Reporting Parliamentary Proceedings in Multiple Languages: British Columbia’s Approach

Despite the linguistic diversity of the province, in the words of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, “English is the de facto official language in British Columbia, and as such, proceedings of the Legislative Assembly primarily unfold in English.” While English may be the most common language spoken during proceedings, increasingly Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and guests of the Legislative Assembly are speaking phrases or delivering entire speeches in other languages. In this article, the authors trace how B.C.’s Hansard has adapted to the growing use of multiple languages in the House, including how Hansard works to ensure it sources English translations of this material, reproduces text by identifying fonts that can correctly render languages with multiple orthographies, and understands the unique challenges of performing these functions with Indigenous languages which have few native speakers and evolving spellings. Despite these challenges, the authors note this work ensures the official record never erases or homogenises the richness of the province’s linguistic diversity. Capturing every language spoken on the Chamber floor safeguards the nuance and intent of each statement, restores voices historically absent from the written record, and affirms the Legislative Assembly’s commitment to reconciliation by recognising language itself as a marker of identity and culture.

Marionne Cronin, Hengshen Liu, and Katherine Stewart

Marionne Cronin is the Manager, Reporting Services, with Hansard Services, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Hengshen Liu and Katherine Stewart are Researchers with Hansard Services, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Introduction

Words carry stories. 1 Not so long ago, however, words such as SĆÁÁNEW̱ (salmon; SENĆOŦEN) or hay’sxw’qa (thank you; lək̓ʷəŋən) were unlikely to appear in the official transcripts of legislative proceedings in British Columbia. Nor were readers likely to see phrases such as “家有一老，如有一寶” (having an elder living with you is like having a treasure; Chinese) or “har ruzetan Nowruz, Nowruzetan piruz” (may every day be a new day for you and may every day be prosperous; Persian). When languages and words are not recorded in the official record, the stories and the histories they carry can be forgotten and the people who speak them can be rendered invisible. This invisibility often reflects people’s disenfranchisement or lack of representation in the House. However, when words like these are spoken in the Legislative Assembly and recorded in Hansard, those stories, histories, and people are surfaced and, hopefully, remembered.

In British Columbia, our aims in recording these words in the transcript are straightforward yet far‑reaching: to provide rigorously accurate reporting of the Legislature’s proceedings, to mirror the full linguistic realities of British Columbia—including its many Indigenous languages, the province’s broad ethnic diversity, and the varied linguistic backgrounds of MLAs—and to ensure the official record never erases or homogenises this richness. Capturing every language spoken in the Assembly safeguards the nuance and intent of each statement, restores voices historically absent from the written record, and affirms our commitment to reconciliation by recognising language itself as a marker of identity and culture.

Hansard editors who strive to report and record non-official languages regularly navigate the tensions between this desire to provide an inclusive, accessible transcript that reflects the linguistic diversity of a given jurisdiction and the constraints of operating in a context where they do not have access to expertise and translation services for all of the languages spoken in a given House. Hansard Services in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is no exception. To thread this needle, the Hansard team uses an approach that layers research protocols, community engagement, and a commitment to continuous revision to produce an approach that may offer a useful model for jurisdictions facing similar challenges.

Linguistic context

Like many other Canadian provinces and territories, British Columbia has a rich linguistic landscape. This territory is home to 36 distinct Indigenous languages composed of 96 distinct dialects.2 Indeed, approximately 50 per cent of the Indigenous languages spoken in Canada are spoken in British Columbia, and with the strong language revitalization work being done in First Nations across the province, there are increasing numbers of Indigenous-language speakers and learners in British Columbia.3

Overall, more than 1.5 million people in the province have a first language other than French or English; that is 31 per cent of the population. Of these, some of the largest language groups include Punjabi, Tagalog, Mandarin, Yue (Cantonese), Iranian Persian, and Spanish.4 Almost 20 per cent of the province’s overall population speak more than one language at home, with 23 per cent of the population living in multilingual households.5

Despite the linguistic diversity of the province, in the words of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, “English is the de facto official language in British Columbia, and as such, proceedings of the Legislative Assembly primarily unfold in English.”6 As an operationally unilingual legislature, the Assembly does not offer in-house interpretation or translations of its proceedings, with the exception of simultaneous American Sign Language interpretation provided as part of the broadcasts of routine business.

