastructure.
I know from past experience that the interpreters sometimes have a terrible time with remote locations, even with a good connection, but with a poor quality connection and poor quality sound, it causes them no end of trouble. It would be an exercise in frustration for all of you.
The Chairman: Iqaluit, in the medical field, for the last 20 years has used video conferencing extensively. In my previous life, I dealt with them on an ongoing basis. They have good transmission of information, and they can look at X-rays and everything. The technology is there.
Senator David P. Smith (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
Senator Di Nino: I would like to address the comment made by Senator Smith. We have been looking at this for a while, Mr. Wood. This is not the first time you have appeared before us. It is fair to say there is an honest interest on behalf of this committee, to the degree that it is possible, to accommodate the request of Senator Watt and Senator Adams, particularly, in the language of Inuktitut. We also need to understand that translation cannot be limited to Inuktitut. We must be prepared to respond to other colleagues from other areas with different Aboriginal languages. If we can focus on the Inuktitut for now, I believe there is a real consensus to try to provide this service and accommodate our colleagues.
I heard Mr. Wood say that, in effect, it is difficult to find qualified people. I was struck by his statement that, at a recent evaluation, there were 17 people and only two were qualified. That will be an issue with which we will need to deal. That is by way of an introduction.
My question is also on the remote aspect. Particularly because of the limited number of qualified individuals at this time, it seems to me, that is probably the way we must look at these things generally, although if we happen to be in the area where the interpreters are, then we should try to use their services in the same location.
I am afraid of the devil being in the details with the remote. I wanated to mention — and our clerk did — the experience we had a couple of weeks ago with the House of Lords, where we had three different interruptions. That may be because the transmission is transatlantic; it may be less problematic if it is domestic. We are likely looking only at domestic as opposed to transatlantic, and maybe we should restrict the effort at this point to a national effort only.
My first questions is, how important is it for the interpreters to be able to see the speakers? How much efficiency is lost if we put a blanket over the interpreters? Mr. Wood, you may want to tackle that question, and perhaps the interpreters can give us an opinion as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: If the committee allows it, we could ask them directly.
[English]
Henri Bagdadi, Freelance Interpreter, as an individual: In answer to your question, Senator Di Nino, we generally want to be present on location. We want to be able to interact with the people for whom we are working. We want to be able to obtain documents from them. We are never assured of being able to obtain them if we are at a distance, and interpreters rely on documentation considerably. That is one of our primary objectives.
The Deputy Chairman: Do you mean a prepared text or notes?
Mr. Bagdadi: Yes, or even the subject matter. A lot of things are read in a committee quickly and if we do not have the text before our eyes, we have a hard time rendering it in the other language.
Senator Di Nino: That is a good point, but I suspect if we are connected, we are probably connected by Internet and can probably provide the interpreters with that information beforehand when possible, nearly instantaneously if that documentation is a needed component to make the interpretation more valid. Please continue.
Mr. Bagdadi: That is true. However, there are often failures in communication and they are remedied only by direct immediate presence, I would say.
Senator Di Nino: I guess my question dealt more with, is it important that you see me speaking when you are interpreting what I am saying? Is it critical, or can you do a fairly good job without necessarily seeing my mouth move or my body move?
Mr. Bagdadi: Body language is useful for an interpreter, and seeing the image is useful. That said, we have one blind interpreter at the present time and he usually does his work well. I assume that if push comes to shove, it can be done; but it is an extremely difficult thing to require interpreters not to be able to see the speakers for whom they are working.
Senator Di Nino: Thank you, I appreciate that. If I can continue for a moment, I guess that was an important question.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wood, do you want to comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: In my opinion, if we try out remote interpretation, obviously the interpreter must see what is going on from the place where he is. That is essential. We cannot provide the interpreter with just the sound. This we know from experience.
All the interpreters tell me that not seeing what is going on affects the quality of the interpretation. Actually, in the Senate, the interpreters cannot see one part of the chamber from the booths. This is very frustrating for them, because often they cannot see which senator is speaking. The visual component provides information. If the interpreter is to do his job well, he needs several sources of information. There is the actual speech, but there is the visual component as well.
To conclude, I would like to add that there are some experiments going on with conferences held over the Internet. They are called Webnars, which is short for ``Web Seminar.'' The experiment is still at a very preliminary stage. In our work, we are often presented with inventions that someone intends to patent that will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, an invention that will solve all our problems, but actually they are just office applications. We need what I would call industrial applications. It is not that they do not exist, but often we need the second stage of development.
