Official Languages Committee on Feb. 7th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Good morning everyone, and welcome to today's meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we are continuing our study of the translation bureau.

We are pleased to have you joining us, this morning, Dominique Bohbot, distinguished member of the Association of Linguistic Services Managers.

Welcome, Ms. Bohbot.

I would also like to welcome the representatives of the International Association of Conference Interpreters, Nicole Gagnon, Canada's lead for advocacy, and Jim Thompson, communication counsel.

Welcome to the committee, Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Thompson.

This is how the meeting will work: each group will have about 10 minutes to give their presentation, and after that, we will go around the table to give members an opportunity to ask questions and make comments.

We'll begin with you, Ms. Bohbot, if you don't mind.

[Dominique Bohbot, Distinguished Member, Association of Linguistic Services Managers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would be my pleasure.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, good morning.

I would like to tell the committee how grateful I am for the opportunity to be here today.

Last fall about 10 pan-Canadian language associations from coast to coast, as well as several public figures, placed their trust in the Association of Linguistic Services Managers and its working group, the committee for the promotion of Canadian language services, which I'm chairing with humility, pride, and conviction. We have taken on the mission of promoting the distinctive value of professional translation of key economic and political actors in the country.

I'd like to begin with a retrospective.

We came out in support of the Standing Committee on Official Languages' report. We sent two letters to the minister and expressed our deep disappointment at the letter she sent to the committee in response to its report.

We also met with a number of officials and stakeholders in Ottawa, including two members of the committee, two senior advisers to the Prime Minister, and representatives of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees.

As an industry and a very intellectual and cultural activity, professional translation is the definitive vector for the language rights of Canadians. It plays a crucial role in the Canadian society, its economy, its trade exchange, and its social fabric.

Some 82.5% of Canadians claim to be unilingual. How can these millions of Canadians interact with their fellow citizens across the country without the help of professional translators?

Translators, and certified translators, are the best equipped to respond to the language needs of Canadians and their international clients and prospects, and to guarantee their rights.

As a citizen, if I search for a judgment or a posting for a bilingual job in the language of my choice and it does not appear on my search results because there is no translated version, do I still have the same rights as another citizen?

The translation bureau is the largest supplier and client of translation services in Canada and therefore wields considerable responsibility and structuring potential given its purchasing power.

The decentralization of the federal demand fragmented the industry. With numerous micro-entrepreneurs and small- and medium-sized translation agencies, in addition to multinational foreign agencies, the decentralization of federal demand has led to chaos. The government's procurement system is founded on the lowest bidder and is causing a downward spiral in rates, exacerbated by foreign competition. Given that so many Canadian service providers operate mainly on the contracts they obtain from the public sector, it is easy to see why the procurement system is such a crucial issue.

Translation is a vector of economic growth that supports national companies and exporters, fully contributing to the country's economy.

On the situation of the Translation Bureau, since 1995 the demand for translation has tripled but the budget allocation has remained identical; hence, the postponement and cancellation of some translations, [Inaudible--Editor] official language obligations still fulfilled by our governments. Transforming the Translation Bureau into a special operating agency has led to decentralization of the contracting authorities to all federal departments and agencies, resulting in a fragmentation of the industry that jeopardizes its very existence.

The redesign of the TB's procurement process opened up our markets to the invasion of foreign multinationals and led to the proliferation of agencies and freelancers, some not being competent.

Conformity to an independent certification, such as the Canadian standard, should be the basis for procurement policy and practices among purchasers of translation services. Qualification requirements must be strengthened. Service providers should have professional accreditation and translation education; they should have to meet quality and risk management criteria, particularly for tier 3 contracts.

For all standing offers, the burden of risk is entirely on the providers, because the TB guarantees only 3% of the volume indicated in the contract. The status quo is very detrimental to the Canadian language industry.

With regard to new translators coming into the market, no action has been taken. The Translation Bureau, which took 3,000 students during 10 years for training internships, is now largely absent. The 19 translation interns who were received in 2016, as Ms. Foote indicated, represent a paltry figure compared to the number of students enrolled in the Canadian schools of translation. Each year universities award degrees to hundreds of new translators, who can rely only on the private sector to take in students from co-operative programs.

As the head of professional training at the Department of Linguistics and Translation at the University of Montreal, I work every day with future translation jobseekers. I wish that in the next few days a message of hope will reach them.

That brings me to our recommendations.

First is recognition. We are not selling words. The Prime Minister needs to officially recognize the importance of Canada's language industry on cultural, identity, economic, and strategic issues.

The next is repositioning the Translation Bureau. All contracts for the entire public service must be centralized, and their execution reserved primarily for Canadians.