Changing speech patterns

Full Hansard reporting began in British Columbia’s Legislature in 1972, and in the early years, the transcript was primarily an English document. The lone exceptions are remarks spoken in French, which do appear in transcripts from the 1980s, where they are reported as spoken and with no translation provided. For example, John Parks, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlum, a historically francophone area of the province, delivered a portion of his inaugural speech in French.7

Over time, as MLAs have sought to reflect both their own linguistic backgrounds and the linguistic diversity of the province, phrases in multiple languages are increasingly being spoken in the House. For example, in 1996, Jenny Wai Ching Kwan, one of the first two Chinese-Canadians elected to the B.C. Legislature, delivered a portion of her first speech in the House in her first language, Cantonese. As she remarked at the time, speaking her first language in the House — the first time Cantonese had been spoken in the Assembly — was an important way for her to mark this historical moment and, for her, was a means to clearly demonstrate “that we all have a role to play in our democratic society.”8 Similarly, Mable Elmore, the first Filipino-Canadian elected to the Assembly, delivered a portion of her first speech in the Filipino language. In her comments she too noted the significance of her election for Filipinos in British Columbia and used it as a moment to recognize the resolve and persistence of Filipino-Canadians in working “to have the Filipino voice heard across this great parliament.”9 The speeches of both MLAs reflect the importance that members of various linguistic communities attach to having their languages spoken in the House and reflected in the official record. This has been borne out over time as multiple MLAs delivered remarks in a variety of other languages — including French, Japanese, Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, Farsi, Punjabi, Thai, Italian, Spanish, Mandarin, Korean, and Dutch — in an effort to recognise and render present these various communities.

At the same time, there has been a noticeably increasing representation of Indigenous languages in the Assembly. Significant political events, such as the negotiation of the Nisg̱ a’a Final Agreement Act in 1999, the passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (2019), and the introduction and passage of the Haida Nation Recognition Act (2023), involved the participation of leaders and Elders in the proceedings of the House.

For example, Chief Joseph Gosnell, of the Nisg̱a’a Nation, addressed the House on the occasion of second reading of the Nisg̱ a’a Final Agreement Act, opening and closing his remarks in the Nisg̱a’a language. As part of his speech he recalled how, in an effort to meet with the government to settle their title to their land, his ancestors had journeyed to the capital in 1887, only to be barred from the Legislature, and he noted how significant that history made his presence in the House that day.10 Similarly, Indigenous leaders and MLAs that addressed the House as part of the ceremony surrounding the introduction of Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, each made a point of speaking in their Nation’s language during their remarks, as did the Haida representatives who addressed the House in 2023.11 In parallel, Indigenous MLAs are increasingly using words and phrases from their Nations’ languages in their speeches. At the same time, as part of the institution’s efforts towards reconciliation, Indigenous Elders and representatives now regularly participate in Assembly proceedings. Recording their words in the official transcript offers one step in the process of reconciliation.

Hansard reporting practices

These important developments have led to the increased use of multiple languages in the proceedings of the Assembly and its committees. As the official report of these debates and proceedings, this raises important questions concerning how to reflect this linguistic diversity in the Hansard transcript.

Reflecting the changing practices of Members, over time the amount of material from multiple languages appearing in the Hansard transcript has clearly grown. Starting in the 36th parliament (1996- 2001), the Hansard transcript begins to report these interventions using bracketed editorial comments such as [Cantonese spoken] (used for MLA Kwan’s 1996 remarks). In the same period, you also begin to see the inclusion of short phrases in multiple languages, as in the following remarks from another of MLA Kwan’s speeches:

As the Chinese people called it, they had come to the “gold mountains.” As we call it, they had come to [gum san].12

Given Members’ increasing desire to deliver remarks in languages other than English, in April 1997 Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Dale Lovick issued guidance on the use of multiple languages in the Chamber. Acknowledging that simultaneous translation was not available, Speaker Lovick instructed members who wished to speak for extended periods in a language other than English to provide a copy of the remarks, and an English translation, to the Speaker at least an hour before the presentation. Those guidelines outline that the translation of the speech would be included in the Hansard transcript and accompanied by a notation indicating that the translation was provided by the member.

 Following on from Speaker Lovick’s guidance, the Hansard transcript began to include both the supplied text of original remarks and the translations. For example, on May 10, 2016, on the occasion of the unveiling of a memorial quilt to honour missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, Wanda Good, Deputy Chief Councillor of the Gitanyow First Nation, opened the sitting of the House. Hansard would report her prayer as follows:

[Simoogit Lax Hagii.

T’oyaxsii’yt ‘niin win da’akw dim saiy goodi’m am sa tun. K’weneyi’m eles ‘niin dim agutwhl simgiigyetim lax mo’onim Salish wen ‘nidiithl laxyip wen ‘nii litxwwi’m.