Conferences are held over the Internet, but the quality is very uneven at present. As I was saying a few moments ago, it is true that videoconferences often work out well. I take part in them as part of my own job, and there is no problem. But when you add interpretation, that means a certain discipline, arrangements must be made, procedures must be followed. And if you want the interpretation to go smoothly, the participants must be aware that they are being interpreted.
A number of technical details must be checked. For example, assume that a conference is held between two cities. In one, there is a technician on site, but there is no technician in the other city. If there is a technical glitch in the second city, the whole thing falls apart. Little details like that make all the difference.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: I did not want to prolong this. This is precisely why I wanted to ask my question because I think we need to have a better idea of what we are getting into if we look at remote interpretation.
A number of problems may arise, and we should recognize that there is a totally different atmosphere between a conference among colleagues that are dealing with the same subject matter and witnesses who present a point of view at a committee. It may be easier to do something in the chamber than it would be to do something at a committee that is remote.
I want to repeat that the idea of using the Fisheries Committee as a trial project is a good one. We should look at that. We will likely make mistakes. We know that, and so be it because we will learn from it. I do not think there is any objection on behalf of colleagues, from the number of times that we have discussed this matter, in our honest interest in trying to accommodate our colleagues.
The Deputy Chairman: Let me mention some points of information here. I checked with the clerk as to whether we require a motion recommending that, assuming there is a consensus that we start off with the Fisheries Committee. I am advised by the clerk that we do not, that there is precedent. The Fisheries Committee itself can do that.
The second point is that I was chatting with Senator Keon before he left and pointed out that given how close we are to rising for the summer — I am not even sure we will meet next week as there is all this talk of sitting in July and August, but in the event they do not — I think it is probably a good idea that we strike a subcommittee that could monitoring this. To the extent that we need to be ready for the fall, we can be in touch with Senator Watt and Senator Adams in particular, and that subcommittee should be struck. We should have a subcommittee that can monitor this matter over the summer and you can give that thought. We do not have to decide that right now.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, —
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Keon said he was anxious to be on it himself.
Senator Di Nino: That is a wonderful idea, but you, I and Senator Fraser were involved in such a subcommittee that met during the summer. If we create a subcommittee, we must make sure we have the authority of the Senate because we were criticized and chastised. In effect, we had to decide that we were not a subcommittee but a group of people who had an interest and an issue. If we do that, and it is not a bad idea, let us make sure we obtain permission from whatever source is appropriate so that it has the authority to act.
The Deputy Chairman: I will have the clerk muse on that proposition and we will clear that up before we break. I suspect if there are meetings, they would probably be by phone conference.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Mr. Wood, I gather that no provision within your collective agreement keeps you from using an Aboriginal-languages interpretation service outside of the framework of that collective agreement?
Mr. Wood: No.
Senator Joyal: So we would not find ourselves facing a grievance or another procedure like that?
Mr. Wood: If we were to use freelancers?
Senator Joyal: Yes.
Mr. Wood: No, not at all.
Senator Joyal: Fine. Secondly, you mentioned that the average cost would be $200 per hour. Is that a standardized cost, or is it the cost from previous contracts with aboriginal translators?
Mr. Wood: No. I was telling you about a videoconference that I had organized a few years ago, and those were the costs relating to telecommunications. No interpreter was involved.
Senator Joyal: So you cannot tell us today what the average cost or the hourly rate would be to hire an Aboriginal- language interpreter from outside the organization?
Mr. Wood: I could tell you what the rate currently is for official languages.
Senator Joyal: No, for Aboriginal languages.
Mr. Wood: Just to give you a very rough idea, for other languages such as Italian or Spanish, it varies between $550 and $650 per day.
Senator Joyal: Did you provide the Aboriginal-languages interpretation services that were required for the discussions surrounding the Kelowna accord?
Mr. Wood: I believe so, but I would have to check; generally speaking, we would provide that, yes.
Senator Joyal: To find out what the real costs are, on the basis of recent examples — the Kelowna discussions were about two years ago — we could ask the subcommittee to look into that.
[English]
The subcommittee could look into that bill and see how the costs are distributed and so on.
[Translation]
Could you look into that particular case? You may not have the answer today, but perhaps you could find out for us whether all the translators and interpreters were on site or if some were providing remote interpretation, as you put it, given the availability of people.
