Official Languages Committee on April 13th, 2016

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank our guests, who have made some very interesting presentations on a topic arising from the controversy over the use of this tool.

It has been said that the tool could be used to write short texts and even promote official languages. It was actually mentioned once again that it could be useful for official language promotion.

I asked all the other guests whether risk assessments have been done on the use of the Portage tool or Google Translate by public servants in terms of respect for official languages, including parts IV and V. You are experts on this issue. Have any risk assessments been carried out? If not, how can we explain the eagerness to deploy this tool, when the Liberals were elected by saying that they would now respect science? It is very important to base our decisions on science. So, if we are making our decisions based on science, let's wait for scientific studies or let's do those studies.

Who could carry out those studies?

[Linda Cardinal]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Choquette.

Evidence is crucial to making public policies that can serve the common good. Generally, in official languages, there is no analysis that could be referred to as language-based, downstream and not just upstream. When a disaster occurs, we often look into why it happened after the fact, when we could have prevented it.

In this case, I think that we are in a scenario that would have needed a linguistic lens, a lens of official languages, to ensure that this tool would not negatively affect the promotion of official languages, even if it is just used to write emails.

The federal government currently has what is referred to as “a filter” in place. After the Desrochers decision, the government established a filter to ensure that its programs—especially in terms of the vitality and development of official language minority communities—are not negatively affecting those minorities. That's called “a filter”.

Public servants have to put programs through that filter. I find that, in the federal public service, we don't just need a filter for all programs. We need a language-based analysis, similar to gender-based analysis. The idea is to ensure that the government's programs and policies are compatible and do not conflict with the promotion of official languages. This would have been useful for the entire federal public service, but it would have been essential to do that kind of work beforehand in this case. Official languages are too delicate of an issue to tinker around with.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Delisle, would you like to add anything?

[Jean Delisle]

No, I have nothing to add.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Delisle, I would like to come back to what you said about the Translation Bureau's mission.

Over the last several years, not only has there been attrition in terms of staff, but there has also been no hiring of new translators. The Translation Bureau is not even taking on interns any longer.

I would like to hear what you have to say about the consequences on the Translation Bureau's primary mission. You have written many articles on the topic. You are an expert. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Jean Delisle]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Delisle.

Since time is flying, Ms. Lapointe will have the floor for two minutes. She will be followed by Mr. Arseneault for another two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. I appreciate your analyses, which frankly seem to be very accurate, and I am sure that you have taken the time to establish your positions.

Earlier this week, we heard from the representatives of the Language Technologies Research Centre. You are probably familiar with Mr. Barabé and Mr. Bernardi. They warned us about the Portage software and suggested that, if public servants were to use it, they should be told that it is a tool to help with comprehension and not a translation or communication tool. I would like to hear your opinion on that.

They also told us that public servants already use Google Translate extensively. With Google Translate, as soon as a text is submitted for translation, it no longer belongs to anyone and ends up on other servers. I would also like to know what you think about that.

[Jean Delisle]

It would be a good idea to issue an advisory that the translation was done by a machine so that it would not be disseminated. You are right. Google Translate translations belong to Google. The advantage of the Portage tool is that it will be on a Canadian server. When it comes to government texts, it is completely reasonable to feel that the information should stay in the country. I was very much in favour of that. In fact, I am not opposed to Portage in principle, but I am opposed to its use. I do not want to come back to that.

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

I think I have some time left.

Ms. Cardinal, you were saying that French courses were no longer being provided to public servants. You said that French was hit hard. Do you have any figures to support that statement?

[Linda Cardinal]

I said that the media told us about that. A few years ago, it was announced that language teaching would be privatized. As I was saying, we can assume that French courses are the ones that were privatized because we know that it is an official language, but the second official language.

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

That was assumed, but it was not supported by a study.

[Linda Cardinal]

No, but you will find it all over the media. It was reported a few years ago, when the former government did it. It was a very sad day when an aspect of official languages within the public service was privatized.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Arseneault, you have the floor for two minutes.

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

Ms. Cardinal and Mr. Delisle, thank you for being with us today.

I am from New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual Canadian province. I am extremely sensitive to everything you have told us today and everything you have highlighted. I am seeing it back home. We have the same concerns.

Ms. Cardinal, my colleague, Mr. Nater, asked you a question about legislation earlier, and you did not have time to answer. You said that the Portage tool may be in contravention of the Official Languages Act. Can you elaborate on your answer?

[Linda Cardinal]

I do have some doubt. I was rushing my answer because our time is limited. I say that we should look at the interaction between the policies being adopted and the Official Languages Act. We have to ensure that the objectives of the Official Languages Act are still being met. In this case, I said that something was off. I am not convinced that the tool helps strengthen francophones' right to communicate in the official language of their choice or that it helps public servants work in the official language of their choice. We have to try to analyze a proposal, such as the Portage tool, in light of its interaction with the Official Languages Act. I don't feel that this has been done and, if it has, it should be redone.

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

Yes, but there is no known study on the issue.

[Linda Cardinal]

No study has been conducted. I think you should perhaps go back to the DesRochers decision, which resulted in the filter I was talking about earlier. The DesRochers decision indicates that communications should be of equal quality. There is no equality when we are dealing with a robot language and an idiomatic language. All that does is reinforce asymmetry in terms of official languages.

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

I completely agree with your comments.

[Linda Cardinal]

I am sure I don't have to convince you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Arseneault.

We are a bit rushed, as we have two more groups appearing after you.

Thank you both so much for your excellent presentations.

We will break for a few minutes to give the other witnesses the time to take their seats.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Order, please.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing the study on the Translation Bureau.

We are welcoming Sylviane Lanthier, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, and Suzanne Bossé, the federation's Executive Director.

Welcome, ladies.

We are also hearing from Maryse Benhoff, Vice-President of the Language Industry Association, or the LIA.

Welcome, everyone. You have 10 minutes to make a presentation. Afterwards, we will move on to questions and comments.

We will start with you, Ms. Lanthier.

[Sylviane Lanthier, Chair, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Lanthier.

We will now hear from Mrs. Benhoff of the Language Industry Association.