THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL ECONOMY, BUDGETS AND ADMINISTRATION
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 10, 2021
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met by videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(1), in consideration of financial and administrative matters.
Senator Sabi Marwah (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Sabi Marwah, I’m a senator from Ontario, and I have the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Today we will be conducting a virtual meeting that will start in public, and the second portion of the meeting will be in camera. Before we begin, I would like to remind honourable senators of the best practices for a successful meeting.
Please keep your microphone muted at all times, unless recognized by name to speak. Senators are responsible for turning their microphones on during the debate. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English, French or no simultaneous translation. Should members wish to request the floor, please use the raise-hand feature. Should any technical or other challenges arise, please signal this to the chair immediately and the technical team will work to resolve the issue.
I would now like to introduce the senators who are participating in this meeting: Senator Larry Campbell, British Columbia; Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec; Senator Tony Dean, Ontario; Senator Éric Forest, Quebec; Senator Josée Forest-Niesing, Ontario; Senator Marc Gold, Quebec; Senator Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia; Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Lucie Moncion, Ontario; Senator Jim Munson, Ontario; Senator Don Plett, Manitoba; Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, Quebec; Senator Judith Seidman, Quebec; and Senator Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Welcome to all those viewing these proceedings across the country.
Honourable senators, the first item is the approval of the public minutes from June 3, 2021, which are in your package. Are there any questions or changes? I see no hands up, so could I have a mover for the following motion:
That the Minutes of the Proceedings of Thursday, June 3, 2021, be adopted.
Senator Forest-Niesing moves the motion. As a reminder, colleagues, votes will proceed in a similar fashion as the hybrid chamber, whereby senators who wish to oppose or abstain are provided with an opportunity to do so. In the absence of any opposition or abstention is interpreted as support for the motion.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? If any senator wishes to oppose or abstain, please raise your hand. Seeing no objections, I declare the motion carried.
Honourable senators, the next item is a request from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for conference funding. Joining us today is the Honourable Hedy Fry and Jeremy LeBlanc, Acting Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs, who will now join the meeting by video conference as witnesses. Welcome, Minister Fry and Mr. LeBlanc.
Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre: Thank you. With respect, chair, it is the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, not the Commonwealth Parliamentary Assembly.
The Chair: I’m sorry. My mistake.
Dr. Fry: That’s okay. Thank you.
Thank you very much for allowing me to be here today, senators. I’m coming to you to re-ask, if there is such a thing, for us at the OSCEPA to host the 2023 annual session, which is in the summer of 2023, in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe is touted as running from Vancouver to Vladivostok, so we are at the Vancouver end of it all.
We received your authorization to hold this meeting in 2020. Of course, we spent almost a year preparing for it and then COVID stopped us in our tracks. We were not allowed to have the meeting in 2020 because of the pandemic. However, we were asked by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly if we would host in 2023.
I’m coming to ask that you give me the permission that you gave in 2020. The budget you have in front of you is roughly the same. There will be about 700 registrants coming to this meeting, and it’s going to be about a five- or six-day meeting. I would be glad to answer any questions about the budget, but very little has changed with the exception of increased costs, of course, due to security and due to new requirements for safety, in terms of hygiene from now on in everything we do. That is actually going to be a significant increase in costs. It’s going to happen for everything we’ll be doing from now on, for I don’t know how long.
In 2020, we did not incur any penalties because we had put in a force majeure clause. Indeed, when the act of God occurred, we were able to say, sorry, we didn’t have anything to do with this. We have similarly put in another clause just in case something happens to derail the meeting.
Most people are very anxious. We have not hosted an annual meeting for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly for eight or nine years, so this is a big deal for everybody. Most people are very anxious to come. I will leave it there, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have to ask. Thank you.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Hello, Ms. Fry. Thank you very much for the information that you’ve provided. You were certainly wise to include a force majeure clause in the undertakings on a go-forward basis. But in the current, still very uncertain context, I’m wondering whether you’re planning to pivot quickly and turn this into a virtual meeting in the event that restrictions would prevent individuals from travelling to Vancouver.
Dr. Fry: Yes, I would suggest that we can do that, because we are having our meeting, for instance, in a virtual session in Romania this year, who are doing this year’s summer meeting. We have now, over the past year and a quarter, been doing virtual meetings. I think we’ve done about 40 of them. It has become an easy thing to do. The planning for this summer meeting is going to assist us in perhaps planning for next summer, which is in Birmingham, England, and we don’t know what’s going to happen then, but we also have that ability to pivot, yes.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Am I correct, then, in assuming that you would pivot to a virtual meeting rather than cancelling for this year, as you did last year?
