Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Official Languages

During question period on official languages, Bloc Québécois members raised the government’s plan to reduce Translation Bureau staff by 25%, arguing that skilled House interpreters are essential because most members choose to speak English and interpretation is what allows French to be used in Parliament. They said the cuts would harm the rights of francophones to save money, noting the government found billions for a pipeline, and asked that the decision be reversed. Liberal minister Joël Lightbound replied that demand has decreased, that reductions would happen gradually through attrition, that standards would not be lowered, and that the government is investing in training programs to prepare new interpreters. He also said the Bloc was conflating interpreters, who serve the House and committees, with the Translation Bureau, which translates documents.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

7 statements

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“The government plans to cut a quarter of the Translation Bureau's staff. Without these skilled interpreters, Parliament would only work in English. Cheap contractors and AI cannot do this work. I want the government to cancel these cuts so francophones get the best interpretation.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, without the House of Commons interpreters, there would be no bilingual Parliament. It would be in English only. That is why the government’s plan to cut the Translation Bureau’s staff by 25% constitutes a serious lapse in judgment. These employees have exceptional expertise that low-cost contractors and ChatGPT simply do not have. Francophones deserve the highest quality interpretation services. Good enough just does not cut it. Will the government show some respect for francophones and cancel these cuts?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Joël Lightbound

Liberal
“The Translation Bureau is keeping up with Parliament's needs. Demand has dropped, so some jobs will be cut over time as people leave. We will still make sure our official languages meet the highest standards here.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 41 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and for his commitment to official languages. I share that commitment, as does everyone on this side of the House. This also gives me an opportunity to thank the interpreters, who do an outstanding job every day to ensure that we can continue our work. With regard to the Translation Bureau, we are meeting the demand from Parliament. There has been a drop in demand. Some jobs will indeed be eliminated through attrition over the coming years. We will always ensure that the highest standards for official languages are upheld in Parliament.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C+ View analysis

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois
“We need skilled interpreters so French-speaking members can do our jobs, since 90 percent of translation here is from English to French. I want the government to reverse cuts to these services and protect their quality.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as Gilles Duceppe always says, there are two languages in the House of Commons: English and simultaneous interpretation. He is not wrong: Ninety per cent of translation is from English to French because everyone chooses English, even a good number of Quebec Liberals. Without our exceptionally talented interpreters, our privileges as members of Parliament would be violated. Let us be clear: French is not an irritant to be entrusted to the lowest bidder with lesser accreditation standards. Will the government maintain the full scope and quality of our interpretation services and reverse the cuts?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Joël Lightbound

Liberal
“We are keeping high standards for our translators and interpreters. We are not lowering our rules to let new interpreters in. Instead, we are spending money on training programs to prepare new interpreters so our work can continue in English and French.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, again I thank my colleague for the question. I want to assure him that we will always endeavour to maintain the highest standards of quality in interpretation and translation at Parliament. As for the interpreters, I want to assure my colleague that there is no lowering of standards in terms of accreditation. In fact, we want to ensure that we have the next generation of interpreters. That is why we are investing in programs to train new interpreters coming to lend us a hand so that our work may continue in both official languages at the highest quality.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois
“The government is cutting the number of House interpreters by 25 percent to save money. This hurts the rights of French speakers. The government spent 40 billion dollars on a pipeline, so it should not say it lacks money for French.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is disheartening that French is still treated as an inconvenience in Ottawa. Cutting the number of interpreters in the House by 25% shows disregard for the rights of francophones, all in the name of saving a few bucks. The same Liberals who have $40 billion to invest in a pipeline should not expect us to believe—

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois
“The government is cutting the number of House interpreters by 25 percent to save money. This ignores the rights of French speakers. The government found 40 billion dollars for a pipeline, so it can afford interpreters. I want the minister to reverse this decision.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is disheartening that French is still treated as an inconvenience in Ottawa. Cutting the number of interpreters in the House by 25% shows disregard for the rights of francophones, all in the name of saving a few bucks. The same Liberals who have $40 billion to invest in a pipeline should not expect us to believe that they cannot afford to pay translators. Francophones are not second-class citizens. It is disappointing to see a minister from Quebec leading the charge on this. Will he reconsider and stand up for our interpreters and our rights?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Joël Lightbound

Liberal
“The Bloc Québécois is confusing interpreters with the Translation Bureau. Interpreters speak for the House and committees, while the Translation Bureau translates documents. Any future cuts to the Translation Bureau will match our work needs and happen only as people leave their jobs.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, first of all, we need to clarify one thing. There are interpreters, and there is the Translation Bureau. They do not perform the same function. I just want to be clear. The Translation Bureau is responsible for translating documents, while interpreters provide services to the House and its committees. I want this distinction to be clear. It seems to me that the Bloc Québécois is not clear on that. I just wanted to clarify that. As for the Translation Bureau, we respond to departments’ needs by translating the documents they provide and by ensuring the timely delivery of high-quality work. Any reduction in staffing over the coming years will be based on operational requirements and will occur through natural attrition.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 154

All 41 items ·
  1. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  2. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Official Languages 7 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  8. Oral Questions Automotive Industry 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Small Business 8 statements
  10. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 4 statements
  16. Private Members' Business Weights and Measures Act 32 statements
  17. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  20. Oral Questions Health 7 statements
  21. Government Orders Canadian Space Launch Act 32 statements
  22. Private Members' Business National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements