Official Languages Committee on Feb. 7th, 2017

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

Okay.

[Nicole Gagnon]

In that case, I'll answer.

I can't say that I followed the ins and outs of the case, but you're right. New Brunswick is a leader in the field. The New Brunswick translation bureau has recognized that the amount of privatization is excessive. No one is against privatization, as I said at the start of my presentation. Currently, freelance interpreters meet 70% of the Government of Canada's interpretation needs. We do the work, and we do it well because we're accredited.

We're wondering to what extent there's too much privatization. I think that's where New Brunswick stepped in. The province worried that, by entrusting more work to the private sector, it would lose control of the translation file.

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

Ms. Gagnon or Ms. Bohbot, am I correct in saying that the bulk of interpretation and written translation work is from English to French, and not the other way around?

[Dominique Bohbot]

Yes.

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

Do you have data on the percentage of translation or interpretation from English, the majority language, to French here on Parliament Hill? Can these statistics be obtained?

[Dominique Bohbot]

We could obtain them. I could instead provide more general statistics on translation as a whole, but these statistics would include the private sector, therefore the demand from Canadian companies. I would say the proportion is 70-30 or 80-20. I don't have more specific data for Parliament.

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

My question is for Ms. Gagnon or Mr. Thompson, and it concerns the much talked about accreditation in interpretation.

There are countries such as Canada and Belgium that are bilingual or multilingual. These countries include Switzerland, which has three official languages and a fourth semi-official language. Do you know how things work there? Who is recognized as an interpreter? Do these countries also require that interpreters be accredited?

[Nicole Gagnon]

The major international institutions employ interpreters who are accredited AIIC members.

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

Okay.

You're talking about international institutions, such as the UN and other similar organizations. However, I'm thinking about governments, like the Government of Canada.

[Nicole Gagnon]

It's not a country, but the European Parliament has this type of system in place.

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

Do you have an idea of how things work in Belgium or Switzerland, for example?

[Nicole Gagnon]

No. I couldn't tell you how things work there.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Ms. Quach, I want to welcome you to the committee.

You have the floor.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find this very interesting.

Unfortunately, in Canada, the current official languages situation is alarming.

My question is for the three witnesses from the two organizations.

You said the new conditions at the Translation Bureau would have a negative impact on the next generation. Can you provide more explanations by giving examples of how they'll have a negative impact on the next generation of translators and interpreters?

[Dominique Bohbot]

In my presentation, I talked about the next generation. From 2002 to 2012, the translation bureau offered 3,000 work terms to students from all translation schools in Canada, before it completely shut down the program. In her letter, the minister states that the bureau welcomed a total of 19 students from all translation schools in Canada in 2016. That is a laughable number.

The translation bureau employs experts in translation. It is the largest supplier and the largest client. It is at the centre of it all. Our students who completed a work term with the translation bureau were extremely pleased. I am from the academic world and I can also attest to this myself. The training they provide is excellent.

So what is happening now? The professional training of translators is being left up to the private sector. The private sector, which is already grappling with international competition and plummeting prices, cannot afford to take that on. It cannot invest the time in training a student and passing on knowledge. The private sector is completely exhausted.

That said, we at the universities bend over backwards to find work terms for our students. We are able to place the students, but there are far too few co-op work terms to meet the demand from all Canadian universities.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you.

Please go ahead, Ms. Gagnon.

[Nicole Gagnon]

There are about 200 professional interpreters in Canada, 58 of whom work for the translation bureau. The bureau has worked with the University of Ottawa for many years to train its interpreters and it also offers work terms, or did so at one time, on Parliament Hill. The federal government's interpreters, who are AIIC members, are involved at the University of Ottawa in training those new interpreters. Training the next generation is an essential part of the AIIC's mission.

The proposed dual stream structure will be problematic for new interpreters. We really wonder how young people will one day be able to interpret at what are called high-stakes conferences, since the proposed system would classify conferences as either high-stakes or generic. It will essentially be impossible for them to do so.

To answer your question, I would point out that these budding interpreters are trained at the University of Ottawa and at Glendon College, the only institutions that currently offer a master's program. They are trained by the translation bureau, in close cooperation with the University of Ottawa, and by their fellow private-sector interpreters who are AIIC members. The latter provide training in practical settings at the beginning of their career.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

These conditions seriously jeopardize the training of the next generation.

How will the translation bureau's privatization process affect the implementation of the Official Languages Act in Canada? How great will that impact be?

[Dominique Bohbot]

At the translation bureau, we have seen attrition and a reduction in the number of positions. A few years ago, there were 1,300 employees, I believe. Now there are 800. This trend can only continue if the status quo is maintained. For our part, we firmly believe it is time for action.

It is the translation bureau as a flagship that, together with all translators, will uphold the linguistic rights of Canadians and linguistic duality. An important part of that role is making provisions for the next generation.

As I said earlier, we train students who will earn their degrees and become certified. They can in turn help uphold the linguistic rights of Canadians. The economic and commercial aspects must also be considered. We live in an increasingly globalized world, in a knowledge-based economy, and we need languages, which are the prime conduit of communication.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Quach, would you like to ask a very quick question?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

I don't know if you would like to say something, Ms. Gagnon. I imagine you would, so I will let you add your comments.

[Nicole Gagnon]

Thank you.

The system that is being put forward right now will undermine the government's ability to meet its official languages objectives, specifically because the translation bureau's 58 interpreters will, I assume, be assigned to the high-stakes conferences, while all the rest—who are accredited now but who we fear will no longer be—will be assigned to the so-called generic conferences. As a result, the dual stream structure will inevitably affect the quality of the service provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gagnon.

We will now move on to Ms. Linda Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here with us today. We are very sensitive to your concerns.

Ms. Bohbot, you are from the University of Montreal. You spoke about students and work terms, as did Ms. Gagnon.

What solution would you recommend?

We are talking about the next generation, who require very specific training. You said earlier that quality is the most important thing. What would you like to say about that?

I know that the translation or interpretation requirements for some conferences are higher, but I would like to hear more about that. You talked about interpreters' memory and their knowledge and about students doing work terms. What would you recommend in this regard?