Dr. Fry: I would say that last year everyone was caught unawares.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Ms. Fry. What was the original cost of the July 2020 conference?
Dr. Fry: It was $1.516 million.
Senator Marshall: Okay, thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: Ms. Fry, you mentioned something about security, but I don’t think the security costs are in here. Do you have any idea how much that would be?
Dr. Fry: Yes, I do, but I think Jeremy, who is with me on this, might access to that information quicker than I can.
Jeremy LeBlanc, Acting Clerk Assistant and Director General, International and Interparliamentary Affairs: I believe we’re forecasting about $60,000 for security costs. There are also additional costs associated with audiovisual compared to the previous conference, and that, in addition to the elements Dr. Fry mentioned, accounts for some of the differences between the budget for this conference and the one that had been planned in 2020.
Senator Tannas: So we’re going to have 700 government leaders in Vancouver, and it’s going to cost $60,000 for security? Okay. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Hello, Dr. Fry. For that $60,000, I’m not sure it’s for the security of people but for security related to COVID. Maybe that could be specified.
Dr. Fry: Yes. The full budget has all the line items. The budget is extraordinarily detailed.
Yes, you are right. That is security for what we call the hygiene, everything else that is needed with regard to that.
There’s always a built-in cost in any meeting held in Canada for security of the persons who are coming. There are huge protocols there, because 58 nations are coming to this. But that was already built into Budget 2020 and is a constant build-in.
One of the things that’s costing a lot is audiovisual. In the past, we had about six companies to choose from to do audiovisual for us. Apparently, since COVID, they have not had any work, and they have amalgamated into one company. So we have no choice but to use that company now.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, to sort out any confusion, this is Item 3 in your agenda. There’s a fairly detailed presentation there on the costs related to this initiative.
I see no other questions. I need a mover for the following:
That approval be granted to host the 31st Annual Session of the OSCE PA in Vancouver, in July 2023;
That funding be approved as follows:
$174,563 for 2022-2023
$1,703,819 for 2023-2024;
That the temporary funding for the fiscal year 2022-2023 be absorbed from the anticipated budget surpluses of Associations; and
That the total cost be shared using the usual formula (30% Senate, 70% House of Commons) between the Senate ($563,515) and the House of Commons ($1,314,868).
Senator Dean: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Dean moves the motion. Are we all agreed, colleagues? I see no objection. I declare the motion carried.
Item 2 in your agenda is a request from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for conference funding. Ms. Fry and Mr. LeBlanc will be here for this presentation as well. Ms. Fry, will it be you or Jeremy walking us through this?
Mr. LeBlanc: Ms. Fry is here for the OSCE request. She is not a part of the CPA, so I will be speaking to it.
The request isn’t for new temporary funding but rather for the authority to transfer temporary funding that had previously been approved to a different fiscal year. Since the conference was originally planned to take place in January 2021 and was subsequently postponed until August 2021, we asked last year to transfer that funding to this fiscal year. The conference has again been postponed now until August 2022, so the request is to transfer the funding that was previously approved to a new fiscal year, without a request for any additional funding.
There is, however, a second element to that where there are potentially some additional costs associated with staffing, since the staff who are working on the conference will have been employed over a much longer period. They began planning, of course, for a conference that would happen earlier this year, stopped, started working again, then stopped and then started working again. So the cost of that staff is spread out over a longer period.
As Dr. Fry mentioned in the previous request, the cost for audiovisual support services at these conferences has also increased somewhat dramatically due to consolidation of the industry.
There’s a chance that there may be additional costs above and beyond the budget that had already been approved. Rather than seek new temporary funding for those costs, our request is to be authorized to use anticipated surpluses in the Joint Interparliamentary Council envelope to cover those cost overruns, should they arise.
The Chair: Are there any questions for Mr. LeBlanc?
Senator Marshall: Thank you for the presentation. What happens if that $270,000 doesn’t materialize?
Mr. LeBlanc: If there’s no authorization to use those funds? Is that your question, senator?
Senator Marshall: No. You referred to it as “anticipated surpluses,” so it makes it sound like you’re hoping for surpluses in the future. What if the anticipated surplus doesn’t materialize? Do you have to come back for additional funding?
Mr. LeBlanc: No. The JIC would take that into account when it makes the allocation to associations. In allocating for next fiscal year, the JIC will hold back the sums that have been approved for conferences in case they’re needed and adjust the funding to other associations as a result. If it turns out those amounts are not required for the conference, they could be made available later in the fiscal year for associations to use.