Working conditions and granting conditions of contracts must be reviewed. Weighting must be eliminated, because memories are not properly maintained, and quality must be reinforced as a major criterion. Random draws to choose between two providers bidding at the same price are nonsense. Would you grant a contract to build a bridge to one of two engineering companies through a draw?

The Translation Bureau's operating model must be revised. Its responsibility must be transferred to an authority other than Public Services and Procurement, because translation is a highly intellectual activity and not a simple product.

With revenue of $5 billion, Canada captures 10% of the global translation market. Canada must massively reinvest in official languages and the language industry and provide financial support.

With respect to the next generation and support programming, I would say that, as a centre of expertise in the country, the TB must establish a permanent structure for taking in interns from Canadian schools of translation.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the industry needs your support.

The industry needs your support. Questions must be asked of Minister Foote. While we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017, and the 15th anniversary of the Official Languages Act in 2019, we strongly feel that this is a unique opportunity to take action—here and now.

We firmly believe that this is a unique opportunity to take action here and now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you kindly, Ms. Bohbot.

We will now move on to the International Association of Conference Interpreters. Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Thompson, you have 10 minutes, after which, we will have questions and comments.

[Nicole Gagnon, Canada's Lead for Advocacy, International Association of Conference Interpreters]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.

Please allow me to also thank my interpreter colleagues who are working in the anonymity of the booth and to apologize in advance if I speak too quickly so as not to run out of time.

First, I would like to say a few words about the Canadian region of the International Association of Conference Interpreters, or AIIC.

Founded in 1953, AIIC has close to 3,000 members worldwide, in 89 countries and 24 regions.

We are a professional association that promotes high standards of quality and ethics, improves the practice through training and research, and ensures working conditions that are conducive to quality.

The only Canadian association of its kind, AIIC Canada has 125 members, most of whom are freelancers, but some of whom work full time for institutions including the translation bureau. The vast majority of AIIC Canada freelancers are accredited by the translation bureau to work for conferences and parliamentary interpretation services.

Approximately 70% of translation bureau conference interpretation services are provided by freelancers, and about 30% of the bureau's parliamentary interpretation services are provided by freelancers.

This small community is crucial to ensuring Canadians have equal quality of access to the proceedings of federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

I, myself, am a conference interpreter. I must say I am more comfortable whispering in your ear than speaking from the witness chair.

We are grateful for your invitation. We hope to convey two things to you. We want to place on the record our views about what you learned and recommended after studying the Translation Bureau. We also want to brief you about significant concerns we have about a new system for procuring the services of freelance interpreters that will make the problems you identified at the Translation Bureau infinitely worse, not better.

First, in terms of your report, we believe that implementation of your recommendations for the Translation Bureau is crucial for the federal government's ability to meet its official languages objectives and obligations, which are fundamental to the preservation of Canada's French and English linguistic duality. The Translation Bureau's shift to cost recovery as a special operating agency has launched a race to the bottom, where the lowest cost eclipses the importance of quality translation and interpretation services. Equal access to the proceedings of federal institutions in the language of choice for Canadians is likely suffering as a result, as have the quality and availability of documents in both official languages. The committee's recommendations could begin to address the significant decline.

Your committee has suggested that Canadian Heritage is where all programs and policies related to official languages reside. We believe that the responsibility for the bureau should be held by Canadian Heritage rather than by PSPC and Treasury Board. As recommended, seasoned interpreters, translators, and terminologists, not public services and procurement managers, must manage the language services that are essential to making federal institutions accessible. We are particularly supportive of your recommendations 3, 4, and 8. The bureau has been starved for too long. It must have the necessary financial resources, as your committee so eloquently recommended. Overall, we give your committee high marks.

However, we were mystified that the government's response to your report and recommendations was so blasé. Your call for major reform was met with a status quo response.

I know Minister Foote will be appearing before your committee on Thursday, February 9. When she does, we will be listening attentively in the hope that she updates the government's response. We will also be listening to her remarks concerning her department's proposed system for procuring the services of freelance interpreters.

Let me preface my remarks on this topic by saying that AIIC Canada has been engaged in extensive discussions with the government and the minister's office concerning the proposed system. We have raised the alarm that the new system her department has built will undermine the government's ability to meet its official languages obligations. We have told anyone in government who will listen that Canadians' ability to follow the proceedings of federal institutions in the official language of their choice will be undermined by the new system.

By and large, we have had a sympathetic audience within government. They seem to be listening, and they fed back words of support for our concerns. But, the bottom line is that nothing has changed when it comes to the proposed new system, and in fact, parts of it have already been implemented, such as lowest bid.

Meanwhile, after several delays, the request for standing offer will close on March 9, 2017.

I would like to provide you some details about the changes we have asked for and why.