K’weneyii’m eles ‘niim dim hlabo’ilhl k’wega ‘nidiit ant k’woodinhl hlkuhl- wim haana’k diit. K’wenyi’m dim ‘wediit sgwaa’itxw gahl daxgyet win walaayi’m gasgoohl gak’westhl gag- oodiit.

K’weneyi’m ‘niin dimin amagya’adihl dim wila yeehl hahlei’ilst dim jephl k’welga ‘nihl luu wilt ts’im wilp ama sa tun dim amhl dim wila wilhl k’welga ‘no’m ‘nii jogit laxyip tun.

Amgutxwhl ‘nidiit gwin haaxwt diit. Dim amt jen ‘wehl ama genax dim am dim wila wil diit.

‘Nit dim gan wilp simoghet laxhagii.] [Chief in the sky.

We thank you for this wonderful oppor- tunity to gather together on this beautiful day. We ask blessing upon the Coast Sal- ish people upon whose traditional terri- tory we stand.

We ask that you hold the families of those who have lost their loved ones in your hands. We ask for healing and strength for them as we know their heartache.

We ask that you guide all of the work that is to be conducted in this House today for the benefit of all of those of us who live on this great land.

Please bless those who are in crisis today. May we all find the right path along this journey.

Thy will be done. Amen.]

[Gitsxenimix text and translation pro- vided by W. Good.]13

Over time, this practice evolved so that the original remarks would be included in the main text, just like any other material spoken in the House, and only the translation and editorial comment indicating the source of the text and translation appeared in square brackets.

Hansard Services’ contemporary reporting practices continue to be guided by the principles contained in Speaker Lovick’s 1997 instructions. In each instance, we strive to report the full text of the remarks using the correct orthography and spelling. We do so as part of our efforts to respect and acknowledge the value of those languages and the people that speak them, to ensure that members of those communities have full access to the content, and to ensure that the full meaning of the speakers’ words are captured in the historical record. In the context of Indigenous languages, these efforts take on added significance. For example, when an Elder speaks in the House, they often mention their lineage and the names of their ancestors, where they are from, what local place names mean and what activities took place there — details that are missing from much of the ‘official’ record. Incorporating these details into the transcript is an important part of rectifying the exclusions of the existing historical record and provides one means of sharing that knowledge and history with the people of British Columbia.

In instances where we are not able to source the full text of the remarks from the speaker, we have a range of bracketed editorial comments that we use in the text. In the absence of the full remarks, we aim to correctly identify the specific language spoken: [Icelandic was spoken.] Where that is not possible, we use a generic editorial comment: [A language other than English was spoken.] If we are confident that the language spoken is an Indigenous one, we may also use the comment [An Indigenous language was spoken.] These comments are used both for individual words and phrases and for longer passages. We recognize, however, that use of these editorial comments effectively flattens any of the meaning of the words spoken. As a result, we make  every effort possible to avoid their use by including the full original text.

Research required

Accurate reporting of the correct words and translations relies on detailed investigations carried out by researchers on the Hansard staff.

Our research process is both collaborative and methodical. With the goal of getting as close to the source as possible, our first step is always to contact the speaker (or their staff) to request a copy of the relevant text and the translation and, on insertion, to reproduce the text as they provide it — always honouring their preferred orthography and diacritics. While we rely heavily on MLAs and other speakers providing us with the authoritative text and translations for their remarks, we may not always receive a response to our inquiries. In those cases, we do our best to locate the material independently. In such cases, our aim is to get as close to the source as possible. In the case of Indigenous languages, for example, we will start with any publicly accessible materials provided by the individual Nation, such as their website. If that does not yield fruit, we rely on authoritative, community-created secondary resources such as the FirstVoices website, which provides a rich, community-curated platform to share language knowledge from First Nations with territories and languages spoken in British Columbia. At every stage we cross-check names, organisations, and specialised terminology, and we maintain an open channel for MLAs or members of the public to flag corrections, which are incorporated promptly to keep the record living and authoritative. Rather than resisting it, we recognize that this is an iterative process.

We also maintain and continually expand an extensive research database that contains the verified text and translations of a range of words and phrases, including frequently used greetings and ceremonial phrases. Particularly in the context of Indigenous languages, to ensure that dialect-specific variations in spelling and orthography are respected, this database also includes notes about which versions of the terms to use when spoken by different MLAs. For example, two versions of ‘thank you’ which sound very similar are HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM (SENĆOŦEN; spoken by former MLA Adam Olsen) and huy ch q’u siem (Hul’q’umi’num’; spoken by current MLA Amshen – Joan Philip). Whenever feasible, we secure a direct rendering from the MLA themselves in order to ensure we have the most accurate report possible, and we record this information in our database. Where we do not have such information, researchers analyse the speech’s cultural and historical context to determine the likely language spoken and recommend the correct term to use. Maintaining these detailed supporting notes enables Hansard editors to be alive to these important linguistic variations and to use the correct words in the transcript. In every case, staff are encouraged to consult with senior researchers and editors, who draw on decades of institutional knowledge to guide the selection of the most accurate terms.