Senator Marshall: Okay. How did you come up with that figure? Is there a formula, or is it just an estimate?
Mr. LeBlanc: The $270,000 is based on the additional costs that we expect for audiovisual and for staffing. It’s not a perfect amount. Those exceed $270,000, but we have savings in other areas. The anticipated shortfall could be up to $270,000. That’s why we’re asking for that authorization.
Senator Marshall: I understand. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Are there any other questions for Mr. LeBlanc, colleagues? I see no other hands up. I need a mover for the following motion:
That approval be granted to defer the approved temporary funding from 2021-2022 to 2022-2023, of $400,650;
That the funding be shared using the usual formula (30% Senate, 70% House of Commons) between the Senate ($120,195) and the House of Commons ($280,455); and
That approval be granted to use the anticipated budget surpluses of associations in fiscal year 2022-23 to cover supplementary costs for the postponements of the 65th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, if required, up to a maximum of $270,000.
Senator Dean moves the motion. Colleagues, are we all agreed? Any objections or abstentions? I see no objections. I declare the motion carried.
The fourth item concerns the annual report for the Joint Interparliamentary Council. Senator Plett will lead this presentation, and Mr. LeBlanc will also assist with this item. As usual, we will have time for questions at the end.
Hon. Donald Neil Plett, Senator, Senate of Canada: Good morning, colleagues. As the Senate co-chair of the Joint Interparliamentary Council, I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Associations’ Activities and Expenditures Report for the 2020-21 fiscal year. As the chair has already said, Jeremy LeBlanc, Clerk of the Council, is doing triple duty here today. Thank you, Jeremy, for being here as well.
It goes without saying that this past fiscal year has been quite unique for associations, since public health conditions did not allow them to travel or receive delegations from other countries. The moratorium on travel, supported by the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate, remains in place to this day and was recently extended until September 30.
However, many associations remained quite active as they shifted to the virtual realm. This was especially true for multilateral associations that were able to benefit from the platforms of international secretariats to attend virtual conferences, meetings and webinars. In some cases, they were able to be more active, since they were not limited by the cost and logistics of travel.
On the other hand, bilateral associations and all executive committees faced a more challenging situation, as access to resources required to support our own virtual meetings was limited.
All told, our associations participated in over 250 virtual activities during the last fiscal year, about 15% of which were supported by Parliament’s multimedia staff. The total budgetary envelope for parliamentary associations for 2019-20 remained the same as last year’s, at $4.3 million. Total expenditures, however, were just under $1.5 million, which is a budget utilization of 34%.
These costs were almost entirely associated with international contributions that the Parliament of Canada pays to belong to multilateral associations. The few activity costs that were charged against last year’s budgets were largely associated with cancellation fees or expenses incurred in the previous fiscal year that were processed later. These costs were more than offset by the revenue from membership fees.
In section 3 of the report, you will find a summary of virtual activities undertaken by each of the 13 associations, as well as a financial breakdown of the modest activity costs that they each incurred. I remind colleagues that this annual report, once reviewed here, is presented in the Senate Chamber and then published to the web. Thus, this information is made available to the public.
That concludes my remarks. I am now pleased to entertain questions, and I’m sure Jeremy will be pleased to answer them. Thank you.
The Chair: I see there’s one hand up.
Senator Marshall: I’ll direct my questions to Mr. LeBlanc.
I notice from the statistics that there looks to be a significant decline in the number of senators and members of the House of Commons who were members in 2021. Is that because of the pandemic? Do you expect those numbers to rebound?
Mr. LeBlanc: I would say so, senator. There are a number of factors that go into it. Sometimes there are people who join associations purely to vote in annual general meetings if there are elections that are contested, so that can sometimes bump the numbers up.
I would say in this fiscal year, we’re still below average in terms of the number of parliamentarians who have joined associations, and that’s a reflection, I would say, of the fact that there are limited opportunities for activities, although there are many virtual ones that are ongoing, as Senator Plett said. I do expect it will rebound once the situation is a little more normal and stable.
Senator Marshall: When does the call go out for membership? My recollection is that an annual notice would come out, like an invitation to take membership. When will senators and members of the House of Commons get that invitation?
Mr. LeBlanc: That was sent out in February. It’s always sent out toward the end of the fiscal year, and was sent out again this year.
Senator Marshall: Have the numbers improved based on the invitation?
