Official Languages Committee on April 18th, 2016

[Michel Doucet]

Those are the three themes that I looked at, but I would like to look beyond translation and also consider the federal government's obligations and what methods it could use to ensure that its communication with the public fully respects the constitutional and legislative obligations.

In other words, this is not just a matter of determining whether things are being translated. It is also a matter of ensuring that the final product meets the obligations regarding the equality of the two official languages. We need to go beyond language techniques, even though those are important. As I was saying earlier, we need translators, linguists, and senior public service officials, but we need to ensure that the legal content of what is produced meets the unique obligations of the Government of Canada.

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

Thank you.

My colleague said that you were the founder of the Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques.

[Michel Doucet]

Your colleague was mistaken. The Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques has been part of the University of Moncton’s faculty of law since 1979. I am not the centre's founder.

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

Perhaps I am the one who used the word “founder”.

[Michel Doucet]

I worked very closely with the Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques or the CTTJ. The CTTJ created the French terminology for common law. When the University of Moncton opened its law faculty, that terminology did not exist in French. English had been used in common law for many years. Terminology had to be created; it was not just about translation. Neologisms had to be created, a new vocabulary, a new way of doing things, so that the the legal institutions that were being set up were not just replicas of the existing civil law institutions in Quebec. That is a very good example of an effort to ensure a quality product.

The Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques translates all of the decisions of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and any decisions of public interest. I must admit that, as a law professor at the university, the translated version of the decision is sometimes much clearer than the original. Translators at the CTTJ often ask the judge for clarification when they are translating decisions and they find the English version to be ambiguous.

That is just one example. It might be worthwhile for people who use legal terminology on a daily basis and who provide a very high quality service to be included in the process. We have lawyers, translators, and linguists. Obviously, if the University of Moncton's law faculty did business with the private sector, it would probably cost a lot less. However, the quality of the final product would not be as good. I do no think that any lawyer, including Mr. Arsenault, would want inferior service.

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

From your answer, I understand that the equality of French and English set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be respected.

[Michel Doucet]

Absolutely.

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

That is excellent.

We have met with a number of witnesses about the translation tool that has been proposed or that has already been implemented. Last week, we talked to Donald Barabé, the chairman of the board of directors of a technology centre that you are probably familiar with. He was saying that the translation tool should be used to help people understand texts and that users should be warned that the tool should not be used to translate texts that are being sent to other people.

[Michel Doucet]

I completely agree with that. It must be used as a comprehension tool.

I often get texts from colleagues in Germany or elsewhere. I use translation tools to understand what they are saying. However, I would never dream of using such a tool to produce texts to send to the public or to respond to my colleagues.

I have no objection to the tool being used for comprehension purposes, to allow someone who does not really understand French or English to better understand a text. Problems arise when such tools are used to translate information that is going to be sent out to the general public.

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

Thank you very much for your answer.

[Michel Doucet]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Members will have three minutes for the next round of questions.

We will start with Mr. Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Doucet, we spoke about New Brunswick and its constitutional obligations regarding translation, since both official languages must be taken into account.

First, does New Brunswick have a translation bureau or is the translation done in each department? Second, how can we ensure that documents translated within government are good quality? I know that you do not represent the Government of New Brunswick, but you have a good understanding of the situation.

[Michel Doucet]

It is true that I am not speaking on behalf of the government.

However, I would like to point out that there is a translation bureau, but that it is also experiencing cuts. Attempts have been made to send the work to the private sector. However, I have to say that, when official documents are translated within government, the quality of the translation is excellent.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Is the work done by a translation bureau or within the departments?

[Michel Doucet]

There is a translation bureau.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Does the federal government have the right to use external translation services?

[Michel Doucet]

Yes, translation can be sent to an outside company. For example, court rulings are obviously not translated by the Translation Bureau. In New Brunswick, all of those decisions are translated in the private sector by the Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques, which is part of the faculty of law at the University of Moncton.

At some point, the government began privatizing certain services, which raised a lot of concern within New Brunswick's francophone community. The government would also like to privatize the translation of some court decisions. However, there are concerns about quality. Perhaps regular texts could be translated in the private sector, but legal documents are likely a bit more complicated.

Right now, attempts are being made and there is a desire to use private sector translation companies. However, New Brunswick's francophone community is very concerned about the quality of the texts.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Is a translation tool being used within the departments?

[Michel Doucet]

To my knowledge, no translation tool is being used within the Government of New Brunswick. If government employees in certain departments have to communicate with me by email to answer a question, for example, rather than sending their text to the translation bureau, they may use the translation tools that we are familiar with and that are easily accessible, but I must admit that the quality is not good.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Okay.

The expert who put the tool in place explained to us that it was for use within the government. For example, someone who receives an email in French can use the tool to translate the document into English and understand it better.

Do you think that the tool could encourage the use of both official languages if it is actually used for that purpose? For example, would a francophone who has to communicate with an anglophone feel more comfortable answering in French, knowing that his colleague can use the translation tool?

[Michel Doucet]

I think that people should already feel comfortable doing that. If I want to communicate with someone and I feel more comfortable doing it in French, I do not need a tool. I write the message in French and hope that the person receiving my message will find someone to translate it, if he or she does not understand what it says.

I do not see a problem with a tool that facilitates communication within the departments and that is used for comprehension purposes. As I already said, I sometimes use such tools to translate documents in other languages. However, I would never dream of using such a tool to translate documents for the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

I give the floor to Ms. Boucher, who will be followed by Mr. Choquette.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Hello and welcome. We are pleased to have you here with us.

Obviously, we are talking about translation. I was not here when the tool was implemented, but French speakers all shared the same concern.

There is a question that keeps coming to mind. Earlier, you spoke a lot about cost, which is supposedly the reason why public servants would turn to the private sector. You said that having documents translated by private sector companies was likely less expensive but that the quality might not be as good.

I would like you to explain your opinion on that. Some private sector translators might be just as good as government translators. What is the basis for your comments in that regard?

[Michel Doucet]

I was using that example particularly in the context of legal translation, the translation of court decisions. Earlier, I was asked a question about New Brunswick and the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, and the administrative tribunals. Linguistic accuracy is very important. The translators there have developed an expertise that likely allows them to more easily detect ambiguities and find the exact terminology that should be used, unlike someone in the private sector who does not have that expertise.

People might say that it would cost a lot less to have New Brunswick's court decisions translated by a private sector company. However, I am not sure that such a company would have the necessary expertise or that the final product would be as good. I was using the example of cost in that context.