It would be interesting to find out how that meeting went and how the translation service was provided at that time so that we could learn more about this topic.
[English]
I think the subcommittee might want to look into that to see if that was the case.
[Translation]
My next question has to do with the visibility of people being interpreted. I totally understand that it is easier for an interpreter to see the person, because sometimes it allows him to pick up various cues from the person's body language.
But quite often as well, the person is not really visible. From the booths that are located above the Senate galleries, I can assure you that unless you have a telescope — when you look down, you can tell whether the person is standing here or there, but you cannot make out the details of the person as easily as if you were to look at me or if I were to look through the pane of glass that separates us from the two interpreters this morning. Certainly it is easier for the two interpreters to see me now.
However, if the two interpreters are in the upper balcony, the visibility in some cases may be relatively limited. I understand what the optimal conditions are for interpretation, but often interpretation is done without the speaker being completely visible to the interpreter. Am I wrong when I make these statements, or am I pretty close to the reality?
Mr. Wood: As for the Senate booths, I have lost track of how many complaints I have received from interpreters about these booths ever since I became director. Indeed, they complain that they cannot see the speakers. It is true that in some situations, an interpreter must work in circumstances that are far from optimal. It happens all the time, especially when travelling. But they are temporary conditions, and for short periods of time. If such conditions were to become the interpreters' regular working conditions, that could cause me problems.
Senator Joyal: I see. But for the experiment that we would like to carry out — we mentioned the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans a few moments ago — could we carry out such an experiment and be able to draw some relative conclusions, depending on the conditions, be they optimal or not?
Mr. Wood: You certainly could.
[English]
Senator Joyal: The next point, Mr. Chair, comes back to earlier meetings that we have had, and I am looking at our colleague and friend, Senator Watt, in relation to that. I understood at that time that one avenue that was considered was to try an experiment in the chamber with the text. In other words, a senator was to give a text and notice ahead of time. The text, of course, would have circulated among the translators and we could experiment with translation, maybe with a relay, so that we learn the difficulties, the mishaps and the good aspects of the experience. I thought that was one way of approaching the proposal.
I understand this morning that we have a request from the Fisheries Committee, and that is, of course, in a different context. During the last meetings of this committee, I think it was last year, we came to some kind of consensus — I will not say it was a conclusion — but it was that option we were considering. Do I understand from our discussion this morning that we will stand that approach and investigate the Fisheries Committee meeting or can the two be put to a trial later this fall?
The Deputy Chairman: I do not think anything is carved in stone. My own reaction would be that I am happy with a two-track policy. I think our two colleagues want to proceed with the Fisheries Committee proposal. That is my understanding of what they said to me.
Senator Watt: I was the one that approached you on this matter and Senator Adams was not around. I said at that time, that at least we could move on to where the most need is at this point at the committee level. However, that does not mean that I was not looking for an alternative; a way of leaving the issue of what we need on the floor. We did not even talk about that.
The Deputy Chairman: I do not think it is one or the other. I think we should do them both when we are ready to do them.
Senator Joyal: If I recall, at our last meeting before this one, it was proposed that the committee go to Iqaluit to see how the system functions. I understand from the testimony of Mr. Wood this morning that he intends to go. If the subcommittee is formed, could the chair of the subcommittee go with Mr. Wood, or any other members who want to go? I understand the subcommittee will probably be three senators, so that could be an opportunity to reduce the cost. I know there have been all kinds of questions.
The Deputy Chairman: I hope we have funding for that. I need to turn to the clerk for that. I have discussed this briefly with him. He did not feel a motion was necessary and this would be a working group.
Mr. Armitage: The response I gave to the chair briefly on the side was in respect to a working group of senators monitoring our progress in trying to meet the proposal of the Fisheries Committee.
I hasten to add that, in saying that, a motion might not be necessary to cover what the Fisheries Committee is doing. I base that on the fact that they have done it before. With the agreement of the members of that committee, they have tried Aboriginal interpretation in the past. As well, mutatis mutandis, the procedures in committee should follow those of the chamber, and that has been the practice of the chamber as well. The permission of the chamber was sought prior to allowing Senator Adams to make his recent speech in Inuktitut and in previous cases where I believe Senator Watt assisted with that kind of interpretation. In the last instance, though, a point of order or a question of privilege was raised about the quality of the French interpretation. It was raised by both Senator Corbin and Senator Comeau, I believe.