Mr. LeBlanc: As I said, it’s still somewhat lower than average, I would say maybe 10% or 20% lower than a typical year, but that’s probably a product of the fact that we didn’t have annual general meetings this year. And there are a limited number of activities that are available for people to participate in.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. My last question relates to the travel. There’s a fair bit of travel involved. My experience has been that it seems to be the same people who travel all the time.
Is there any initiative or oversight given to make sure that all members who are interested in travelling are given the opportunity to participate?
Mr. LeBlanc: For each activity, the secretary of an association would send out a call to the entire membership informing them that this activity is taking place. There’s a size of a delegation that’s usually agreed upon and then a formula to allot a certain number of spaces on that delegation, based on the relative size of different parties and groups in both houses. Those who are interested in applying would then submit their names, and ultimately it’s the party whips or facilitators who would make the decision as to who goes.
The other thing I would add is there are a number of parliamentarians who hold positions in these international associations, so someone who is on an international executive or who chairs a committee of one of these associations is more likely to travel, to participate in those activities, given that additional role.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much, Mr. LeBlanc.
Senator Dawson: My remarks would be mostly — maybe this is not the right time — that I see that in a lot of those associations, they have three caucuses and we are four caucuses now. The progressive parliamentary group has not been recognized as a member of the JIC and is not recognized as a member of many of the associations.
When would it be time to update the constitution of these organizations and the composition of the JIC?
Mr. LeBlanc: The composition of the JIC has traditionally been 10 members, which is divided 70% to the House of Commons and 30% to the Senate, which is the typical formula that’s applied to anything. To have a fourth senator would presumably mean increasing the size of the JIC so as to maintain that 70-30 balance.
For association executives and delegations, it is true that each association constitution sets out a certain number of members on the executive, and that can vary between, I think, 9 or 10 and 17 or 18 in some of the larger ones, and that proportional formula then comes into play.
To reflect that new reality, which is a matter that I know is of some concern to a number of groups, there could be an exploration of increasing the size of the executive committees, which would allow more spots to be available, and that would be a decision that would require an amendment to the constitutions of those associations to increase their size.
I would add that it’s an issue that the JIC has looked at in the past and I anticipate we’ll be looking at again in the coming months.
Senator Dawson: Yes, because the tradition was based on having two parties in the Senate. Now we have four. So I would think that the issue should be addressed or we should try to find a concept by which there is a rotation where the new caucus of the progressives get to have membership at the same level as the other groups that are recognized.
Anyway, I just want to know where the right forum for that is, and I guess I’ll have to follow up when I know who I should ask.
Mr. LeBlanc: I would say the Joint Interparliamentary Council is likely the place to raise it, and it’s an issue I know the JIC is seized with.
The Chair: I see no other hands up. Senator Plett, could you move the following motion:
That the report from the Joint Interparliamentary Council: Parliamentary Associations’ Activities and Expenditures for the fiscal year 2020-21 be tabled in the Senate.
Senator Plett: I so move.
The Chair: Colleagues, are we all agreed? I see no objection. I declare the motion carried. Thank you, Ms. Fry and Mr. LeBlanc.
Colleagues, the next item is our annual update on translation and interpretation services. This item is for information only.
Joining us are Marie-Eve Belzile, Principal Clerk of Committees Directorate; Nathalie Laliberté, Vice President, Service to Parliament and Interpretation Sector; and Lucie Séguin, Chief Financial Officer, Translation Bureau. They will be joining us by video conference as witnesses.
Welcome, everyone. As usual, colleagues, the presentation will be followed by time for questions. Marie-Eve, I believe you’ll begin.
[Translation]
Marie-Ève Belzile, Principal Clerk, Senate of Canada: Thank you, senators, for inviting me to speak to you about translation services. I’m the Senate manager responsible for ensuring that the terms and conditions of the agreement for the provision of linguistic services between the Senate and the Translation Bureau are met.
As such, you will recall that I appeared before the committee in early April of this year to inform you that the existing service agreement was going to be extended for one year to include lessons learned from the year we just had in the pandemic, with hybrid sessions and fully virtual committee meetings.
As you know, this year was exceptional in every way. The Senate has developed new ways of doing business and holding meetings during a pandemic, and the Translation Bureau’s collaboration has been essential to this. Lucie Séguin and Nathalie Laliberté, who are here today, took part in numerous meetings with Senate managers at the outset of the pandemic to develop a framework that would ensure that the Senate would continue to provide essential interpretation services, regardless of the hybrid or virtual format of meetings.