Because of our commitment to accuracy, tracking down the correct text may take some time. In the interim, editors will use our generic editorial comments as placeholders in the text. Once verified content is available, these are replaced by the correct text and/or translation. British Columbia is notable in publishing a full same-day first draft of the transcript. This is followed later by a published revised draft that is in turn followed by the official final transcript. This extended publication timeline allows us to take additional time in identifying and researching the relevant material and may mean that a speech may appear as “[A language other than English was spoken]” in the first draft, “[SENĆOŦEN was spoken]” in the revised draft, and as “… SĆÁÁNEW̱ [salmon] …” in the final transcript. In special circumstances, if material was to arrive following the publication of the final text, we would also consider undertaking post-print corrections in order to ensure the fullest, most accurate reporting possible. Rather than treating these revisions as errors or as failings of our research and editorial process, we approach them as opportunities to improve the quality of our final product.

Challenges and opportunities

The desire to provide accurate, respectful renderings of material in multiple languages can present significant challenges. On a practical level, reporting languages that use multiple character sets presents daily technical hurdles. It was key, therefore, to identify fonts that can correctly render languages with orthographies as diverse as SENĆOŦEN, Chinese, Farsi, and nēhiyawēwin (which can be written using syllabics). After investigation by our Publications and Collections team, Times New Roman was identified as the font with the necessary range of characters. We use this font during the editorial phase of our transcript production process (in Microsoft Word) and for the published draft and final HTML versions of our transcript. For the official PDF version of the transcript, we use Minion Pro for the bulk of the text, but any non-Latin characters are formatted in Times New Roman.

Similarly, reporting languages that run right-to- left, such as Arabic, presents challenges when we seek to integrate them into the overall transcript. For example, in March 2018, MLA Bowin Ma delivered a Nowruz greeting in Persian and provided us with the Persian text for insertion in the transcript. The question then became how to integrate two short, right-to-left passages into the main left-to-right text. In the end, we settled on presenting the text on separate lines:

I’d like to wish them a happy Nowruz in advance, which is

کرابم شیپاشیپ ون لاس

and welcome to the Legislature, which is

دیدمآ شوخ سلجم هب

[Persian text provided by B. Ma.]14

While we maintained the left justification of the text, this layout enabled us to have the Persian text run from right-to-left without disrupting the flow of the main text.

The range of character sets also presents challenges for editors seeking to search our research resources to verify terms from these various languages. To meet this need, researchers prepare an anglophonetic rendering and a succinct phonetic guide that are included in our research database. These elements can provide the keywords that return results that link editors, who are usually searching using Latin characters, to the content in the original script.

Alongside these practical challenges, creating the official transcript of debates involves a significant amount of power, which is wrapped up in defining the archival record of the words spoken in the Assembly. In our desire to rectify the omissions of the past, we must therefore be wary of taking on the authority to determine how a given passage should be represented in that record. Distinctions that matter deeply to communities — Cantonese versus Mandarin, Punjabi versus Hindi, or among the many Semitic languages of the Middle East — demand acute phonetic precision and cultural sensitivity. Impromptu remarks, particularly when delivered by non-native speakers, may contain mispronunciations or incomplete phrases, especially when audio quality is variable. At the same time, such distinctions require detailed contextual knowledge on the part of editors and researchers. Within the context of our efforts towards reconciliation, the stakes are that much higher.

Part of our response to this challenge is to defer to the speakers themselves in order to ensure that authority rests with these linguistic communities. We rely on MLAs and guest presenters to supply written text and translations, yet responses are not always forthcoming. In the context of Indigenous languages, for example, many dialects have only a handful of fluent speakers and limited written documentation, complicating orthographic verification — especially as Nations actively refine their writing systems and debate who has final authority over spellings. At the same time, Indigenous MLAs are often engaged in learning their languages and so may not feel confident in offering authoritative guidance on ‘official’ spellings or written representations. In the absence of this guidance, we turn to community and cultural organizations. However, these organizations may be under-resourced and may, therefore, quite properly prioritize the needs of their members. As a result, they may not be able to either respond to our research enquiries or to regularly maintain the public resources on which we rely. This leaves Hansard editors with daily decisions about how to balance the desire to ensure accurate and complete reporting of languages spoken in the House with the need to avoid overexercising their editorial power.

