Official Languages Committee on April 11th, 2016

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

Okay, thank you.

This question is for Mr. Picotte or Ms. Tremblay.

You mentioned the Treasury Board rules. Could you tell us more? What are the rules?

[André Picotte]

I can only repeat what I said earlier. The Bureau has been given the monopoly over translation for the departments that don't choose to do business with the private sector. There are therefore two choices: federal departments and agencies can either do business entirely with the private sector or the Translation Bureau, but they cannot set up an internal translation service. That's the rule. But as I said, they do not follow the rule. The Treasury Board often sends a notice to the departments to remind them of their duty, but the notice ends up in the trash and they go back to their old ways.

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

I have nothing to add to what Mr. Picotte said.

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

When you talk about the obligation of linguistic duality, is that what you are referring to?

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

Yes, but at different levels. Clearly, to ensure that the services are available to Canadians in the language of their choice, the translated documents must meet the required standard of quality. Historically, the Translation Bureau has vouched for that quality. It is not certain that this is the case for all departments, including those that have decided to go to the private sector exclusively or those using the so-called phantom translation units.

That said, I am also talking about linguistic duality and rights of public servants. I am specifically thinking of the decreased use of bilingualism at work. I have experienced it first hand; I used to work for CIDA, which was fairly francophone. However, the agency was folded into the Department of Foreign Affairs, which was predominantly anglophone. Forget about working in French. That was over.

Actually, the more pressure is placed on departments to reduce costs of things that fall under their responsibilities, the more they take those kinds of shortcuts, obviously. It is no longer realistic for francophones in the public service to speak French or use French in their communications, especially in their written communications.

In fact, the minister for whom I worked at CIDA was francophone, and we used to write the briefing notes in English for him, because his staff was anglophone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

We have two more speakers. First, Mr. Fergus for three minutes, and then Mr. Généreux for three minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have two questions.

For the first question, I would like to go back to a comment made by Ms. Tremblay.

We have seen that the entire philosophy of the public service has changed. Instead of considering bilingualism as an obligation unique to our country, a decision has been made to consider it a burden and to try to save money in the area.

Could you go back to your comment about saving money in a field where money should not be saved?

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

Yes. That goes to the basics, meaning compliance with the Official Languages Act.

Has the commissioner already appeared before you? If not, is he scheduled to appear? I am sure that he will speak on the issue more eloquently than I can today.

Clearly, the Official Languages Act has been sacrificed on the altar of austerity. That does not only apply to that act, but also to the many issues facing minority communities across the country. The focus is on the bottom line only; that's the only thing that matters. I hope that this perspective will change with the new government.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Since I have only three minutes, I will ask my questions very quickly.

Do you think the issue could be resolved if we hired 30% more translators?

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

It will take more than that. If we want to reposition the Bureau as the go-to place for the public service as a whole, we will need more than just reverting to the status quo ante. We will have to manage growth. As I said, our economists will be able to carry out an analysis to see what that might mean in practical terms.

It is clear to me that this is the only way to be able to actually enforce the Official Languages Act.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Is it essential to have a Translation Bureau where all the translators are centralized in one specific place? Would it not be better to assign the translators to the various departments so that they can practise their expertise in their field?

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

I will let my colleague André tell you more about that.

Personally, I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The role of one place can be to ensure quality control. The centralization of translation in an organization such as the Translation Bureau, which might fall under Canadian Heritage or another department, is important. However, we can also co-locate people. We know that many translators are teleworkers. The Bureau is also saving a lot of money by having people telework. Translation work can be done over long distances. So we don't need a big Translation Bureau in your riding, Mr. Fergus.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

We can also continue the way we are. The fact remains that the objective of quality and respect for linguistic duality should be the top priority.

Colocalization has already given results. The approach has been to save money by nickel and diming, and going backwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Généreux, you have three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Picotte, you referred to your special operating agency in words that have slightly taken me aback. You referred to it as a “bastard organization”. That is quite a loaded expression in various contexts.

You said that the number of people working for the Translation Bureau has gone down from 1,200 to 800. You just said that you are still providing a high-quality service, but that the organization you are working for is a bastard organization. I will give you the opportunity to elaborate on that. I know that the word clearly does not refer to the people, but it shows that the organization itself is repudiated. It is as if it was no longer a part of the government or the private sector.

Could you elaborate on that expression? I felt that it was very emotionally charged for you, but it is also very pointed.

[André Picotte]

By using the word “bastard”, I was of course talking about the organization, not the people, the managers and senior executives.

We have one foot in the public service using the government's way of thinking, and another in the private sector using the private sector's way of thinking. The Bureau must fulfill government duties and reach its break-even point.

Something is not working, and that is why I use the word “bastard”. The Bureau is either a crown corporation and operates exactly as a private business, or it is a government service, which is the ideal scenario for us.

The Bureau has one foot in the government and the other in the private sector: that is what I call a bastard organization.

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

I have many questions, but it would be useful to find out the potentially appropriate amount of money according to you and your economists. It would be useful for the committee to review that some day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Would you be able to forward the cost-related information to us? Could you send it to the clerk so that he can circulate it to the members of the committee?

[Emmanuelle Tremblay]

I will look into what we can do in terms of projections as soon as possible and we will be in touch with the clerk.

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

That would be very good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

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

Mrs. Brunette, I really liked your explanation of the machine translation software. Inevitably, technology is part of our daily lives.

The number of employees has gone down from 1,200 to 800, and the work still gets done. Undoubtedly, those positions were redistributed somewhere else.

Based on your example of “garbage in, garbage out”, my understanding is that the software carries out a mathematical analysis.

Do you agree with me that this is an evolving process?

Furthermore, I suspect that a piece of software like that is inevitably used by translators and it must increase the quantity of information that can be translated. Do you agree that this is part of the evolution of things, meaning that we might need fewer people because very fast tools are gradually being implemented?

[Louise Brunette]

Yes, I think it is evolving. The more you feed the corpus, the better the results are. In particular, texts that would have otherwise never been translated will benefit from this tool. That said, I cannot see the day when it will replace human translation.

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

Has anyone anywhere talked about the ultimate objective of having the machine replace human translators some day in the Government of Canada? Has someone somewhere said that?