[English]
The Translation Bureau, in particular the interpretation section, has been engaged in conducting sound tests and participating in rehearsals in the Senate Chamber and committee rooms to ensure that the equipment was suitable and the technology allowed for quality interpretation of all remote participants.
As the pandemic months passed, we significantly increased the frequency of meetings between the Translation Bureau and the Senate managers to provide feedback, share concerns, to discuss the schedule of activities and to adapt services to the immediate needs of the Senate as translation and interpretation resources, in particular, came under additional pressures. These meetings were also necessary to put in place, or sometimes adjust, health and safety protocols to meet public health requirements, which were changing as the pandemic unfolded.
The briefing note shared with you provides additional details regarding the health and safety measures that were implemented and other considerations related to the service agreement.
Senators, during this year of the pandemic, the delivery of interpretation services changed significantly. Both the Senate and the Translation Bureau had to adjust practices, technology and protocols to maintain the essential work of the Senate, not without some challenges along the way, as we all know. But the collaboration of our partners in the Translation Bureau has been essential.
Finally, I’d like to mention that progress has been made on the renewal of the service agreement. The renewed agreement, which we’re still working on, will include sections on feedback mechanisms and more specific information on sign language interpretation, as well as foreign and Indigenous language services.
The agreement will also outline measures to facilitate and improve the quality of interpretation for remote participants in meetings. Ms. Séguin and Ms. Laliberté have been helpful over the past year, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to improve interpretation and translation services for the Senate and for senators. Thank you, senators. Ms. Séguin now has some remarks to the committee.
[Translation]
Lucie Séguin, Chief Executive Officer, Translation Bureau: I am really pleased to be here and to join Ms. Belzile today, along with my colleague Nathalie Laliberté.
I would like to thank the committee for giving us this annual opportunity to update you on the translation and interpretation services we provide to the Senate. This ongoing dialogue is invaluable in our efforts to meet the Senate’s needs, especially given the context we have been operating in for more than a year now.
In 2018, on the heels of the committee’s translation services review, we agreed to enhance collaboration between the bureau and the Senate through monthly meetings with the Senate Administration, among other things, as Ms. Belzile mentioned.
Although we could not have known it at the time, this gave us the means to effectively deal with the curve balls that the pandemic was going to throw at us. This is why, at the start of the pandemic, we were able to get organized very quickly to anticipate needs and assign resources based on priorities. We even expanded our meetings to include the House and the Library of Parliament in order to co-ordinate language services for Parliament as a whole.
[English]
This collaborative effort is essential in managing the translation and interpretation workload in official languages, foreign and Indigenous languages as well as sign languages.
I would like to take a few moments to address the current situation of interpreters. The Translation Bureau is committed to protecting the interpreters’ health and safety while providing you, honourable senators, with the interpretation services that you require.
As we discussed last year, the pandemic has completely redefined interpreters’ working conditions. Video conference interpretation is now the norm, not the exception. This has caused significant problems for interpreters, as sound quality varies based on factors that we cannot control, such as participants’ internet connection and the quality of their microphone.
The risks for interpreters are very real. The health and safety of our interpreters, whether they are employees or freelancers, is a priority for us. Since the pandemic began, we have been working closely with our clients and the interpreter community to adapt to this new reality and mitigate the risks. We have reduced the length of assignments without reducing interpreters’ pay and we have increased team sites so interpreters can take breaks more often. These health and safety measures are included in the new contract with our freelance interpreters that will come into effect on July 1.
Of course, these measures increase the number of interpreters required for each event. Given the shortage of interpreters in Canada as well as globally, this makes it more complicated to manage demand. This is why our meetings with you and with the Senate Administration are so important. They give us the ability to anticipate needs and set priorities. We are aware of the difficulties that this may cause you as you try to do your work in accordance with the official language requirements. Please rest assured that we are making every effort to improve our ability to provide you with the quality language services that you need.
[Translation]
Among other things, we are vigorously pursuing our research projects with top hearing specialists, in Canada and abroad, to gather evidence, design a device that will provide interpreters with optimum sound quality, and institute a hearing protection program.
Furthermore, we are actively hiring both interpreters and translators, and are looking to expand our pool of freelancers. We are also working with educational institutions to ensure we have a strong workforce in the future.
Honourable committee members, I would like to thank you and all of your fellow senators for your co-operation as we work hard to remain the centre of excellence you can rely on for all your language service needs.