To address this in the context of Indigenous languages, we have partnered with the Assembly’s Reconciliation Committee, a cross-departmental team charged with championing the institution’s work toward reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and we have received support for our approach from them. In the future, as the institution strengthens its relationships with Indigenous Peoples, we will welcome opportunities to build relationships with Indigenous-language speakers who will enable us to ensure that we are able to report this material accurately and respectfully. We will also look for opportunities to ensure that those relationships remain reciprocal, given that our work draws on and benefits from the expertise of these individuals and communities.

While our commitment to reporting multiple languages, despite lacking the simultaneous- translation capacity of jurisdictions that regularly operate in multiple official languages, presents challenges, our layered research protocols, community engagement, and commitment to continuous revision keep British Columbia’s Hansard at the forward edge of Canadian multilingual transcription and may offer a practical model for legislatures with similar resource constraints.

Notes

1. The authors would like to thank the staff of the Legislative Library of British Columbia and the Hansard Services Indexing team for their support in tracing the history of multilingual Hansard reporting in British Columbia, as well as the Hansard Publishing and Galley teams for their advice on technical considerations.
2. First Peoples’ Cultural Council, ‘First Nations Languages in British Columbia,’ 28 Feb 2025, https://fpcc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FPCC- LanguageList‑2025.pdf – accessed April 3, 2025.
3. First  Peoples’  Map  of  B.C.,  https://maps.fpcc. ca/, accessed April 3, 2025; First Peoples’ Cultural Council, ‘Report on the Status of B.C. First Nations Languages,’ 4th edn, 2022, https://fpcc.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2023/02/FPCC-LanguageReport-23.02.14- FINAL.pdf, accessed April 3, 2025.
4. Statistics Canada, Mother Tongue by Geography, 2021 Census, https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/index-eng.cfm?HPA=1, accessed April 22, 2025; Statistics Canada, Census of Population, https:// www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng. cfm?HPA=1, accessed April 22, 2025.
5. Statistics Canada, Census of Population, https:// www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng. cfm?HPA=1, accessed April 22, 2025; Statistics Canada, Multilingualism of Canadian Households, https:// www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as- sa/98-200-X/2021014/98-200-X2021014-eng.cfm, accessed April 22, 2025.
6. Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, p. 153.
7. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 33rd Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 1, No 14 (12 July 1983), p 230.
8. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 36th Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 1, No 17 (12 July 1996), p 348.
9. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 39th Parl, 1st Sess, Vol 2, No 7 (17 September 2009), p 529.
10. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 36th Parl, 3rd Sess, Vol 12, No 17 (2 December 1998), pp 10859-10861.
11. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 41st Parl, 4th Sess, No 280 (24 October 2019), pp 10223-10230; British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 42nd Parl, 4th Sess, No 326 (9 May 2023), pp 11339-11340.
12. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 36th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol 6, No 13 (4 July 1997), p 5222.
13. Updated Gitsxenimix text provided by Wanda Good, personal communication, May 24, 2025. In the original transcript the text was reported as follows:

[Simoghet Lak’h Hagee.

Toyikhsii Niin Win Da’akhw Diim Siit Godiim’ Ama Sa Tun. Kweniiyiim’ Eles Niin Diim Amgootkh’wh’l Sim Gighyetiim Lakh’ Moinim Salish Wiin Nidiit’hl Lakh’yiip Win Nee Lit’kh’wiim.

Kweniiyiim Eles Niin Diim Hlaboih’l Kwelganidiit An’t Kwodiinh’l Hlk’ooh’lkiim Hanaakh diit. Kweniyiim Diim ’WeDiit Skwa’iitkh’w Ganh’l Dakhgyet wiin Walayiim Gaskoh’l Kakwest’hl GaGotdiit.

Kwenyiimh’l Niin Dimin AmaGyaidiih’l Dim Wila Yaah’l HaH’Lei’lst Dim Jeph’l Kwelga Nih’l Lu Wilt T’siim Wilp Ama Sa Tun Diim Amh’l Diim Wila Wilh’l Kwelga N’om’ Nee Jogiit Lahk Yip Tun.

Am Gootkh’w Niddit gwin Haakh’wh diit. Dim Am’t Ja’an’ Weh’l Ama Genah’k Dim Am Diim Wila Wil Diit.

Niit Dim Gan Wilt Simoghet Lakh’ Hakh’ Hagee.]

British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 40th Parl, 5th Sess, Vol 39, No 5 (10 May 2016), p 12893.

1. British Columbia, Official Report of Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), 41st Parl, 3rd Sess, No 104 (14 March 2018), p 3485.