Thank you very much for your question. It really goes to the heart of the debate. It will help me summarize my brief, which is much longer than the presentation I made.
My current diagnosis is that the bureau is in a precarious situation, as it is both a private company—or likes to define itself as such—and a public service. As a public service, it has to translate texts with a security rating that are therefore more or less confidential. It must also update terminology—it has a terminology bank, Termium, the bureau's jewel—and must provide parliamentary interpretation. We know that there are only two interpretation programs in the entire country: one at the University of Ottawa, and the other, since very recently, at York University's Glendon College. Those two programs are funded extensively by the federal government. If the funding was cut, no university would have the means to provide a training program for conference interpreting, as the program brings in seven, eight, nine or ten candidates in the best years. That's not profitable for a university. The bureau's responsibilities I just listed are part of the mission of the government and the bureau itself, in my opinion.
Another aspect related to this mission is the training of the new generation. It was said last Monday that technical translators are retiring and there is no one to replace them. The situation is serious. We know that the bureau has not been taking on co-op students for at least four years. As a private company, it aims to provide translation at the best possible cost. What has the bureau done to achieve that? It has reduced recruitment, as any large company trying to rationalize its productivity does. Cuts have been made to the terminology service, which is currently doing about 10% of the work it used to do. Internships are no longer provided to train the next generation. Therefore, a number of areas are affected.
In addition, an anarchic situation has developed within the public service in terms of translation. Departments have phantom services, where people are translating even though they shouldn't be. Others have language advisor in their title, when they are actually translators. They are also in the wrong position. Translation is being done in all departments, and does not seem to be coordinated like it should be under the Translation Bureau Act.
I think that the Portage software is a symptom rather than a cause of the current volatile situation at the Translation Bureau. Why was the Translation Bureau created in 1934? It was created because the situation was as anarchic as it is now. The then secretary of state, Mr. Caan, said that an organization had to be created to coordinate translation across the public service and prevent the disorderly development of translation. He used the word disorderly. I am under the impression that we are currently going through the same type of disorderly development. Those are my thoughts on the issue.