OTTAWA-
Parliamentary interpreters say the quality of translation and the health of bilingual debates in the House of Commons could suffer if the Translation Bureau of Canada follows through on its intention to use unaccredited interpreters.
The federal agency plans to bring in freelance interpreters, not accredited by the Translation Bureau, until the end of the fall semester as part of a pilot project to help meet the demand for translators, in a context of apparent scarcity.
A new survey of 92 interpreters qualified to work for the federal government’s Translation Bureau shows that nearly three-quarters of them were not asked to take on this job.
Hill interpreters are responsible for translating live parliamentary business, including debates in the House of Commons and committee meetings, as well as translating all documents, including bills, statutes, correspondence and reports.
And the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) says a House of Commons plan to recruit freelance interpreters without Translation Bureau accreditation to meet needs will reduce the quality of service, jeopardizing the level of bilingual debate.
“The House of Commons is creating a ‘B’ team of interpreters who have not proven to meet the quality standards required so far in Parliament,” the spokeswoman said. CNA-Canada, Nicole Gagnon, in a press release from the organization on Wednesday.
Gagnon called the House administration’s decision “misguided” and said there were several “inefficiencies” that need to be addressed.
She added that no credible institution, including the United Nations and the European Parliament, would use freelance interpreters who have not passed an exam, as the Canadian government’s pilot project would allow.
The CNA survey shows that despite an apparent challenge by the Translation Bureau to meet interpretation needs, very few accredited interpreters have been offered parliamentary assignments in the past six months.
“There are many accredited freelancers who are ready, willing and better able to serve in Parliament,” Gagnon said. “The House of Commons unnecessarily jeopardizes the quality of the bilingual discourse of its proceedings by calling on suppliers who are not qualified according to the standards of the Translation Bureau.
The Translation Bureau was not immediately available for comment.
Meanwhile, the House voted in June to maintain its hybrid model — which allows MPs to participate in House debates and committee meetings virtually, and vote from anywhere in Canada — but parliamentary interpreters say that the system is causing them problems.
Many have expressed concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic that sound quality while working on a hybrid model has impacted their work and caused workplace injuries.
The AIIC survey shows that more than two-thirds of respondents rated the working conditions at the Virtual Parliament as average or below average, particularly in terms of the quality of their service.
And while half of the interpreters surveyed who have worked in Parliament in the past say they are unlikely to accept a job that does not require them to work in person on the Hill, three-quarters of them say concerned about the sound quality on Hill Hill. More than half of respondents say they have reduced the number of postings they accept on the Hill for this reason.