Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me to offer my thoughts on the controversy surrounding the implementation of the Portage tool in the federal public service. I am delighted to be here today, as the debate about the Portage tool enables me to raise issues that go well beyond the deployment of the tool, but that the tool has unexpectedly crystallized.
Let me say at the outset that there is a real threat at our door, and that door leads to the federal public service, and to the Translation Bureau in particular. Where there is a threat, there is also an obligation to take swift action.
The debate on the implementation of the Portage tool has revealed that official languages are suffering in the public service, particularly the standing of French.
I will argue that we need to review the role of language technologies and better understand their impact on linguistic duality. We also need to rethink the Translation Bureau in order to give it the means to achieve its objectives and reverse the trend toward de-skilling translation professionals. And the decision to deploy the Portage tool must be rescinded.
First, I want to tell you about my experience as a former member of the working group on government transformations and the official languages, which was established by the Treasury Board in 1998-99, as that experience will provide the context for my remarks.
In 1998, the federal government launched transformation efforts to resolve its budget deficit problems. The government reviewed its programs and methods of delivering public services, resulting in a fundamental re-evaluation of the scope of government intervention in society.
The government transformations of the time included the creation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Parks Canada Agency, the Canada Business Centre and the Canadian Tourism Commission. In addition, corporations such as Petro-Canada, Air Canada, the country's airports, Canadian National Railway and Nav Canada were privatized.
The increased use of information technology in organizing public services was expected to improve the delivery of services to the public. Adopting new technologies would lay the foundation for a more effective government that was better connected with its citizens yet benefited from economies of scale.
In 1998, after condemning the government transformations, the Commissioner of Official Languages at the time, Victor Goldbloom, called for a working group to be established. The federal government accepted the commissioner's recommendation and ordered the Treasury Board to create the working group—on which I served—to study the impact of the government transformations on linguistic duality, particularly as regards Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
In carrying out our mandate, we found people were tired of dealing with official-language minority issues, we confirmed the concerns raised by the commissioner, we saw in very concrete terms the negative impact of the government transformations on official-language minorities and we proposed ways to turn things around. The working group made a number of recommendations in its report. For example, it asked the Treasury Board to report on the impact of the government transformations on official languages, create a mechanism for consulting with official-language minorities as part of the review of the transformations and continually remind the institutions subject to the Official Languages Act of their obligations.
Unfortunately, the working group did not raise the issue of the Translation Bureau at the time. I see today that the bureau's difficulties also began around that time. These problems grew under the previous government, which did not hesitate to cut staff and privatize services that support official languages in the public service, such as the privatization of language courses, which can be assumed to mean French courses.
Following the working group's review, the Action Plan for Official Languages was published in 2003. It included measures to promote research into language technologies. At the time, the action plan was a new tool to help the government meet its obligations to support the development and enhance the vitality of Canada's official-language minorities. However, today we have an impoverished vision of official languages. This vision is based on a utilitarian logic that puts private interests ahead of the public interest. Here are some examples.
In Blueprint 2020, the government explains that it must be innovative in the realm of technology and equip public servants with technological tools. Yet, in 2016, the media have revealed that the Translation Bureau has abolished 400 positions since 2010. Is that accurate? Moreover, 140 more positions will be eliminated by 2017–2018. It is fair to ask whether equipping public servants is really about promoting the use of both official languages or whether the government is gradually shuttering the bureau.
Let us turn to the Portage tool. I fear that the implementation of this tool not only violates the Official Languages Act, but also reveals an ignorance of the issues associated with translation. On the one hand, the government thinks translation is important because it wants to provide a tool that everyone can use. On the other hand, the government is devaluing the role of translators and the specialized knowledge they possess. The government seems to believe that everyone can translate even though there are inherent requirements for translation that only translators have mastered. If I were to venture a parallel, it would be to journalism and social media. On Twitter or Facebook, anyone can call themselves a journalist. But we know full well that the journalism profession is demanding and requires hard work, thoughtfulness and writing skills. Twitter's 140 characters will never replace investigative journalism, analysis or lengthy editorials.
The Portage tool is a troubling sign for official languages. If public servants need such a tool, it is because they do not know enough French to write emails or draft internal communications. What happened to promoting linguistic duality within the federal public service? I ask this question because of the asymmetrical position of two official languages in the public service. After 10 years of Conservative government, what is the status of French in the public service? What has happened to Part V of the act and public servants' right to work in the official language of their choice?
I propose two recommendations in order to formalize my arguments and encourage you to take action.
My first recommendation is that the Government of Canada reverse its decision to implement the Portage tool.
Granted, this is not an original recommendation, but it is a necessary one. I join many other translation and official-languages stakeholders in calling for a reversal. The new government is not bound to the decision of the previous government, especially when it comes to linguistic duality.
My second recommendation is that the Government of Canada establish a working group on the status of official languages in the public service and that this working group devote particular attention to the role of language technologies in promoting linguistic duality, the situation at the Translation Bureau and the impact of the privatization of services, such as French courses, on official languages.
My recommendation is ambitious, but essential. A working group on the status of official languages in the public service must reaffirm the language rights of francophone public servants and the right of francophones to receive communications in French that has not been produced by a machine, as my colleague Jean Delisle emphasized recently in Le Droit.
I agree with Jean Delisle that respecting language rights means ensuring idiomatic French and that we must not let French be turned into a robot language. In an asymmetrical context like the public service, where French is a translated language—85% of French documents are translations—we cannot sit on our hands while the government deploys a tool that could reduce French to a bastard language.
One way to change the status of French in the public service would be to encourage francophone public servants to prepare documents in French in order to counter the asymmetry and recognize their right to draft documents, messages, notes and presentations in French.
Thank you for your attention. I will answer your questions later.