In terms of whether the Senate needs to give permission to the committee, I think the practice, precedent and interpretation of those things appear to give them permission to proceed if the committee itself agrees formally. Second, if a working group of senators from this committee want to monitor our progress in making that happen, it would be a simple agreement on that fact. Perhaps the steering committee could be kept apprised of our progress and give us guidance.
With respect to travelling to Iqaluit and Yellowknife, my best information from the two clerks there is that the first time we will have a coincidence of the two legislatures sitting at the same time probably will not be until the end of October or early November. At that point, any members of the committee who want to travel are able to do so because we have funding for that trip.
The Deputy Chairman: In the meantime, I mention on the record, so it is duly noted, that in terms of the working committee, we should include, on an honorary basis, Senator Rompkey, because he is the chair of the Fisheries Committee, even though he is not on this committee. He must be included on this trip. Senator Watt, it makes sense for you to be included. You can dialogue with Senator Adams and, when he wants to be included, he can be too.
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: In fact, it is true that it would be better to go to Iqaluit or to Yellowknife in September or October when they are sitting. The reason why I am going this summer is that I am taking part in the annual Hansard conference that will be held in Iqaluit this year. I will take advantage of being there to see if people are available. But it is true that it would be better to wait until October.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Mr. Wood, since you are going to a conference about Hansard, it would be helpful, I think, if we could have, in the form of a memo, any pertinent indications that you glean, because obviously there are complexities with Hansard. I do not believe anybody has talked about publishing our journals in any language other than English and French.
On the other hand, even with the truly awesome skills of our services, we all know that, on occasion, the person who spoke or somebody else may have some difficulties with the translations that have been provided. I would like to know if there is some semiformal method available to keep a record of what is said in a language other than English and French, so that, for certainty, future generations wishing to know exactly what was said can go back to the original. How complicated is that? That obviously would not need to be available the next morning the way the English and French translations are.
The Deputy Chairman: Do you mean other than the tape?
Senator Fraser: Yes, I mean something other than a tape. I mean something written. Tapes deteriorate. Computer disks deteriorate. I am a great believer in paper. I am truly Victorian. Have you any idea how complicated that would be? Would that require vast acres of new offices?
Mr. Wood: I do not think so.
[Translation]
I think that it is up to the administration, to the clerk, to take the necessary measures so that it is done. Currently, there is no translation or interpretation. The original remarks are recorded.
[English]
Mr. Armitage: If the Inuktitut text were provided in advance, if they were to use an Inuktitut text to read from, it would be available to us and, by agreement of the Senate, it could be appended to that day's Debates of the Senate or Journals of the Senate. As long as we did not need to format it so it was side by side by side or tumbled, which would take a lot of production time and would delay the publication of the next day's Journals or Debates, I think that would be fine, as long as it were certified as being as delivered by the senator who delivered it.
Senator Fraser: I am talking less about the actual written text, because the written translation of a pre-written text is more likely to be faithful to the original. We are aiming to arrive at a point where people can speak without a text, as I usually do, even when I give speeches. I have much sympathy for those who are tasked with writing down what I say and making sure the translation is correct. Should anybody ever want to check on what I said 50 years from now, they do not have anything other than best efforts to refer to. I hoped it would be possible to fold into any proposals we make a proposal that an actual transcription of what was said in Inuktitut could be available, not for the next day, because I am sure that would put terrible financial and physical strains on the staff, but within a reasonable period, a month. I have no idea how costly that would be.
Mr. Armitage: In terms of the translation service, Mr. Wood would be better placed to comment. If we are not talking about next day production, then it would be a relatively simple process to regulate within the Senate, either as a tabled document or appended document, at some later date.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the more we talk about this, the further away we get from the date by which we carry out the order of reference that we have been entrusted with. The order of reference simply says that the Senate should take the necessary legislative measures and implement the technical measures so that senators wishing to express themselves in Inuktitut may do so.
At the present time, how could we accommodate the two senators who speak Inuktitut? I would like us to start somewhere.
Mr. Wood: These senators would have to provide us with the written speech. We would prepare a translation, and then they could give their speech, which we would interpret into English and into French at the same time. That could be done with 48 or 72 hours' advance notice.
