Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for once again inviting the FCFA to appear before you today. Given that this is the second invitation you have extended to us in two months, I am very encouraged by this committee's willingness to listen to francophone and Acadian communities.
Like a number of other stakeholders in linguistic duality, we have closely followed the case of the Translation Bureau and the Portage automated system. For the FCFA, this issue is part of a much broader context—the pervasive erosion of federal institutions' capacity to communicate in both official languages. That erosion has increased since cuts were made to fight the deficit, in 2011-2012.
In the wake of the strategic and operating review of spending, the federation was actually among the first stakeholders to express concern over the cumulative impact of the budget cuts on the federal government's ability to meet its language obligations. In fall 2012, the Commissioner of Official Languages said that he received a series of complaints about the cuts and that public servants were worried that those cuts would result in their losing their right to work in the official language of their choice.
Every year, the FCFA deals with about 20 federal institutions. Therefore, we can see first-hand that reduced capacity among federal institutions. Last year, the federation submitted three complaints about communication only in English or faulty translations. For example, it is confusing when, in an official document intended for the general public, a minister talks about a “modèle de réseau en rayon de bagnole”. That is not so funny. When we look at the English version, we see that he was trying to translate “hub and spoke model”, which is “réseau en étoile” in proper French.
In a context where several federal institutions have lost resources and where 31% of Translation Bureau jobs have disappeared, it is not surprising that corners are often cut in the federal government when it comes to communication in both official languages. However, that changes nothing in terms of institutions' language obligations, and that is where we share the concerns of many stakeholders regarding the Portage tool.
When we look at all the testimony provided before your committee, two things jump out: there is a lack of clarity when it comes to the problem the Translation Bureau is trying to resolve, and there is confusion over how the tool should be used. If, as the Translation Bureau says, the tool is supposed to be used only for informal exchanges among public servants, there is a risk of violating part V of the Official Languages Act and public servants' right to work in the official language of their choice.
If an English-speaking colleague sends me an email and the translation is so bad that I have trouble understanding what they are trying to say, I may answer them in English just to make sure that I am understood. If, as the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario fears, the public service started using this new automated tool more broadly, that would constitute a violation of part IV of the Official Languages Act. Either way, since the vast majority of translations are from English to French, francophones—be they public servants or not—will be the ones to suffer.
In a letter addressed to Minister Foote, the Corporation of Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters of New Brunswick said that the deployment of Portage, regardless of the proposed use, is a dangerous precedent. The FCFA agrees. There is a strong possibility that the implementation of Portage will be seen, within the public service, as the legitimisation of automated translation systems as perfectly acceptable tools to ensure communication in both official languages.
In her presentation before this committee, the Translation Bureau's chief executive officer established a direct link between the large number of searches done on Google Translate in the public service and the importance of providing a tool to at least guarantee that the translated content will remain behind the Government of Canada firewall. We are wondering what message the government is trying to send.
Is the Translation Bureau trying to say that, since public servants are already using automated translation systems extensively, we have to accept it as a done deal and give them a Canadian system? If so, they are starting from the wrong premise to resolve the problem. They should rather start by wondering why there are so many searches on Google Translate and other similar systems. We think that three factors contribute to that situation.
Earlier, I talked about the erosion of resources within the federal government. The cuts made over the past few years mean that federal institutions have to fulfill a variety of obligations with reduced resources.
At the same time, cuts to the translation bureau have weakened internal resources. The testimony of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees before the committee the day before yesterday was quite incisive.
I would note, in passing, that the budget cuts of 2011-12 also reduced the translation bureau's ability to offer work placements. The Traduca program came to an end, at nearly the same time, further limiting opportunities for internships in translation. Funded through the 2008-13 roadmap for linguistic duality and managed by the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, Traduca saw the creation of 344 internships in 3 years. For students, the end of the program meant a loss of opportunities, while the translation bureau lost access to a new generation of professionals.
The second factor is this. In addition to some public servants' lack of understanding of the language obligations of federal institutions, many do not recognize the limits of automated translation systems. It is easy to imagine that a unilingual anglophone, who is unable to check the quality of a translation, would sincerely believe that the tool is effective, especially if no one says anything to the contrary.
This is essentially the same problem the FCFA identified in a brief presented in 2009 to mark the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Official Languages Act. Without a central coordinating body to ensure that the act is understood and implemented consistently throughout federal institutions, they are often left to their own devices in determining how to fulfill their language obligations. For example, the Commissioner of Official Languages, himself, stated in January that, during the deficit reduction efforts of 2011-12, Treasury Board had not provided federal institutions with any guidance as to their obligation to analyze and limit any potential negative impact on official language minority communities.
To recap, we have seen budget cuts, a lack of understanding, and no central coordination. These three facts create a perfect storm, or as Google Translate would no doubt turn up in French, “un orage parfait”. As I said, since most translation is from English into French, francophones are the ones who suffer.
We know that Minister Foote has postponed the implementation of the Portage tool and we are very pleased. This is a good opportunity to take the necessary steps to get to the source of the problem as regards the erosion of communications in both official languages in federal institutions. In closing, I offer the following recommendations.
First, as I stated earlier, there is some confusion as to how Portage is supposed to be used. We recommend that the government begin by clearly identifying both the problem to be addressed and the support needed for communications in both official languages.
Second, we maintain this would be a very good time for a complete review of the translation tools and practices in federal institutions, including all efforts related to awareness and training around linguistic obligations and communications in both official languages.
Third, it is essential that all public servants, regardless of the nature of their work or their language of work, receive training on linguistic obligations and on the appropriate tools to fulfill these obligations.
Fourth, a number of witnesses have described the translation bureau as being in crisis. This raises significant doubts about the bureau's ability to appropriately fulfill its supporting role for all federal institutions, in the medium and the long term. Knowing that a number of federal institutions use the services of private translation firms, we recommend that the government conduct a study on the efficiency and effectiveness of both models, the public-sector one and the private-sector one.
Finally, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the government would avoid a lot of problems in fulfilling its linguistic obligations if it were to appoint a person or organization in government to ensure that these obligations were properly understood and that the Official Languages Act was consistently implemented.
Thank you.