First, the new system is based almost exclusively on a lowest bid principle. All but a handful of interpreter assignments will be handed out to the person who bids the lowest price. Unless the system is changed, your committee and every other standing committee of the House of Commons and Senate will be assigned interpreters that have bid the lowest price to do the work and nothing else. Imagine this cut-rate system for the seat of our democracy in our bilingual country!

The proposed system discriminates against quality. It seeks to establish one all-inclusive rate for each of the streams, regardless of the mode of interpretation. As a result, the more versatile, specialized, and experienced interpreters will lose out to the lowest bidders. This will shrink the already small pool of qualified interpreters.

Because you get what you pay for, we have asked the minister to abandon this approach in favour of assigning work on the basis of who is best-qualified to do the work and to pay them a fair premium that recognizes special skills and additional responsibilities.

If the minister were to adopt a best-fit approach in place of lowest bid, we have asked that she establish a mechanism to monitor the bureau's performance when it comes to making assignments based on best fit.

The new system proposes to create a dual-stream structure where only a handful of federal conferences and events will be assigned to interpreters with the best skill set for the job. All the rest, about 95%, will receive the services of interpreters assigned, not because they have the right skills, experience, and subject matter knowledge for the job. No. They will be assigned to events categorized as “generic” because they have bid the lowest rate. It's as if the designers of this new system think some conference events are less equal than others when it comes to the government's official languages obligations of equal quality.

Based on the record of changes at the Translation Bureau, we fear this flawed design could well lead to the assignment of non-accredited interpreters to cover the proceedings of most federal institutions whose work would fall into the generic or less important category. Because this would create a double standard of quality, we have asked the minister to abandon the high stakes and generic streams and ensure that all assignments are treated equally when it comes to quality.

You may know that interpreters must pass a rigorous Government of Canada examination to be qualified to work for the Translation Bureau. This accreditation process is envied around the globe. It’s the gold standard, which is appropriate given the essential nature of the work. However, this assurance of quality has been undermined over time.

For over 20 years, federal departments and agencies have had the green light to contract interpretation and translation services from providers other than the Translation Bureau, with no obligation to hire accredited professionals. Today, some of those government departments and agencies routinely hire interpreters who are considered unqualified by Translation Bureau standards.

Because this double standard must end, we’ve asked the minister to impose the requirement of Translation Bureau accreditation across the government to uphold the highest standard of quality, in compliance with its obligations under the Official Languages Act. We’ve also asked for a commitment in writing from Minister Foote to that effect, as well as the unequivocal assurance that the accreditation exam will neither be outsourced nor watered down.

The RFSO, which closes on March 9, started being developed in 2014. The final version, 66-page document, was published in June last year. It was and continues to be replete with template provisions drawn from other RFSO documents that simply don’t apply to the profession. What does “Freight on Board” have to do with interpretation? Nothing, of course. Yet, the RFSO has a “Freight on Board” clause.

Since it was first published, the RFSO has been amended 15 times in a failed attempt to clarify its provisions, and it may be amended yet again. More than 300 questions and answers have been published on the Buy and Sell site. Because of this chaos, we're seeking the indefinite postponement of the RFSO, until PSPC can provide a proper document.

Conversely, should the RFSO closing date of March 9 be maintained, we request that, at the very least, the existing RFSO be withdrawn and re-issued with all appropriate revisions.

Even though this may not be the current government’s policy, we believe the ultimate goal of this system is the privatization of the Translation Bureau to cut costs. This option that has just been rejected by the only other officially bilingual government in the country for fear that it would unacceptably undermine the service quality.

In closing, I want to restate that we’re anxiously awaiting the minister’s appearance on Thursday and we’ll be listening carefully to what she has to say.

We’re now ready to answer your questions.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon, for your presentation.

We'll now move on to the questions and comments.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

The situation you're addressing is very complicated.

The implementation date of the new regulations was postponed to March 9. You've just said that it should be postponed indefinitely. If I were the minister, what would you ask me?

[Nicole Gagnon]

As we explained in our text, we want the RFSO postponed until things are done correctly. It's a text that applies to the interpreter profession. There are legal experts among you. You know very well that law is based on words. As a result, we couldn't sign a document that doesn't accurately reflect our words.

We want an end to the double standard for certain conferences. Some conferences seem to be considered more important than others. We think that, under the Official Languages Act, all conferences are equal and entitled to the same quality of services.

We're asking for the Translation Bureau's interpretation services to be centralized. Failing this, if the current system must be maintained, at least anything that comes from the Government of Canada should be interpreted by interpreters who are accredited by the government.

As I explained, the Translation Bureau currently provides accredited services, and the departments are free to turn to the private market. They do so, but they don't employ accredited interpreters.