Senator Robichaud: That is where we would have to begin, while at the same time pursuing experiments with other committees. I believe that the order of reference is pretty clear and that we could go ahead, as long as we respect a number of conditions. Otherwise, we will just debate this endlessly, and nothing will ever come of it.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: The order of reference was given to this committee, presumably for discussion with input from the two senators most affected. I think it is reasonable for us to listen to them when they tell us what their requirements are and what they want to happen, rather than be in a straitjacket of an order of reference that someone jotted down in 60 seconds.
Mr. Wood, do you care to respond to this issue about doing ``The Full Monty'' immediately?
[Translation]
Mr. Wood: We would not be able to immediately provide the service for the scenario whereby a senator could speak at any time in his ancestral language on any topic.
Senator Robichaud: That is not what I am asking for.
Mr. Wood: However, what you are suggesting could be done fairly quickly. Namely, a senator would provide us with a copy of his remarks in his own language, we would translate it into the two languages, he would give his remarks, and we would translate them simultaneously into the two languages. That could be done immediately.
Senator Robichaud: We could set the objective of reaching a far more comprehensive level of interpretation, but at the same time, why not agree to this initial step, which would allow us to evaluate the services that are available to provide translation and interpretation in the Senate? We could avoid some frustration on the part of senators. If I were them, I would be frustrated because we have been talking about this for a long time, and nothing specific has yet been put into place.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I think things are happening. If you wish to propose a motion that articulates precisely what you have in mind, we can hear it. However, we heard from Senator Watt, and he seems satisfied, and Senator Adams sat in on the meeting with Senator Keon.
It is my impression, and I do not purport to speak for them, that they want to see something that is respectful but is also manageable. One must crawl before walking and walk before running. Do you want to start off running?
Senator Robichaud: No, we definitely would not start off running. We would go slowly. There is also the mover of this motion.
The Deputy Chairman: I am aware of that. I also recall him saying that, had he any idea of what the cost would be, he would not have moved the motion. Then he changed his mind again the next day.
Senator Robichaud: That is what we are doing here. We are changing our minds as we go along. Now we are saying perhaps not the chamber, but perhaps committees. I would like to start in the chamber and then continue.
[Translation]
Furthermore, the committees have already done it. The Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has scheduled a trip for the fall to look into the question of whales, including beluga whales. I do not see any problem with our arranging to have interpreters at that time. We could make such arrangements, as you said, Mr. Armitage.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: I have sympathy with Senator Robichaud's frustration on this issue, but I believe we have made major progress and that we are going in the right direction. We have heard from Mr. Wood and others that we will have difficulty finding people and putting this capability into place. It would mean major changes. We have agreed to go to Nunavut and Yellowknife to look at their systems. The budget is approved for that. We wanted to go now, but there are no sittings there until October.
I do not think we should put aside attempting this on a trial basis with prepared text. We should tell Mr. Wood that we want to try this test as soon as practicable, and I think we said that already, Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: Let us do something about it. If we write a preliminary report to the Senate — because this plan must be approved by the Senate — we will at least make progress, without shutting out any other things we might want to do.
The Deputy Chairman: We need to do one last thing. Senator Keon wishes to be on this working committee and we will need another member.
Senator Joyal: I propose that Senator Robichaud be on the committee.
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Robichaud, are you willing to serve?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: With Senator Joyal who could replace me!
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: The two of you can flip a coin and then advise the clerk.
Senator Joyal: I made a formal motion that Senator Robichaud be a member of the subcommittee.
Senator Di Nino: He has not yet accepted. You can make all the motions you want, but he must accept.
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Robichaud, are you prepared to serve?
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Yes, I am willing to do something. I am telling you, we have to get moving. Use it or loose it!
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Some of us have been talking with them a lot. I have sat with them a number of times and they seem to think that we are progressing on a reasonable basis.
Senator Joyal: Do I understand that my motion has carried, Mr. Chairman?
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, I think it would be great to have Senator Robichaud on the committee.
Mr. Armitage: May I say that the Senate already permits what Senator Robichaud has proposed, and what Mr. Wood has said he could do with 48-hour notice. The Speaker said that was an acceptable process. We could formalize it with a report saying that they no longer need the consent of the house each time, but we can currently do, effectively, what is proposed. It does not necessarily require action from this committee to have it happen. We have already had the undertaking of Mr. Wood.
The Deputy Chairman: They have not asked for it, but we have been agreeable to it.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: It is a small step in the right direction!
The committee adjourned.