(Ottawa) Despite the introduction of new protocols, interpreters in Parliament again suffered acoustic shocks. According to the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), the solutions introduced by the House of Commons and the Translation Office are not producing the expected results.
Published at 4:17 am. Updated at 8:00 a.m.
One of these performers is Élisabeth Seymour, who suffered a first acoustic shock in autumn 2022, the AIIC confirmed. It was so severe that she had to be taken to the hospital. Then she developed severe tinnitus. Ms. Seymour chose not to grant an interview this time.
“They have carried out controls, they have adopted accident prevention protocols, but if all this is true, how come we continue to be injured? asks AIIC spokeswoman Nicole Gagnon.
Five incidents have been caused by auditory feedback since the end of October, three of which occurred in House of Commons committees and a press conference last week.
The most recent incidents on December 4th and 6th were caused by an earpiece being placed too close to an open microphone, a misconfiguration of the system and a phone that vibrated at the exact moment someone opened their microphone.
The other two incidents occurred on October 30 in a Senate committee and on November 2 on the Senate floor. According to CNA, a total of 13 interpreters were affected. The Ministry of Public Services and Procurement, which includes the translation agency, said four interpreters decided to take the day off after two of the five incidents.
Feedback to municipalities
Interpreters “unfortunately were subjected to what was assessed as a moderate to strong feedback effect during a committee meeting in the Senate last night,” confirmed the new director of parliamentary affairs and interpreter welfare, Martin Montreuil, in an internal email dated October 31 that La Presse obtained .
“This is explained by an unfortunate accident in which a paper file belonging to a person who was in the room and in the Zoom application to manage the meeting came into contact with the keyboard of their computer and reactivated the computer's microphone, which a disruption led to the return of sound,” he continues.
The intervention protocol, in force since the summer, “was activated immediately,” the ministry said in response to questions from La Presse. “No medical attention was required and the interpreters were removed from the work environment for 24 hours in accordance with the recommendations of the hearing specialists contained in the protocol,” said ministry spokesman Alexandre Baillairgé-Charbonneau. The meeting was canceled.
The Nov. 2 acoustic incident in the Senate chamber occurred “while technicians were making connections before the meeting,” but the ministry claims there was “no impact on the interpreters.”
“Although it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of an acoustic problem, in both incidents the appropriate protocols were followed and necessary adjustments were also made to minimize the risk of this type of error reproduced by humans,” explains the communications consultant of the House of Lords, Alison Korn.
“It is always sad to lose interpreters because we are in the same group with the Senate. So if we accidentally lose them, it will serve MPs less in their work,” said Bloc Québécois leader Claude DeBellefeuille, who is monolingual and monolingual, so it requires interpretation.
“Members of parliament must always remember that an interpreter is on duty when carrying out their work,” she adds.
The translation agency defends itself
The translation agency's president and CEO, Dominic Laporte, confirmed during a November 9 meeting of the House of Commons' Board of Internal Economy that “many actions have been taken in the last six months.”
“We are still seeing a significant decrease in incidents reported to us,” he said, but acknowledged there was not zero risk.
He noted that the guidelines issued under the Canada Labor Code were repealed in August after the House of Commons Translation Office and Administration complied with them. Interpretation is only available to virtual participants with an ISO-compliant microphone. Random tests were also carried out in April and May 2023, but they did not show “the risk of damage to the hearing of the interpreters nor a noticeable difference between the sound of the participants on site and that of the virtual participants,” according to the translation office .
The Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE) is not convinced. “Despite nearly four years of fighting for improvements, health and safety incidents continue to occur,” lamented outgoing President Scott Crawford. Although progress has been made, CAPE is not satisfied with the current situation. »
“It must be said that every time an incident like this occurs, it shakes the confidence of interpreters that they can go to work in complete safety without fear for their hearing,” adds Ms. Gagnon from the AIIC added. And the only option interpreters have is to reduce their offer to Parliament, reduce the number of days offered or simply refuse to work on the Hill. I haven't been there for two years. »
The AIIC points out that the translation agency does not count incidents involving freelance interpreters as opposed to permanent interpreters, even though freelancers make up 60% of the total number of interpreters. The Bureau responds that it can report incidents voluntarily.
Tensions do not make the work of interpreters any easier
“Mr President, I tell you, we have reached the limit. When the performers tell you three times that it's too loud to interpret and they're hurting themselves, it's time to stop. This is our last day, be adults,” Bloc Québécois leader Claude DeBellefeuille said impatiently during question period on Thursday, the day before the holiday break. A few minutes earlier, Liberals and Conservatives on both sides of the House of Commons shouted insults at each other. The MP notes that the heated debates sometimes make interpretation impossible. This happened last week in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources after the Conservatives tabled nearly 20,000 amendments. The meeting quickly became cacophonous and several elected officials raised their voices. “If all microphones are open at the same time, it is more dangerous for the interpreters,” notes Nicole Gagnon of the AIIC. Claude DeBellefeuille called on the other parties to discipline their troops. “If we are tense, if we argue in committee and if we talk from one end of the table to the other, who pays the price? It’s the interpreters and the French speakers, because we don’t have access to interpreters,” she laments.
Learn more
57 Number of permanent interpreters in Parliament
Source: Ministry of Public Services and Procurement
84 Number of freelance interpreters in Parliament
Source: Ministry of Public Services and Procurement