Responses reveal a strong negative reaction to two of the proposed changes, suggesting that most of the highly specialized workforce might be ready to refuse work. One change garnering rejection by 79% of respondents was replacing the industry-standard daily rate with an hourly rate that compensates them only for active speaking time.
At issue is “a new rule that would pause the remunerated working clock for interpreters every time a parliamentary proceeding pauses,” which was first brought up after the Translation Bureau announced changes to the procurement agreement with interpreters that expired in June 2024.
In the latest survey, widespread opposition stems from the fact that, unlike the hourly pay, the daily pay rate accounts for critical, non-speaking activities, including extensive preparation for complex legislative topics and the mandatory standby time — up to 13.5 hours per day on Parliament Hill.
“Significantly fewer accredited freelancers will work in Parliament, making worse the shortage that already restricts the functioning of our democratic institutions.” — Nicole Gagnon, Interpreter
Lowest Bid
Coupled with the shift to hourly pay is a plan to transition from a five-factor interpreter qualification system to one based solely on the lowest price offered. Half of all survey respondents reported they would be unlikely to bid for assignments under this model as well.
However, Slator reached out to the Translation Bureau for comment on the survey results and received a response from Michèle LaRose at the PSPC Media Relations office. She explained that “Price will be only one of the criteria used to make offers of work, along with language profile, security clearance, and region (except for remote suppliers).”
Regarding the hourly pay, LaRose said that “it would be simpler to manage administratively, especially for hours worked in excess of the daily minimum” and that “the purpose of the current process is to replace the current contracts, which expire at the end of December 2025.”
Interpreters surveyed warn that reducing the engagement process to only price threatens to degrade service quality by pushing the most experienced professionals toward other markets. Some also argue that this could potentially encourage remaining interpreters to cut corners on essential preparation.
AIIC’s central conclusion is that, if PSPC finalizes these rules, a significant and critical mass of highly skilled freelancers will opt out of work for the government. Such a move would directly impact the operational capacity of Canada’s institutions.
“If these proposals are baked into the final rules, the federal government should expect that significantly fewer accredited freelancers will work in Parliament, making worse the shortage that already restricts the functioning of our democratic institutions,” warned interpreter Nicole Gagnon, speaking on behalf of AIIC-Canada.
2025 Slator Pro Guide: Translation AI
The 2025 Slator Pro Guide Translation AI presents 15 impactful ways that AI can be used to enhance translation workflows.
Revisiting Health Risks
A third deterrent is not a procurement change, but an outstanding concern about work conditions for interpreters dealing with hearing health and safety protections. This topic was addressed in previous AIIC surveys and revisited this time.
For years, interpreters working at the Hill have claimed that existing measures are not enough to protect their hearing health. These concerns have been the theme of numerous protests regarding exposure to “potentially harmful remote audio.”
Two-thirds of respondents said in the latest AIIC survey that they would be unlikely to bid for parliamentary work due to this hearing safety deficiency.
On the subject of hearing health, LaRose stated that “incidents have decreased by 60% since 2020, and the Bureau will continue to require meeting organizers to adhere to the most stringent health and safety requirements for all interpreters.”