We think there's a double standard. The Government of Canada should have a single standard, the standard of quality, for all its conferences.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Gagnon—

[Jim Thompson, Communication Counsel, International Association of Conference Interpreters]

Let me just add to that.

We have made these very points to the minister's office, and I would say they have had quite an open-door policy and have been listening attentively.

If we could take words to the bank, we would be in a good position, but we can't, and that's why we're waiting for the minister to appear before you on Thursday to see what she has to say about all of this and how they're reacting.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Bohbot, earlier you said there are differences in the quality of services provided by translators. I imagine that an assessment system exists. You spoke about it earlier. You said there's a double standard because some people are subject to an assessment system, but others aren't. In the private sector, they aren't subject to this type of system, but they're still translators.

Do you these translators need to be part of your associations when they finish their studies? Are they members of your associations whether they work in the private or public sector? Are they required to become members, in the same way that lawyers must become members of the bar, for example?

[Dominique Bohbot]

For translators, the title of certified translator is a reserved title but not a reserved certificate. Talks are currently being held with the Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec regarding this issue.

It's not an obligation, but most people still try to obtain accreditation. It's an assurance of quality for our clients.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

There are two sides to a coin.

People who are interpreters decide to provide their services at a lower cost as part of a contracting process. They're members of your congregation, if I can call it that. However, they choose to provide their services at a lower cost as part of a process that's currently delayed but that could be implemented. These people are, if I may say so, on your side of the fence, and they can choose whether or not to provide their services at a lower cost.

Why do some of your members or certain people who provide the same type of services as you want to do this?

You'll probably mention the fact that these people want to earn a living. However, if everyone wants equal services of equal quality, why are some of you willing to provide the services at a lower cost?

[Dominique Bohbot]

I don't think it's a voluntary choice. As you said, Mr. Généreux, it's a matter of survival. When you're self-employed in the translation field or in another language profession, when you need to bid in the same way as the others, and when you know the rates that, unfortunately, are currently in place for contracts awarded by the translation market, you have two choices. You either lower your price or you don't eat.

If we decide to maintain our rightful rate, which is fair and equitable given our degrees, professional accreditation and experience, we open the door to foreign competition. This means that any international firm can open a subsidiary in Canada and have its work done abroad.

In the Internet age, this can happen very easily. Texts can be translated by other translators in the world. We don't know whether these are professional translators. We have no idea. Moreover, the transfer of documents carries a risk. The documents are sent on other servers, but we don't know which ones.

We think the solution is to employ Canadians who are trained for this work, who are accredited, who have degrees and who care about quality, and to pay them a respectable rate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Bohbot.

I'll now turn the floor over to Mr. Arseneault.

[Nicole Gagnon]

Can I also respond?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Go ahead, Ms. Gagnon. It will be part of my allotted time.

[Nicole Gagnon]

Thank you.

Regarding interpreters, I want to add that a distinction must be made between the interpreters accredited under the terms of provincial associations and interpreters accredited by the Government of Canada.

At this time, some accredited interpreters aren't accredited by the Government of Canada. Currently, anything that goes through the Translation Bureau is entrusted to interpreters accredited by the Government of Canada. However, the competition issue arises when departments turn to the private sector and employ interpreters who aren't accredited by the Government of Canada. They may be members of provincial associations. I have no idea. Regardless, the difference must be understood.

We're concerned that non-accredited interpreters are being employed more often.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon. That answers my first question exactly.

That said, for the ordinary mortals here, can you say what agency grants the accreditation recognized by the federal government?

Isn't the accreditation also recognized worldwide?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Exactly. The Translation Bureau gives its interpreters an accreditation exam. In the past, it also gave its translators an exam. However, when the decentralization took place in 1995, the translation accreditation exam was eliminated. The interpretation exam was maintained, and that's why we're here today. We want to stand up for the federal government's accreditation, which is recognized abroad. It enables my colleagues who are AIIC members to work for the United Nations, NATO or other organizations. We're talking about an international standard here.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You mentioned earlier that another government decided to keep its translation service and not move toward privatization. I imagine that you're referring to the small province of New Brunswick, which is officially bilingual. I was going to say the province that's a leader in the translation field, but I'll resist.

Did you follow this case? Do you have any comments on all the arguments that must have been made in the province regarding the preservation of the translation service in New Brunswick?

[Nicole Gagnon]

Was this question for me?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

For you or for Ms. Bohbot.

[Nicole Gagnon]

Ms. Bohbot, do you want to answer?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Last November, the New Brunswick government decided not to privatize its translation service. Did you follow this case?

[Dominique Bohbot]

No, Mr. Arseneault. I couldn't answer you.