I would like to thank our interpreters in the booth today: Alena, Damien and Kristina, and I would also like to extend a big thank-you to Ms. Belzile and the staff at the Senate for their constant support and active involvement in the search for solutions to make the work of our translators and interpreters easier.
Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you to both of you.
Senator Tannas: My question is for Ms. Séguin. First of all, congratulations on the work that you and your people have been able to do over this. Like so many aspects of our Parliament, you’ve gone above and beyond.
We’ve had our times when your capacity under these circumstances has been exceeded, and that’s just understandable. My question now is when we go back to normal, are you confident that you can deliver services to everyone on an as-needed basis or are you starting to look at some chronic issues that may or may not be solved by the time we come back in September?
Ms. Séguin: Thank you for the question. I appreciated the kind words in the introduction. Those will be passed along to the teams that have been working hard, not only interpreters and translators, but also support staff in the Senate.
The back to normal is an interesting question, Senator Tannas, because that’s something we are looking to be hopeful about, but we don’t anticipate a back-to-normal status to be any time in the short term.
What we’ve seen is Parliament has moved to a virtual setting, so we’re looking at back to normal looking more like a hybrid setting where witnesses and honourable senators will probably continue to participate in these kinds of meetings from a distance; at least a certain number of participants will be participating from a distance.
As I’ve mentioned, we had to modify our working conditions so we have reduced the length and increased the size of teams to allow more frequent breaks. We are confident we will have the capacity because we rely not only on staff interpreters — the Translation Bureau is not the sole employer of translators and interpreters in the federal government — but we employ the largest number of translators and interpreters in Canada. We rank very highly in the world, but we also rely on a very active freelance community. Again, over the past year, we have been providing interpretation services relying on our freelancers at a ratio of 40% to 60% for staff.
You mentioned something about other parts of the puzzle that may be worth raising. We recently consulted — and we are always in consultation with — the 10 Canadian universities that train the translators and interpreters of the future. They have noted that the registration rates have gone down significantly for those two programs, translation and interpretation. That is one factor. We have active agreements with the two universities in Canada that produce interpreters, York University, Glendon College, as well as the University of Ottawa. We participate in capacity building by sending our seasoned interpreters to teach in the masters of interpretation program, and we are poised to recruit successful candidates — graduates from the University of Ottawa and Glendon College — assuming they meet our accreditation exam. We are looking to recruit between 5 and 10 new interpreters next year.
It is important for me to say that there are still challenges. The number of events have increased. I will note that we are privileged to be able to serve you as senators. We also provide interpretation services to the House of Commons and to the press gallery for daily press conferences by the Prime Minister, party leaders, as well as Public Health Agency of Canada, PCO cabinet meetings, and we provide services to the Supreme Court of Canada. With this limited number of interpreters, we work very closely with our partners, like the Senate and House administrations, to make sure we are meeting the needs of all these important clients.
[Translation]
Senator Forest-Niesing: My question is for Ms. Séguin. It is impressive how much service you provide to all of those you have named. As a senator, and I speak for most of my colleagues, we were all saddened to learn that some of our habits may have caused injury to interpreters.
I salute the interpreters who are with us in the booth.
I’m wondering if you could give us a list of good habits or behaviours to avoid that you could perhaps share with us. Again, I’m sure I speak for most of my colleagues. If we could better understand what behaviours cause injuries, we would be very open and certainly willing to work together to ensure the health and safety of interpreters.
It is simply out of ignorance that we adopt very bad habits without knowing it. For example, we know we need to wear headphones, but is there a volume level on our computer that we should avoid, habits such as coughing or clearing our throat that we should avoid? So, I would like you to share best practices with us so that we can be aware and work together.
Ms. Séguin: Thank you very much for your humanity, Senator Forest-Niesing, and all the honourable senators. You have been very accommodating and forgiving to the interpreters, who have been working for the bureau since the beginning of the pandemic.
I participated today in your sound test as a witness. We can see the rigour with which you proceed. You take the health and safety of the interpreters to heart. We feel it, and we know it, and we appreciate it very much.
Thank you for all you’ve done to change and adapt your behaviours.
We rely on you to help us provide a safe environment for interpreters, to ensure good sound quality and to minimize interruptions so that you can do your important work in the Senate. We look forward to sharing best practices with you.
I see people around the virtual room today, and everyone is wearing a headset with a built-in microphone. People are waiting their turn to speak. You care about the sound quality. You don’t switch languages frequently. Clarity of speech, wired internet connection and quality of connection are very important. We will be happy to prepare a more complete list to share with the Senate Administration and all of you.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Thank you. That will be greatly appreciated.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you both for being here. I would very much appreciate if, when you go back, you would thank all of the interpreters on our behalf for the tremendous job they are doing.
I want to share something as the chair of the Legal Committee. We get all kinds of witnesses, and the interpreters go out of their way to really help people who are having language issues and to make sure that they are heard. I am so impressed. They go over what they should be doing to help so that we can hear witnesses who have language issues. I don’t mean French or English language issues, but speaking issues or disabled people. You do an amazing job. I’ve seen it first-hand, and I want to thank you.
One of the challenges I face on a regular basis is that witnesses, as we had to learn, are not so open to having mics and ask why they need a mic, et cetera. I was wondering, if we could, with the help of the clerks and everyone, create a template so that every time a witness is informed that they will be a witness, a letter goes out that they need this kind of mic, and so forth. At legal, we often send a mic to the witness because we know they cannot afford it. Obviously we don’t want to put that on the template, but we need something so that interpreters like you and the clerks are giving the same message. I’m not trying to make more work, but it would make it much easier for the clerks and the chairs. I have had a number of times when I have had to say to a witness that we cannot hear them and we will not be able to hear from them. It is the hardest thing to do. If we can develop something together, it would be helpful. Once again, thank you for all the work that you have done, especially during COVID.
Ms. Belzile: Thank you, Senator Jaffer, for those comments. I wanted to mention to the honourable senators that we do, in fact, have a list that is shared systematically with all the witnesses. We came up with that list in collaboration with the Translation Bureau and with our IT personnel as well. This is the same list that is also used in the House of Commons. We share it with all the witnesses as soon as they are booked for a meeting, and we have a video and an infographic on our committee website for the witnesses that is also linked in the invitation.
I take note of your recommendation. I think this is something that maybe we can re-emphasize, but yes, we do share that list systematically, and we have been negotiating with the Translation Bureau for that. Thank you.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much for what you have done and what you do. It’s so important for our country.
I would like to ask you one quick question on the recruitment and the difficulty in recruiting translators. It’s an art. There is a strong sense of professionalism when it is done well. Is there any reason in this country why more people aren’t entering this profession?
Ms. Séguin: Thank you very much for the question. I will pass it to Nathalie Laliberté to talk to you about some of the recruitment activities we are doing.
The future of these professions, translation and interpretation, are being impacted by the introduction of new technologies, like artificial intelligence. There may be a perception that these new technologies, the Google Translates, et cetera, will replace humans. That is one of our big struggles. I see you saying “no,” and I absolutely agree. We believe and we are considered a world leader in delivering quality linguistic services, but humans are still an absolute requirement — humans with the training in translation and interpretation are required to review the output of a machine before it is sent or sent back to our clients.
We are introducing a lot of new technologies, but I want to reassure the honourable senators that we have a rigorous quality-assurance framework, and there are always going to be humans reviewing the quality of the translations before they are passed along.
At this point, I will ask Nathalie to talk about our recruitment efforts for translators and interpreters.
Nathalie Laliberté, Vice President, Service to Parliament and Interpretation Sector, Translation Bureau: The universities are not doing a lot of work to recruit potential interpreters and translators. We do a lot of outreach at job fairs. For example, last year, we met with the pages serving Parliament and tried to convince them to join our force and register into the program at university. We do a lot of that.
As Lucy mentioned, we teach the master’s program at the University of Ottawa. We teach at the Glendon Campus of York University, and we teach sign language interpretation with the University of Montreal.
The Translation Bureau is really leading, to a certain extent, la relève for future interpreters in Canada, and we’re doing a lot of work to try to get the best and brightest into the profession.
Senator Campbell: Thank you to the witnesses. I echo Senator Munson’s concerns, and I also agree with Senator Munson that machines can never take the place of a human in this type of exchange.
How much recruiting is done outside of Ontario and Quebec, British Columbia and the Prairies? How much recruiting is done outside? There is a lot of opportunity, and I’m wondering if we’re taking advantage of it.
Ms. Séguin: Thank you. I can take that very good and pertinent question.
We recruit from all parts of Canada, Senator Campbell. We have employees of the Translation Bureau from coast to coast to coast. Even before the pandemic situation, we had more than 30% of our employees working remotely. Translation is a profession that lends itself very well to a remote setting, assuming we’re not translating secret documents, which still need to be treated on site.
We have active collaborative agreements with all Canadian universities that have translation and interpretation programs. We welcome approximately 100 students through FSWEP and co-op programs to train the next generation of translators and interpreters. The students come from all parts of Canada, and they can come for their summer or fall semester. Everything can be done virtually. So we are taking advantage of all of the recruits.
We are also supporting the Canadian language industry, because many of the students who come to the Translation Bureau for their training are then hired by language-service providers — private-sector organizations — in Canada. We collaborate with the industry associations of Canada on cooperative opportunities as well as with the professional associations across all provinces, including B.C., Manitoba and New Brunswick, not only Quebec and Ontario.
For interpretation, though, the recruits come from two universities, which are the only two that offer the master’s program, which are York University — Glendon Campus and OttawaU, but their students come from across the country. One of our challenges is that our best and brightest often get recruited by global institutions, like NATO, the European Parliament, OECD, FMI, et cetera. Usually, la crème de la crème who pass our accreditations are also highly solicited internationally.
Senator Campbell: Are we competitive from the point of view of benefits compared to those?
Ms. Séguin: We are. We very offer competitive salaries as well as appealing benefits packages for employees who work at the Translation Bureau, with special parliamentary benefits — allowances — to compensate for the high stress and pressure-cooker environment that our employees operate in on a daily basis. I’d say June is particularly busy. We’re here to “protect and serve,” so we follow your agenda.
But we are recruiting, and we have open job advertisements. We use jobs.gc.ca, so everything is posted online, and we use LinkedIn and other social media to reach out.
Senator Campbell: I’ve been here over 16 years, and I can’t tell you how impressed I am with the quality of service that we get, day in and day out. I’m glad to hear that everyone understands it is a pressure cooker, and it isn’t just somebody sitting behind a screen. It’s intense and it’s ongoing.
I’m sure I speak for everyone that if there is anything the Senate can do — I don’t know that any of us look like poster boys or poster girls — but maybe one or two can help out here. Because without you, we’re toast; we’re absolutely toast. Thank you.
The Chair: I see no other hands up. In closing, I would like to thank you all, Ms. Belzile, Ms. Laliberté, Ms. Séguin and all the translation staff. Please convey to them that we’d like to thank them for managing the difficult circumstances caused by the pandemic. We are very well served by you.
We will move to Item 6, which is about the departure of our dear colleague Senator Munson, who will be retiring on July 14 and needs to be replaced as deputy chair.
Senator Munson: I won’t talk too fast for the interpreters.
I never thought this day would come, but, honourable senators, with my retirement fast approaching, I wish to inform the committee that, pursuant to rule 12-5, my leadership will be appointing Senator Patricia Bovey as my replacement on CIBA.
Colleagues, with your permission, I would like to move the following motion:
That upon my retirement, the Honourable Dennis Dawson be appointed deputy chair of the committee, effective July 14, 2021.
Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, are we okay with that motion? I see no objection. I declare the motion carried.
Senator Munson, I will have a few words to say regarding your departure, but there could be at least three or four more CIBA meetings before we rise, so you won’t get off lightly.
Senator Munson: CIBA is fine. It’s steering, sadly. I’m sure there will be one on July 13. I’m sure of that.
The Chair: Colleagues, we will move to Item 7. I have the honour to table the tenth report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, concerning a decision taken by steering on behalf of CIBA since our last meeting. This report is placed before you for your information. Are there any questions or comments, colleagues? If not, we can now go to other matters.
I want to bring up one issue, colleagues, under other matters. As you are aware, we are in a very busy time of the year and, unfortunately, we are limited in the number of meetings our services can support per week. As it stands, as you know, our services can support up to a maximum of 14 Senate events per sitting week. This includes chamber sittings, committees, subcommittees, advisory working groups, caucus meetings, and other senators’ meetings. So there’s a lot.
Over the last few weeks, some subcommittees and advisory groups have been unable to meet because of the large number of meeting requests. Moving forward, hopefully this pressure should reduce. But should there be a conflict within the CIBA subcommittees wishing to meet, we will be asking the clerks of the subcommittees to provide the related meeting agenda so that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which is steering, can prioritize the most urgent files.
As you know, some committees are very urgent, mainly LTVP. Some decisions have to be taken very quickly and we want to make sure we are able to prioritize. We need some mechanism to give priority to LTVP to meet in case the need arises. I doubt there will be a conflict with other subcommittees, but I want to make sure we have a procedure to deal with it, should that occur. Are we comfortable delegating this to steering, colleagues? I see no objections, so we will follow that procedure.
Colleagues, we are at the end of other matters, so we’ll now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)